How is poverty best eliminated?

Glen Contrarian said:

I believe your best answer would be to look at the nations that have the lowest levels of poverty, and see what they are doing - and copy what they do as best we can. Then look at the nations with the highest levels of poverty and see what they are doing - and don't do what they do.

You know where this is going, don't you?

Yes, you do - because the nations with the lowest levels of poverty are the socialized first-world democracies...whereas the nations with the highest levels of poverty are those nations with small governments, low effective taxes, and weak regulation.

And as we can see by the nations of the world, what works best is that "Goldilocks level" of strong government, high effective taxation, and strong regulation, all balanced by free enterprise, and by providing as much assistance to small businesses to help them succeed as we can. How do we determine the balance? By keeping government OUT of places where the profit motive rules i.e. the free market, and also by keeping Big Business OUT of places where the profit motive does not belong (like schools, prisons, and other public services).

America once understood this...until some went on a "privatize everything" rant.

Click to expand...

Do you have any data to back up your claims?

US Conservative said:

To those who voted for both unions and Freedom from coercion/association, I'd be interested in hearing how you came to this seemingly contradictory conclusion.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I bet you're really curious.

If you lived in a mining town in the 1950s where the mining company owns all the local businesses and banks, then stopping you from voicing complaints about the company's safety policies is as simple as denying an extension on your mortgage (despite the fact your credit is fine). The same example is applicable to pretty much any job: accepting the position entails committing to a residence, taxes, and local institutions like schools. Your employer can use those investments against you to ensure compliance with company policy even when objectionable.

For some reason, that kind of soft power doesn't pass as coercion among conservatives, but the soft power of a Union's collective bargaining definitely does.

Morality Games said:

Yeah, I bet you're really curious.

If you lived in a mining town in the 1950s where the mining company owns all the local businesses and banks, then stopping you from voicing complaints about the company's safety policies is as simple as denying an extension on your mortgage (despite the fact your credit is fine). The same example is applicable to pretty much any job: accepting the position entails committing to a residence, taxes, and local institutions like schools. Your employer can use those investments against you to ensure compliance with company policy even when objectionable.

For some reason, that kind of soft power doesn't pass as coercion among conservatives, but the soft power of a Union's collective bargaining definitely does.

Click to expand...

We aren't in the 50's. Unions are anti-competition and therefore not as beneficial to the consumer, they also force those involved into their politics and funding. Now, people dont HAVE to work that job, but then we have less jobs and therefore less opportunity for the individual.

Why do the injustices of the past justify these injustices in the modern day?

US Conservative said:

We aren't in the 50's. Unions are anti-competition and therefore not as beneficial to the consumer, they also force those involved into their politics and funding. Now, people dont HAVE to work that job, but then we have less jobs and therefore less opportunity for the individual.

Why do the injustices of the past justify these injustices in the modern day?

Click to expand...

I hate Unions, but the math says they have a net influence on the value of labor, which forces the rich to surrender a portion of their investment in the trading pool that is our economy.

The monopoly of the rich over the trading pool is America's single greatest barrier to balanced budgets and sustainable economic growth. Its a mini-feudal structure hidden inside a shell of economic liberalism. A gigantic undermining influence in American capitalism.

Morality Games said:

I hate Unions, but the math says they have a net influence on the value of labor, which forces the rich to surrender a portion of their investment in the trading pool that is our economy.

The monopoly of the rich over the trading pool is America's single greatest barrier to balanced budgets and sustainable economic growth. Its a mini-feudal structure hidden inside a shell of economic liberalism. A gigantic undermining influence in American capitalism.

Click to expand...

Pssst...your socialism is showing. How is forcibly taking from some to give to others capitalist?

Were you for the bailouts as well?

US Conservative said:

What works best to eliminate poverty? Multiple options are available.

Click to expand...

Okay, this is getting tiresome. ONCE AGAIN, a pollster does not include all reasonable responses, including MINE. I guess it's because pollsters have a viewpoint, so they can only see THEIR OWN viewpoint, and OPPOSING viewpoints, and cannot see the whole picture to see any other responses. The pollster is making assumptions.

My answer that is NOT included in the poll:

Poverty in the world cannot be eliminated.

US Conservative said:

Pssst...your socialism is showing. How is forcibly taking from some to give to others capitalist?

Were you for the bailouts as well?

Click to expand...

It's not, but a fully capitalist economy is neither possible nor desirable. A moderating socialist element is preferred to a quasi-feudal structure.

I would have been for the bailouts if it gave the government a permanent stake in the banking and financing industry; a 20-30% share. That would have forced America's mega corporations to consider the public interest alongside profit, since they would be partially answerable to an investor whose duty is to look out for the public interest.

Instead, it goes down as yet another squandered opportunity to get America back on the right track by writing the people who ruined our economy a blank check to do it again.

I mean, why not?

JumpinJack said:

Okay, this is getting tiresome. ONCE AGAIN, a pollster does not include all reasonable responses, including MINE. I guess it's because pollsters have a viewpoint, so they can only see THEIR OWN viewpoint, and OPPOSING viewpoints, and cannot see the whole picture to see any other responses. The pollster is making assumptions.

My answer that is NOT included in the poll:

Poverty in the world cannot be eliminated.

Click to expand...

Think of it as a synonym for reduced. And be like Fonzie dude, no need to get pissy.

Morality Games said:

It's not, but a fully capitalist economy is neither possible nor desirable. A moderating socialist element is preferred to a quasi-feudal structure.

I would have been for the bailouts if it gave the government a permanent stake in the banking and financing industry; a 20-30% share. That would have forced America's mega corporations to consider the public interest alongside profit, since they would be partially answerable to an investor whose duty is to look out for the public interest.

Instead, it goes down as yet another squandered opportunity to get America back on the right track by writing the people who ruined our economy a blank check to do it again.

I mean, why not?

Click to expand...

Would you describe yourself as a socialist?

None of those.

A growing economy and job availability.

Tucker Case said:

My own modest proposal for ending poverty is that we eat poor people's babies.

Click to expand...

Will the government supply the BBQ sauce?

Tucker Case said:

I stole the idea from Jonathan Swift, so I cannot take credit for it.

Click to expand...

I was thinking about the Fat Bastard character from Austin Powers.

I want my baby back baby back baby back ribs.

Baralis said:

We will never "eliminate" poverty unless we simply give enough of a handout that everyone is raised out of poverty. Sadly their is a percentage of the population that simply are not willing to do for themselves, I know one of these persons firsthand. Some people are so lazy that they would rather go homeless and hungry than hold down a job.

Click to expand...

In that case the poverty line would be moved and those people would still be considered as living in poverty.

JumpinJack said:

Okay, this is getting tiresome. ONCE AGAIN, a pollster does not include all reasonable responses, including MINE. I guess it's because pollsters have a viewpoint, so they can only see THEIR OWN viewpoint, and OPPOSING viewpoints, and cannot see the whole picture to see any other responses. The pollster is making assumptions.

My answer that is NOT included in the poll:

Poverty in the world cannot be eliminated.

Click to expand...

And shouldn't be.

Mason66 said:

I was thinking about the Fat Bastard character from Austin Powers.

I want my baby back baby back baby back ribs.

Click to expand...

Chileeeeeessssss baby back rabs...

US Conservative said:

"Socialized" nations do not have the worlds poor floating there on tires. The US does. How do you explain this?

Click to expand...

Maybe we should put all the world's poor on a giant tire raft and send them to the "socialized" nations, see how they deal with it?

JumpinJack said:

Poverty in the world cannot be eliminated.

Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by poor. If you mean those who have less than others, then you're right because statistically someone will always have less than someone else. That's a pretty useless definition though, according to that definition, Warren Buffet is poor compared to Bill Gates because Buffet only has $62 million, compared to Gates' $76 million. That really doesn't mean anything though.

Tucker Case said:

My own modest proposal for ending poverty is that we eat poor people's babies.

Click to expand...

Which stuffing do you prefer and do you do honey glazing?

Cephus said:

Maybe we should put all the world's poor on a giant tire raft and send them to the "socialized" nations, see how they deal with it?

Click to expand...

For lefties this is a difficult truth. Reality poking them in the eye.

As a preliminary measure, you'd actually need for people who don't live in poverty to actually give a flying **** about those who do. This is far from the case. Lip service means nothing, much less from the elected representatives who serve the elite. The most sweeping reforms won't make any appreciable difference, in a system designed and perpetuated for the enrichment of entrepreneurs and Old Money. Corruption and self-interest trump any pretence of social comment.

That's the bad news. The good news is that history is a genius of an accountant. Whether the supremely indifferent like it or not, the system they champion is inherently unstable. Boom to Bust to Boom to Bust, and with increasing devastation. Given technology, there's no longer any option for world wars to save it from itself. The international market provided an injection of borrowed time, but the bill's in the mail. As the gap widens to become an economic rubicon defined by oases of wealth in oceans of misery, we'll have absolute economic (and hence political) monopoly or total collapse. Or the former preceding the latter. Either way, International Capitalism is as mortal as we are. After that, we have any number of possibilities.

It's my opinion that poverty can't be 'eliminated' (or even half-heartedly addressed) while the system endures. Whatever 'initiatives' come into being will be as band aids applied to the aggressive tumour responsible for the pain. For the most part, those not (yet) similarly afflicted are content to demonise the poor or turn a blind eye altogether. At least until the inevitable catches up with them. At that point, I've a sneaking suspicion their empathy is assured. lulz But it's not all doom and gloom,of course. The burnt hand teaches best.

Cephus said:

Maybe we should put all the world's poor on a giant tire raft and send them to the "socialized" nations, see how they deal with it?

Click to expand...

US Conservative said:

For lefties this is a difficult truth. Reality poking them in the eye.

Click to expand...

Europe is already having people floating there in proverbial tires and is straining just like the US because of it.

Migration into Europe: A surge from the sea | The Economist

the US is far from unique in that regard, even "socialist" france is having that issue.

Any country that has a higher PPP than a typical third world hell hole is going to likely have this issue as its a quality of life issue and not a political one.

In the context of this question only. I go with Other: Total enslavement of everyone, with all needs provided by regional governments and strict indoctrination removing the desire for wants.

Carjosse said:

Well the U.S. became a superpower and reached economic prosperity in the 1950s and 60s because of a giant government spending program called WWII.

Click to expand...

So if the government spent all the money in the country every year, we'd all be rich. :roll:

joG said:

Which stuffing do you prefer and do you do honey glazing?

Click to expand...

I'm not big on honey glazing. A simple sea salt and black pepper run is all that the tender, juicy meat requires.

US Conservative said:

What works best to eliminate poverty? Multiple options are available.

Click to expand...

How is it that some voted for government programs yet there is a big fat zero votes for taxation.... by the looks of this poll we are still a Ronald Reagan leaning country.