• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poverty is about mindset !!!

bluesmoke said:
Is it fair to subsidize multi-billion-dollar corps to in turn give their executive level employees millions of dollars while workers at the bottom of the pile struggle to make ends meet?

Is it fair to subsidize the rich and big business with tax cuts that increase their wealth w/o them having done a single thing for that money while the average American who were promised a 10% tax cut didn’t get it?

Assume that you have a system of capitalism which allows people to gain in wage through merit that though their productivity increases they still don’t get a matching increase in wage, while those at the top continue to get increases at a greater rate getting money beyond need while the rest try to figure out how to pay the bills. Oh, wait, that’s not an assumption, that’s a reality. That is fact.

So, you tell me. What is your solution? Or, do you believe there is no problem and what is happening, as I just described, is perfectly fair?
Click to expand...

Toads, fruit loops and cinder blocks for sure. As you can see, it's easy to quote a post and not reply to any questions in it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Toads, fruit loops and cinder blocks for sure. As you can see, it's easy to quote a post and not reply to any questions in it.
Click to expand...



I am saying that those who are getting the least, just crumbs from the pie, have every right to get whatever they can, whether you believe fairly or not, as do the rich and corps. I’m not arguing against the scenario you give, which is a dodge from the bigger argument. I’m just saying if one side gets away with it, why can’t the other? At least those that receive a living wage will spend that money on product and service that profits business and employs workers as opposed to the $1,000,000,000,000 that the rich and corps got for doing nothing that just goes into their own wealth. Until you can justify the subsidizing of the rich and large corps, I don’t see why I need to justify giving people enough wage to live without having to scrape to put food on the table because employers aren’t paying them enough.
 
bluesmoke said:
I am saying that those who are getting the least, just crumbs from the pie, have every right to get whatever they can, whether you believe fairly or not, as do the rich and corps. I’m not arguing against the scenario you give, which is a dodge from the bigger argument. I’m just saying if one side gets away with it, why can’t the other? At least those that receive a living wage will spend that money on product and service that profits business and employs workers as opposed to the $1,000,000,000,000 that the rich and corps got for doing nothing that just goes into their own wealth. Until you can justify the subsidizing of the rich and large corps, I don’t see why I need to justify giving people enough wage to live without having to scrape to put food on the table because employers aren’t paying them enough.
Click to expand...

The problem with the many "safety net" programs is that they also apply downward pressure on wages. If one needs $X/month in order to meet their household's living expenses, then they likely don't much care how much of that $X comes from their meager paycheck and how much is added (or made unnecessary) by their "safety net" assistance.

As I stated before, household income is a totally different thing than a worker's wage - unless you assume that each household is limited to and mandated to have one full-time worker. It is simply unrealistic to pay an entry level worker (e.g. a GS-2 now earning from about $21K to $25K annually) enough to support themselves, a spouse and 5 minor dependent children.

General Schedule (US civil service pay scale) - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
The problem with the many "safety net" programs is that they also apply downward pressure on wages. If one needs $X/month in order to meet their household's living expenses, then they likely don't much care how much of that $X comes from their meager paycheck and how much is added (or made unnecessary) by their "safety net" assistance.

As I stated before, household income is a totally different thing than a worker's wage - unless you assume that each household is limited to and mandated to have one full-time worker. It is simply unrealistic to pay an entry level worker (e.g. a GS-2 now earning from about $21K to $25K annually) enough to support themselves, a spouse and 5 minor dependent children.

General Schedule (US civil service pay scale) - Wikipedia
Click to expand...



It is simply unrealistic to not pay living wages and expect Americans to get by without too much struggle and sacrifice. THAT’S unrealistic.

It’s unrealistic to pay for the “safety net” of golden balloon lifts to the rich and corps to fly higher while refusing those with the least more than mere crumbs from the pie of wealth distribution that Trump gave away to his buddies.

Real median household income, besides per capita, is a much better indicator of how well Americans are doing by income than measuring by wages. It is not unusual for wages to go up and hours worked to go down, resulting in no real gain.

You keep avoiding the fact that wealth distribution favors the rich and large corps. I don’t even know what your position is on that. At least you know where I stand. Please let me know your position on that subject. Spam not necessary.
 
FinnFox said:


I like to know what you think about poor people? Are they just stupid and lazy? And rich guys are all smart ones? (having lot of money is proof of being hard-working genius?)

I can imagine fancy ways to reduce poverty by making their lives even more miserable and increasing desperation to level where suicide is lovely relief. So that way poor people have built-in fix in their "bubble" and it's shrinking naturally every day.

Another way is just jail them all, make it illegal to be poor - so you can clean up your streets and let shiny stuff shine.

or

Socialist way is increasing equality by setting up needed standards / rights (education, healthcare, bernie stuff), but that isn't popular way to do it - I guess.
Click to expand...


Since 60% of the nations wealthy inherited it....I'd say we know why there are rich and poor. It has little to do with mindset, hard work or bootstraps.
 
In this country you don't even need to be that ambitious to end up reasonably successful, it's pretty easy in fact.
That being said, making poor life choices will ALWAYS get in the way of even the most unambitous person's ability
to get into the middle class.

drug use
choices to participate in crime
pregnancy
credit card debt
failure to take advantage of free education
not exercising delayed gratification
entitled victimhood thinking




all a recipe for being poor
 
bluesmoke said:
It is simply unrealistic to not pay living wages and expect Americans to get by without too much struggle and sacrifice. THAT’S unrealistic.

It’s unrealistic to pay for the “safety net” of golden balloon lifts to the rich and corps to fly higher while refusing those with the least more than mere crumbs from the pie of wealth distribution that Trump gave away to his buddies.

Real median household income, besides per capita, is a much better indicator of how well Americans are doing by income than measuring by wages. It is not unusual for wages to go up and hours worked to go down, resulting in no real gain.

You keep avoiding the fact that wealth distribution favors the rich and large corps. I don’t even know what your position is on that. At least you know where I stand. Please let me know your position on that subject. Spam not necessary.
Click to expand...

Actually, I do not know where you stand until you define what you mean by a "living wage" - keeping in mind that household size and the number of workers in a household vary. I agree with you that the median household income is an important factor, but person A becoming rich does not cause person B to become poor.
 
swing_voter said:
It's pretty easy to set some goals and follow them.

Military > GI Bill > education > good job

For example. It's just some of our sub cultures don't favor education, or the military for that matter.
Click to expand...

Lots of people are ineligible for service due to things outside their control.
 
Is a homeless vet just someone who doesnt have the right mentality? Or someone treated as a disposable cog after risking their lives?
 
Court Jester said:
In this country you don't even need to be that ambitious to end up reasonably successful, it's pretty easy in fact.
That being said, making poor life choices will ALWAYS get in the way of even the most unambitous person's ability
to get into the middle class.

drug use
choices to participate in crime
pregnancy
credit card debt
failure to take advantage of free education
not exercising delayed gratification
entitled victimhood thinking




all a recipe for being poor
Click to expand...

Although there is some truth to the list of ways to screw up your life, and I certainly agree many do just that, I would argue that most of us on this forum have been given more opportunity than most poor people. Be it learning a work ethic or being given a career path to follow or even a few bucks to buy that first house or car or even the clothes worn to that first job interview, we've all caught breaks that helped us succeed.

I know it is hard to imagine, but a lot of people do not even get that much. And, yes, what we've had was indeed a head start.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Poverty needs to be better defined in order to discuss it. In its most basic terms, poverty is having an (annual household?) income below some threshold, for example the federal poverty level (FPL).

2019 Poverty Guidelines | ASPE

Let's use an example of a single person working full-time and earning $10/hour ($20K/year). As a single person they are not in poverty (below the FPL). Add a (non-working) spouse and their "household" is still not in poverty. Add one (or more) dependent child and suddenly they (or rather their household) are in poverty.

At least on paper that is the way it works. But add in the various "safety net" programs and that (3 or 4 person) "household" is making 40% or more over their stated income without anyone working for a higher wage or working any more hours. Medicaid alone adds (or makes unnecessary) about $8K/year. Of course, to supply those "safety net" benefits means reducing the (net) pay of others and/or increasing the cost of everything that those in poverty must buy.
Click to expand...

That is a valid description, I suppose.

I define poverty as "missing two paychecks means you eat out of dumpsters."
 
My personal experience in research has been that social phenomena tend to be complicated in large part because multiple forces drive outcomes concurrently. And the relationships between all those factors is not always intuitive, assuming you bother to think seriously about them.

The problem with discussing poverty and success, regardless of how you define them, is that many people take radical positions such as blaming all of it on the individual or on their environment. The discussion quickly takes a moralizing turn which is neither scientific nor useful. Of course, if you're trying to sincerely offer advice to someone who has a hard time, it's probably better for them to exaggerate how much they can actually improve their own lives. Shoot for the moon and you will miss, sure, but you will be a hell of a lot further than if you were aiming for the tree next door. While I recognize that there is something valuable about treating things from the point of view of what you, personally, could do, it fails as an explanation of human behavior.

Seriously... Think about it for a minute. You have millions of people in the US only. Can you believe you will find approximate measures of laziness and it's going to be enough to explain everything that is systematic about poverty? Please. Get your head out of your a**.

Moreover, if you're concerned with poverty as a social problem, you should wonder if something could be modified so that fewer people adopt a poor attitude, make poor choices or become exposed to certain types of problems. As in just about everything, there might be some things that work better than others. I am not sure finger pointing and insults work.
 
FinnFox said:


I like to know what you think about poor people? Are they just stupid and lazy? And rich guys are all smart ones? (having lot of money is proof of being hard-working genius?)

I can imagine fancy ways to reduce poverty by making their lives even more miserable and increasing desperation to level where suicide is lovely relief. So that way poor people have built-in fix in their "bubble" and it's shrinking naturally every day.

Another way is just jail them all, make it illegal to be poor - so you can clean up your streets and let shiny stuff shine.

or

Socialist way is increasing equality by setting up needed standards / rights (education, healthcare, bernie stuff), but that isn't popular way to do it - I guess.
Click to expand...


The fact is that in America many (if not most) people who are poor is because of certain decisions they have made in their life, who their parents are and how they were raised. Think of a sixteen year old girl who is living in poverty and then gets pregnant. How likely is it that this person is going to climb up the economic ladder and raise their child with the values and motivation to climb up the economic ladder. There is absolutely something to be said for individual responsibility.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Then do so, address the issues... we’ll wait.
Click to expand...

Graduate high school

Get a job

Get married (if you want kids)


=highest probability of staying out of poverty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
"But they didn't understand it
And I tried to make them see
That one is only poor
Only if they choose to be
Now I know we had no money
But I was rich as I could be
In my coat of many colors
My momma made for me
Made just for me"
True when D. Parton wrote it , true today.

Don't plan society if you spend thousands on an education that has no value in the real world.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
WTF? Are you now saying that we must treat (any an all of?) those who fail to support themselves and their dependents as if they were elderly and/or disabled? How, exactly, would you fund such a system? Are you talking about a UBI/BIG system for everyone (like Yang has proposed) or only a much larger "safety net" for the loafing class?

Once you make working necessary only to obtain luxuries (all basic needs being provided by the state) then you have created widespread poverty (more and more folks not earning enough to support themselves and their dependents) - not solved it.
Click to expand...

Why bother with Capitalism, if it doesn't work? The right wing claims democratic socialism is Bad.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No problem then - just go demand your public assistance check from the state of CA or DC directly. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the law is expressed in our several Constitutions. We merey need a good argument. Our welfare clause is General not Common and our Commerce Clause should imply the use of capitalism to resolve the inefficiencies of our political-economy.
 
danielpalos said:
Equal protection of the law is expressed in our several Constitutions. We merey need a good argument. Our welfare clause is General not Common and our Commerce Clause should imply the use of capitalism to resolve the inefficiencies of our political-economy.
Click to expand...

You are free to argue should, could and would all day long, but that is inlikely to result in your being paid to loaf.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You are free to argue should, could and would all day long, but that is inlikely to result in your being paid to loaf.
Click to expand...

only in the vacuum of right wing fantasy, is anyone asking for that, instead of merely solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Not merely Easy, but most especially under Any form of Capitalism, quite convenient as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom