• 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
US Conservative said:
And ?
Click to expand...

according to justice cardozo:

During the years 1929 to 1936, when the country was passing through a cyclical depression, the number of the unemployed mounted to unprecedented heights. Often the average was more than 10 million; at times a peak was attained of 16 million or more. Disaster to the breadwinner meant disaster to dependents. Accordingly, the roll of the unemployed, itself formidable enough, was only a partial roll of the destitute or needy. The fact developed quickly that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that, in a crisis so extreme, the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare.
Click to expand...
 
Start by looking at how poverty is defined by those using poverty levels. Last I looked, it was those below a specific index line, I believe it was those below 33% of the notions average income.

Now I may be wrong, and I suspect someone now will do the legwork to see how poverty is being defined. For the US, it's a joke. We have the richest poor in the world.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I didn't check the definition at the source, but if that is how Wiki defines it, Wiki has little or no understanding of what progressivism in the modern USA is all about. Progressives do favor advancement in all those categories but they see advancement as being furthered by the collective, never the individual, and they see the means by which it is done as being by government and not via private initiative.

But if we go to the poll results thus far, I am much encouraged that so many understand that government cannot eliminate poverty, but that has to be done by individual initiative within a system that offers the greatest number of individual options, choices, opportunities, and possibilities and that also provides incentive and encouragement to escape poverty. A great nation does not pride itself on how many people it can make dependent on government and should consider a large number of people on government assistance as its greatest shame and failure. A great nation measures its success on the success of its people each looking to his/her own interests and thereby benefitting the whole.
Click to expand...
There is another wiki article specifically about progressivism in the US:

Progressivism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Progressivism in the United States is a broadly based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century and is generally considered to be middle class and reformist in nature. It arose as a response to the vast changes brought by modernization, such as the growth of large corporations and railroads, and fears of corruption in American politics. In the 21st century, progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice.[1] Social progressivism, the view that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives.
Click to expand...

One of the problems I see these days, especially in politics, is that someone will either intentionally or mistakenly misuse a word.

It may be that what we call progressives are not actually progressive, and similar issues.

--------------
Edit: ****, I'm stuck in a wiki-chain...

So from the progressivism in the US article, I checked out the following article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
Social justice is the ability people have to realize their potential in the society where they live.[1] Classically, "justice" (especially corrective justice or distributive justice) referred to ensuring that individuals both fulfilled their societal roles,[2] and received what was due from society. "Social justice" is generally used to refer to a set of institutions which will enable people to lead a fulfilling life and be active contributors to their community.[3] The goal of social justice is generally the same as human development. The relevant institutions can include education, health care, social security, labour rights, as well as a broader system of public services, progressive taxation and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, equality of opportunity, and no gross inequality of outcome.
Click to expand...

I have to say that if progressivism in the US is trying to ensure equality of outcome, I disagree with them on that point.
 
Last edited:
It cannot be eliminated.

There will (I assume) always be people who choose to live a life of freedom that would technically fall below the official international levels of 'poverty'.

As I see it, poverty is not the problem...not having enough shelter, food, clothing, basic medical/dental care/education/safety is the problem.

If one has easy access to all those things...then one has little to complain about in terms of 'poverty', IMO.


My solution to obtain the above?

Free enterprise, government shelters (instead of elaborate welfare systems) and 'universal' healthcare (full for children/disabled and emergency for everyone else).
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
There is another wiki article specifically about progressivism in the US:

Progressivism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


One of the problems I see these days, especially in politics, is that someone will either intentionally or mistakenly misuse a word.

It may be that what we call progressives are not actually progressive, and similar issues.

--------------
Edit: ****, I'm stuck in a wiki-chain...

So from the progressivism in the US article, I checked out the following article...

Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I have to say that if progressivism in the US is trying to ensure equality of outcome, I disagree with them on that point.
Click to expand...

The left makes a habit of misusing words.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The left makes a habit of misusing words.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, another lame post where someone claims "the left" does something, with the clear implication that "the right" does not.

"The right" misuses words all the time. It's a pretty common trait among most humans.
 
The Mark said:
There is another wiki article specifically about progressivism in the US:

Progressivism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


One of the problems I see these days, especially in politics, is that someone will either intentionally or mistakenly misuse a word.

It may be that what we call progressives are not actually progressive, and similar issues.

--------------
Edit: ****, I'm stuck in a wiki-chain...

So from the progressivism in the US article, I checked out the following article...

Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I have to say that if progressivism in the US is trying to ensure equality of outcome, I disagree with them on that point.
Click to expand...

I'll stick with my definition of progressivism because I believe it is 100% accurate.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The left makes a habit of misusing words.
Click to expand...
Nothing is exclusive to one particular group.

Why do people keep saying these things?

The stupid, it makes me want to punch something sometimes.


Edit: that's not necessarily directed at you, understand - I just so often see "the liberals are bad because X", or "the (insert derogatory name for group or person you disagree with) is bad because Y".
 
AlbqOwl said:
I'll stick with my definition of progressivism because I believe it is 100% accurate.
Click to expand...
What definition do you use then?
 
Kobie said:
Ah yes, another lame post where someone claims "the left" does something, with the clear implication that "the right" does not.

"The right" misuses words all the time. It's a pretty common trait among most humans.
Click to expand...

Probably true, but I can't think of examples the right twists words like the left does.
 
Josie said:
Work hard, be responsible and use your money wisely.
Click to expand...

Sounds great, but many people do this and still require government assistance.
 
Geoist said:
But no "all of the above" option. ;)

I think by gradually simplifying the tax system until we have a Single Tax (along with user fees and pollution fees) we will see a great reduction of poverty. Combine that with Thomas Paine's Citizen's Dividend and poverty would be virtually eliminated.
Click to expand...
Absurd ideas that wont happen. Thank god.
 
Geoist said:
But no "all of the above" option. ;)

I think by gradually simplifying the tax system until we have a Single Tax (along with user fees and pollution fees) we will see a great reduction of poverty. Combine that with Thomas Paine's Citizen's Dividend and poverty would be virtually eliminated.
Click to expand...

Are you a supporter of private property, including land?
 
Kobie said:
I can. Let's start with "tyranny."
Click to expand...

cruel and oppressive government or rule.
Click to expand...

Seldom used, but probably true that it is used incorrectly. However, the left agenda can bee seen as oppressive to some. Loggers in Oregon have been oppressed by the The media and liberals are cruel by words of people on the right.

Have a specific example?
 
Geoist said:
Sounds great, but many people do this and still require government assistance.
Click to expand...
Maybe they shouldn't have babies if they can't afford to feed them.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Seldom used, but probably true that it is used incorrectly. However, the left agenda can bee seen as oppressive to some. Loggers in Oregon have been oppressed by the The media and liberals are cruel by words of people on the right.

Have a specific example?
Click to expand...

"Seldom used"??? You new here?
 
AlbqOwl said:
See Post #194. I can elaborate if it isn't pretty self-explanatory.
Click to expand...
I presume you mean this?

AlbqOwl said:
I didn't check the definition at the source, but if that is how Wiki defines it, Wiki has little or no understanding of what progressivism in the modern USA is all about. Progressives do favor advancement in all those categories but they see advancement as being furthered by the collective, never the individual, and they see the means by which it is done as being by government and not via private initiative.
Click to expand...

That kinda fits with the "progressivism in the US article.
 
The Mark said:
I presume you mean this?



That kinda fits with the "progressivism in the US article.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know about the US article, but progressivism puts all the emphasis on the collective and gives all the control and responsibility to the government which must be controlled by progressives. Any who oppose such a government are usually considered wrong, evil, bad, selfish, or other uncomplimentary characterizations. To the progressive, it is the government's responsibility to order society in the progressive mold and address the major problems of humankind including poverty and only the most heartless among us would object to government programs, however ineffective or destructive, that are presented as efforts to fix what is wrong with society. We are not to question results or consequences--a noble sounding title on the program is considered adequate to support it, and good intentions are all important while the end result is immaterial. If the program is not delivering as advertised, then it is underfunded and needs to be made bigger and more powerful.

Or evil, selfish, hateful, greedy conservatives prevented it from being effective.

Individual property, initiative, liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and possibilities are set aside or squashed all in the interest of the 'common good' as government decrees it to be.

The progressive dismisses all arguments by non-progressives to end poverty. If government does not address poverty and fix it, in the progressive's mind it won't happen.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom