• 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!

How is poverty best eliminated?

What of the following does the best for eliminating poverty in the world?

  • Total voters
    80
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

It does on the score card.

PS: BTW, they do not own millions. They have billions.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
...... strict indoctrination removing the desire for wants.
Click to expand...

History indicates this does not work. Probably you will need brain probes. Maybe we can fix up something electronic.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Kind of a unique scenario though. Following World War II we had the only functional manufacturing infrastructure left as Europe and Asia had largely been bombed out.
Click to expand...

That certainly helped to, as did the forced savings from the wartime era. The point was only that it was not large government spending that preceded the boom, but a sharp reduction in it.
 
Morality Games said:
Point 1: I don't know why you are even talking to me about this. You *know* I'm just going to say something like, "Indeed. 7% tax rate for a company like Apple that is heavily, heavily reliant on the United States for infrastructure, security, and legal assistance is definitely a defining example of progressive taxation." The bottom line is that Apple has gotten more out of its relationship with the people of the United States and its government than we've gotten out of Apple. It's a mostly one sided relationship.
Click to expand...

:yawn: focusing on single data points in order to obscure a greater trend is a poor strawman, designed to appeal only to those swayed by imagery.

America's Taxes are the most progressive in the world, and our effective corporate tax rates are similarly higher than the worlds'.

Progressive taxation is gutted and dead. The right-wing has lost any vigorous interest in reforming the tax code because the situation they have now will certainly be better than any Grand Bargain tax reform they can wring out of the Democrats.
Click to expand...

:lol: yeah. The right wing doesn't want to reform our sclerotic, destructive, inhibiting, choking, incomprehensible unbeatable maze of a tax code.

Point 2: And my family owns (or has owned) a meagre number of acres that would be worth millions in England. When you have a third of the population of the United States in a territory the size of Iowa, you wouldn't expect to have a very large house. Just because they're challenged when it comes to a specific resource doesn't say anything about their overall living standards or quality of life.
Click to expand...

on the contrary - size of living arrangements is indeed pat of ones' quality of life. So is access to things like air conditioning and automobiles. Our poor include people who would not be counted as such in Europe.
 
cpwill said:
That certainly helped to, as did the forced savings from the wartime era. The point was only that it was not large government spending that preceded the boom, but a sharp reduction in it.
Click to expand...

Ana accompanied by a policy that allowed Americans to buy whatever (more or less) the populations of the war poor countries could produce. This laid the foundation of the system by which the US has put so many poor around the world in jobs to China and this very day.
 
US Conservative said:
What works best to eliminate poverty? Multiple options are available.
Crony%20Capitalism%20Intellectual%20Takeout.jpg
Click to expand...

The best thing is to allow trade and make it safe.
 
joG said:
History indicates this does not work. Probably you will need brain probes. Maybe we can fix up something electronic.
Click to expand...

I should have left that part out, I wanted to leave some room to maintain happiness while eliminating poverty. It really wasn't necessary to the central point.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I should have left that part out, I wanted to leave some room to maintain happiness while eliminating poverty. It really wasn't necessary to the central point.
Click to expand...

Though, it would be more the bleary eyed type, there is probably more happiness after the brain probe than in and after indoctrination.
 
Should the situation ever come to pass that everyone has meaningful work that is valued sufficient to meet their needs and some of their desires, that would, at least in my book, be the end of poverty.

Is this situation likely to ever come to pass? I kinda doubt it, as it's man's very nature to constantly struggle and strive. Without this struggle and striving present, man will have lost something significant that propels him to greater accomplishment.
 
US Conservative said:
What works best to eliminate poverty? Multiple options are available.
Crony%20Capitalism%20Intellectual%20Takeout.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm told that hunger is a wonderful motivator so it's curious to see so many folks on welfare that are so fat.

Things that make you go, hmmmmmmm......
 
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...

Actually, if you'll check, yes, the other first-world democracies DO often have a significant illegal immigrant problem. The fact that you did not think they did simply shows how little you are paying attention to what's going on in other nations.

Check out Australia, which has significantly fewer illegals than we do in raw numbers...but also has a much smaller citizen population than we do. That, and they're an island, and as such is much harder to get to in the first place.

Then there's Italy, where 65K illegals were caught (as opposed to how many weren't caught) in the first half of this year. Again, that's far fewer than ours...but not only does Italy have a smaller population and weaker economy, but the ones traveling there have to cross a much larger body of water - the Mediterranean - than our Rio Grande.

Even Greece - yes, GREECE, as bad as their economy is - has such a bad illegal immigrant problem that England (!) is spending 2M pounds in order to fight illegal immigration in Greece! And it's so bad that they're spending precious tax drachmas there to put up an "electronic shield" along all their borders.

So...next time, check your assumptions before you present them as facts.

NOW...back to the topic at hand (because illegal immigration is not a direct measure of poverty): You asked what's the best way to fight poverty. What nations have the highest standards of living? The socialized first-world democracies (which includes America, because yes, we DO have a lot of socialism here) have the highest standards of living...and thus the lowest rates of real poverty. And what nations have the higher rates of poverty? Easy. Nations with small governments, low effective taxes, and weak regulation.

And I should thank you - you've given me a great new rhetorical point with which to present conservatives the sustained failure of their economic dogma...and the sustained success of the socialized first-world democracies (which, again, includes America).
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except that the US had less people in "poverty" before it became a socialized democracy than it does now. We are regressing due to socialization.

Those with the highest percentage of people in poverty are socialist based or closed market economies with government restrictions on business which block foreign investment.
 
There is no way to end "poverty". Some government official will change what conditions and pay amount is below the poverty line and there will always be people below it.

Socialism obviously doesn't work, unless you count reducing everyone to abject poverty as "working".

Closed system capitalism doesn't work either because they don't have the ability to rise up above poverty without aide which the closed system blocks.

Even open market corporatism fails because it limits the opportunities to rise up.

Open market capitalism coupled with unrestricted franchise will always lead to either corporatism (corporate socialism) or outright socialism, either of which will create more poverty not less.

Open market, competitive capitalism coupled with limited franchise democracy seems to have worked the best so far. However, it does not eliminate poverty as it is competitive in nature and thus there will always be losers.

Open market, competitive capitalism with an earned-meritocratic franchise democracy may prove even better but has not been tried.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Really? Are you so unfamiliar with the rest of the world that you do not know which nations have the highest standards of living, and which standards are lowest? Even the author of the OP knew better than to question that! Here, educate yourself on which nations have the highest standards of living.
Click to expand...

Of those, only the US achieved that on their own. Economically, all the others with high standards are reliant upon the US economy and technology developed primarily in the US. As the US becomes more socialized, our economy has weakened, the percentage in "poverty" has increased, Corporatism has risen and our level of innovation is decreasing.
 
DVSentinel said:
Except that the US had less people in "poverty" before it became a socialized democracy than it does now. We are regressing due to socialization.

Those with the highest percentage of people in poverty are socialist based or closed market economies with government restrictions on business which block foreign investment.
Click to expand...

REALLY? Care to prove that claim? Care to show which nations among the first-world SOCIALIZED democracies have such high percentages of people in poverty, with closed market economies? Care to show that the US had less people in poverty before the New Deal began bringing socialism to America?

But you're not going to reply. Why? Because the actual numbers, the actual facts are 180-out from your claim...and if you don't know that already, you'll find it out as soon as you begin trying to dig up those numbers and facts...

...and then you won't allow yourself to reply, because not only can you not prove your claims, but all the evidence points to the precise opposite of what you apparently want to believe.
 
DVSentinel said:
Of those, only the US achieved that on their own. Economically, all the others with high standards are reliant upon the US economy and technology developed primarily in the US. As the US becomes more socialized, our economy has weakened, the percentage in "poverty" has increased, Corporatism has risen and our level of innovation is decreasing.
Click to expand...

Oh, boy, but you sure are tap-dancing, aren't you?

Come on, guy, fess up - which first-world democracies (all of which ARE socialized, including America) are in danger of becoming third-world nations?

None.

And which nations with small governments, low effective taxes, and weak regulations are progressing to first-world status?

None.

You've got zero evidence on your side. All you've got are words, with no hard numbers, no FACTS to back you up. All you've got is your personal perception - taught to you by the right-wing echo chamber - that up is down, inside is out, good is bad, everybody carrying guns saves lives, Obama's a Muslim/communist/fascist/terrorist/Kenyan who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, and first-world socialized democracies are tyrannical regimes that are about to fall because we didn't listen to sociopath-loving Ayn Rand.
 
Its most certainly not remedied by outsourcing and giving the service sector jobs to illegals.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Actually, if you'll check, yes, the other first-world democracies DO often have a significant illegal immigrant problem. The fact that you did not think they did simply shows how little you are paying attention to what's going on in other nations.

Check out Australia, which has significantly fewer illegals than we do in raw numbers...but also has a much smaller citizen population than we do. That, and they're an island, and as such is much harder to get to in the first place.

Then there's Italy, where 65K illegals were caught (as opposed to how many weren't caught) in the first half of this year. Again, that's far fewer than ours...but not only does Italy have a smaller population and weaker economy, but the ones traveling there have to cross a much larger body of water - the Mediterranean - than our Rio Grande.

Even Greece - yes, GREECE, as bad as their economy is - has such a bad illegal immigrant problem that England (!) is spending 2M pounds in order to fight illegal immigration in Greece! And it's so bad that they're spending precious tax drachmas there to put up an "electronic shield" along all their borders.

So...next time, check your assumptions before you present them as facts.

NOW...back to the topic at hand (because illegal immigration is not a direct measure of poverty): You asked what's the best way to fight poverty. What nations have the highest standards of living? The socialized first-world democracies (which includes America, because yes, we DO have a lot of socialism here) have the highest standards of living...and thus the lowest rates of real poverty. And what nations have the higher rates of poverty? Easy. Nations with small governments, low effective taxes, and weak regulation.

And I should thank you - you've given me a great new rhetorical point with which to present conservatives the sustained failure of their economic dogma...and the sustained success of the socialized first-world democracies (which, again, includes America).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the laugh GC. Working on a bunch of plans to deal with California's ongoing progressive/socialist attacks on job creators/tax payers, so the chuckle was well timed.

Australia an island. That's awesome! :thumbs:
 
US Conservative said:
For lefties this is a difficult truth. Reality poking them in the eye.
Click to expand...

I notice you did not reply to my links showing you how many other first-world socialized democracies are having to deal with illegal immigration.

And you still have not said how it is that the nations with the lowest rates of real poverty - the nations with the highest standards of living for the population as a whole - are ALL first-world socialized democracies...whereas the nations with the highest rates of poverty, the lowest standards of living, are those nations with the conservative ideal of small government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation.

But that's okay - I get it - to you, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, or which kind of government and economic system is best for fighting poverty. All that really matters to you is hooray for conservatives and boo-hiss-boo for liberals. Facts need not apply.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
REALLY? Care to prove that claim? Care to show which nations among the first-world SOCIALIZED democracies have such high percentages of people in poverty, with closed market economies? Care to show that the US had less people in poverty before the New Deal began bringing socialism to America?

But you're not going to reply. Why? Because the actual numbers, the actual facts are 180-out from your claim...and if you don't know that already, you'll find it out as soon as you begin trying to dig up those numbers and facts...

...and then you won't allow yourself to reply, because not only can you not prove your claims, but all the evidence points to the precise opposite of what you apparently want to believe.
Click to expand...

I guess you could equate poverty by the unemployment number. Notice all three of these SOCIALIZED countries are broke besides. Not only are they broke they have high unemployment = poverty. Poverty is the opposite of prosperity and there sure is no prosperity in these three socialist countries.

Greece = 27%
France = 10.4%
Spain = 25.1%
 
ocean515 said:
Thanks for the laugh GC. Working on a bunch of plans to deal with California's ongoing progressive/socialist attacks on job creators/tax payers, so the chuckle was well timed.

Australia an island. That's awesome! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Yes, Australia is a continent. It's also an island. At least that's what the Australian government says. But I'm sure you know better than they do.

And I notice you did not address the conundrum I posed the author of the OP:

"You asked what's the best way to fight poverty. What nations have the highest standards of living? The socialized first-world democracies (which includes America, because yes, we DO have a lot of socialism here) have the highest standards of living...and thus the lowest rates of real poverty. And what nations have the higher rates of poverty? Easy. Nations with small governments, low effective taxes, and weak regulation."

If socialized democracy is so terrible, then WHY are all the nations with the highest standards of living socialized democracies? If it's best for a nation to have small governments, low effective taxes, and weak regulations, WHY are all such nations still third-world nations?

You can tap-dance all you want around that set of questions...but there's only one answer: socialized democracy - that system wherein there is a strong government with high effective taxes and strong regulation BALANCED by a strong business sector is best for the prosperity of the population as a whole. Of course that's a terrible system...except, as Churchill pointed out, for all the other governments that have ever been tried.

And when it comes to California:

LEADING JOB CREATION: California added almost 320,000 new jobs in 2013 and over 1.17 million new jobs since the end of the recession.

TOP 5 GDP GROWTH: California's GDP growth rate was 3.5 percent in 2012 – fifth best in the nation.

MULTIPLE NATION LEADING SECTORS: Where other states have one or two main economic sectors, California has several -- all of which lead the nation. California is first in high tech, biotech, agriculture, entertainment, manufacturing, tourism and more.

MANUFACTURING JOB INCREASE: After ten plus years of manufacturing job losses, California posted three consecutive years of manufacturing job gains in 2011, 2012 and 2013.

RECORD EXPORTS: In trade, California merchandise exports grew to $164 billion last year -- a record export high for the state. Our nation leading tourism sector boasts over 200 million visitors in 2012 with direct travel spending of more than $106.4 billion.

BALANCED BUDGETS IMPROVE CA CREDIT RATING: In a landmark for the state, California ended 10 years of budget deficits as Governor Brown not only signed his third consecutive balanced budget but one that included more than a billion dollar surplus. As a result, the ratings service Fitch changed the state's outlook from "stable" to "positive," Moody's upgraded their ratings for California's Economic Recovery Bonds and Standard & Poor's raised California's credit rating for the first time since 2006.

INCREASING FOREIGN INVESTMENT: In April Governor Brown led a trade mission to China where he announced over $1.8 billion dollars in deals and opened a California foreign trade office in Shanghai -- the first in over a decade.

NEW BUSINESS INCENTIVES: Earlier this year, Governor Brown enacted a new Economic Development Initiative. The initiative brought together business leaders, labor interests and legislators from both sides of the aisle to help create a more flexible, more competitive set of economic development tools for California. The new tools include a Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Manufacturing, Biotech and R&D equipment; a Hiring Credit, and the CA Competes Tax Credit designed to incentive companies to locate or expand in CA (boldface mine)

Yeah, yeah, I know...California's about to crash and burn and its economy is about to die a terrible death....
 
Born Free said:
I guess you could equate poverty by the unemployment number. Notice all three of these SOCIALIZED countries are broke besides. Not only are they broke they have high unemployment = poverty. Poverty is the opposite of prosperity and there sure is no prosperity in these three socialist countries.

Greece = 27%
France = 10.4%
Spain = 25.1%
Click to expand...

And if you'll check, both Greece and Spain adopted austerity measures. France did at first, but has since began going back to classic Keynesian economics. Notice a difference in the three nations?

And how many of those nations are in danger of devolving to third-world status? None - not even Greece which, if you'll check, is finally beginning to recover economically.

And FYI, high unemployment is not necessarily the same as poverty, just as employment is not the same as prosperity. Many third-world nations have high employment rates...and really crappy poverty rates. Not only that, but you've got to be careful to remember that different nations set different benchmarks for poverty. China, for instance, that powerhouse of an economy claims to have a relatively low level of poverty...until one finds out that their poverty level is determined by how many make at less than $400/year.

In other words, you and the other conservatives can tap-dance all you want, but socialized democracy like that found in ALL first-world democracies (including America) is the best way that mankind's ever had of keeping the poverty rate low, of maintaining a high standard of living for the population as a whole.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yes, Australia is a continent. It's also an island. At least that's what the Australian government says. But I'm sure you know better than they do.

And I notice you did not address the conundrum I posed the author of the OP:

"You asked what's the best way to fight poverty. What nations have the highest standards of living? The socialized first-world democracies (which includes America, because yes, we DO have a lot of socialism here) have the highest standards of living...and thus the lowest rates of real poverty. And what nations have the higher rates of poverty? Easy. Nations with small governments, low effective taxes, and weak regulation."

If socialized democracy is so terrible, then WHY are all the nations with the highest standards of living socialized democracies? If it's best for a nation to have small governments, low effective taxes, and weak regulations, WHY are all such nations still third-world nations?

You can tap-dance all you want around that set of questions...but there's only one answer: socialized democracy - that system wherein there is a strong government with high effective taxes and strong regulation BALANCED by a strong business sector is best for the prosperity of the population as a whole. Of course that's a terrible system...except, as Churchill pointed out, for all the other governments that have ever been tried.

And when it comes to California:

LEADING JOB CREATION: California added almost 320,000 new jobs in 2013 and over 1.17 million new jobs since the end of the recession.

TOP 5 GDP GROWTH: California's GDP growth rate was 3.5 percent in 2012 – fifth best in the nation.

MULTIPLE NATION LEADING SECTORS: Where other states have one or two main economic sectors, California has several -- all of which lead the nation. California is first in high tech, biotech, agriculture, entertainment, manufacturing, tourism and more.

MANUFACTURING JOB INCREASE: After ten plus years of manufacturing job losses, California posted three consecutive years of manufacturing job gains in 2011, 2012 and 2013.

RECORD EXPORTS: In trade, California merchandise exports grew to $164 billion last year -- a record export high for the state. Our nation leading tourism sector boasts over 200 million visitors in 2012 with direct travel spending of more than $106.4 billion.

BALANCED BUDGETS IMPROVE CA CREDIT RATING: In a landmark for the state, California ended 10 years of budget deficits as Governor Brown not only signed his third consecutive balanced budget but one that included more than a billion dollar surplus. As a result, the ratings service Fitch changed the state's outlook from "stable" to "positive," Moody's upgraded their ratings for California's Economic Recovery Bonds and Standard & Poor's raised California's credit rating for the first time since 2006.

INCREASING FOREIGN INVESTMENT: In April Governor Brown led a trade mission to China where he announced over $1.8 billion dollars in deals and opened a California foreign trade office in Shanghai -- the first in over a decade.

NEW BUSINESS INCENTIVES: Earlier this year, Governor Brown enacted a new Economic Development Initiative. The initiative brought together business leaders, labor interests and legislators from both sides of the aisle to help create a more flexible, more competitive set of economic development tools for California. The new tools include a Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Manufacturing, Biotech and R&D equipment; a Hiring Credit, and the CA Competes Tax Credit designed to incentive companies to locate or expand in CA (boldface mine)

Yeah, yeah, I know...California's about to crash and burn and its economy is about to die a terrible death....
Click to expand...

Yes it is. $100's of billions in unfunded liabilities, some of the highest unemployment in the country, home to over 30% of the nations welfare cases, among the highest taxes in the nation, and many other Progressive/Socialist accomplishments.

But you know all that, since you spend so much time and effort developing the spin to address such realities.

Anyway, not that interested in a long tete a tete with you right now. Just wanted to pass on the thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom