Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Republicans Moving to Claim Poverty as Issue


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,779 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:43 PM

NY Times said:


WASHINGTON — Senator Marco Rubio says the American dream has become “unattainable.” Senator Mike Lee says reforming government benefits programs should be the country’s “first priority.” And Representative Paul D. Ryan says the government safety net has “failed miserably.”

Fifty years after President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty, the message from Republicans in Congress is that the government has foundered in its efforts to address the problem.

“While we have programs in place that help deal with the pain of poverty, they don’t deal with the structural problems,” Mr. Rubio of Florida said in an interview.

Read more

What? Durn Socialists now invading the last capitalist stronghold? What is the world coming to?

:innocent:

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#2    aztek

aztek

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,619 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:07 PM

just ban poverty, done deal.

it is all peoples fault anyway., they voted for those good for n'ting politicians.

it has nothing to do with new laws\taxes that drive buissnes overseas, destroy jobs.... etc.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#3    Razer

Razer

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In front of my laptop.

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:29 PM

If they would just raise the minimum wage above the poverty line, problem solved. :whistle:

Edited by Razer, 08 January 2014 - 10:29 PM.


#4    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,779 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:30 PM

View PostRazer, on 08 January 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

If they would just raise the minimum wage above the poverty line, problem solved. :whistle:

But, but... that is Socialism... would it not be better to define poverty below minimum wages by law?

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#5    sam12six

sam12six

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,405 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:02 PM

View Postaztek, on 08 January 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

just ban poverty, done deal.

it is all peoples fault anyway., they voted for those good for n'ting politicians.

it has nothing to do with new laws\taxes that drive buissnes overseas, destroy jobs.... etc.

What we need is another war. A war on poverty would be as awesome and productive as the wars on drugs and terror. What we should do logically is put anyone making less than 20 something grand a year in prison and spend a hundred grand a year to keep them there. That way, when the world looks at us, we can say, "Poor people? What poor people?"

*Note - post composed entirely of sarcasm.



View PostRazer, on 08 January 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

If they would just raise the minimum wage above the poverty line, problem solved. :whistle:

Since I couldn't tell whether your emoticon indicates that you think this is the obvious solution that people refuse to consider or whether you're making fun of idiots who think this is the obvious solution, I'll treat it as the former:


This would do nothing good and a few things very bad. First, it would just raise the poverty line. Coupled with the fact that minimum wage workers would then be in the same income position as people who were previously just above the poverty line, it would probably result in MORE people below the line because you just know companies wouldn't give across the board raises to all employees to keep them where they were before the move.

Second, it would widen the gap between those working and those living on a fixed income, putting those at the bottom of the economic barrel in a worse position as the cost of living increased due to the higher relative income of those in entry level positions.

Poverty has always existed and probably always will. Today's poor in the US have things better than poor people have ever had it in some ways (Like they can go to emergency rooms and won't be turned away) and worse in others (generations ago, a person with nothing could just find a piece of land in the middle of nowhere and squat in a subsistence living while saving toward more. Today, if you're starting from nothing it takes money just to be alive).

I don't know whether it's right or wrong (since I can see both sides of the argument), but the only way to eliminate poverty is to go full-on communism (and even that wouldn't work for long since communist governments, like all governments, trend toward tyranny).


#6    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,779 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:05 PM

View Postsam12six, on 08 January 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

What we need is another war. A war on poverty would be as awesome and productive as the wars on drugs and terror. What we should do logically is put anyone making less than I don't know whether it's right or wrong (since I can see both sides of the argument), but the only way to eliminate poverty is to go full-on communism (and even that wouldn't work for long since communist governments, like all governments, trend toward tyranny).

Communism has, to this day, failed to demonstrate that it was capable of removing poverty. Not a good suggestion.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#7    acidhead

acidhead

    GOV Debt Slave

  • Member
  • 11,929 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:15 PM

Both the Ds and Rs represent their campaign donors. .. BIG BUSINESS... the increase in minimum wage hurts small business mom and pop stores and benefits BIG corporations like the Wal-Mart's and Home Depots.  Of course the Rs will jump on the Ds bandwagon on this issue.  The Ds and the Rs are exactly the same on monetary and foreign policy.



"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#8    Purifier

Purifier

    Δ

  • Member
  • 2,847 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • We don't need to conquer the world, we need to conquer our individual selves first. Then the world will be at peace.

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:40 PM

View PostRazer, on 08 January 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

If they would just raise the minimum wage above the poverty line, problem solved. :whistle:


Sounds good, but in order for it to really work the government would haft to regulate the cost of things all across the country from going higher. Otherwise corporations raise their prices, which causes some people to rely on welfare to make up the difference; thus not solving the poverty issue.





EDIT: Damnit! typos

Edited by Purifier, 08 January 2014 - 11:42 PM.

PAWNING RESIDENT TROLLS

#9    sam12six

sam12six

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,405 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 09 January 2014 - 12:02 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 January 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:

Communism has, to this day, failed to demonstrate that it was capable of removing poverty. Not a good suggestion.

It wasn't really a suggestion, just the comment that it's the only governmental system that (on paper) is about distributing wealth within the government's jurisdiction equally. The reality is that modern governments are like modern politicians - they're the same system with different talking points. In democracy, the talking point is the vote (regardless of the fact that the candidates are almost always put forth by the people in charge - those with money). In communism, the talking point is equal results for equal effort (regardless of the fact that those who control the government's funds live lifestyles like Wall Street execs).

As I mentioned earlier, poverty has always existed and I think always will. The best a civilization can do is try to preserve opportunity by watering Jefferson's tree. In the US, two steps could go a long way toward that:

Caps on inheritances - Offspring of a wealthy person should indeed have an advantage (and do, just from education and social ties to other wealthy families), but being handed thousands of times what an average person will earn in a lifetime is just too much for any country that claims to be a place that embraces people working toward their dream instead of people's destination being completely determined by what their parents did.

The second, and more complicated, would be some massive corporate reform (or hell, even elimination of the corporation). As things stand now, a corporation is basically an immortal human whose fortune can be controlled by any real humans. Again, it's a situation where people get to use (massive amounts of) money they did not earn.

These are, again, not actually suggestions, just the directions I'd look if I were actually trying to eliminate poverty.


#10    aztek

aztek

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,619 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 09 January 2014 - 12:49 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 January 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:

Communism has, to this day, failed to demonstrate that it was capable of removing poverty. Not a good suggestion.
it was never intended  to remove poverty.

Edited by aztek, 09 January 2014 - 12:50 AM.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#11    Dougward5

Dougward5

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 255 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alabama

  • " silver bullets ain't cheap"
    www.realwerewolfhunters.com

Posted 09 January 2014 - 01:01 AM

I see a lot of folks talking these days about " income equality " .  I don't get it..I fail to understand how some people having more automatically makes others have less.  As has been pointed out a min wage increase only raises the cost of items produced by those making min wage. Not to mention the lost jobs. I for one would remove from my payroll any employee not worth his hourly wage. These days machines can reaplace a lot of jobs. Walmart already has rfid readers set up in every store...most items have rfid tags.  The only thing saving a lot of cashier jobs is they are more cost effective than self checkout with rfid autopay.
In my mind the solution as an overhaul of our education system.   Give people willing to work hard and learn skills a chance to be WORTH  more than min wage .....I do not see a downside to giving e everyone a chance to earn more...equal opportunity as opposed to equal results..


#12    sam12six

sam12six

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,405 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:19 AM

View PostDougward5, on 09 January 2014 - 01:01 AM, said:

I see a lot of folks talking these days about " income equality " .  I don't get it..I fail to understand how some people having more automatically makes others have less.  

The main reason is that as the world becomes more of a global economy, it is becoming a closed system. 500 years ago, Spain could send people to other places to steal their gold. Bringing that gold back increased Spain's wealth and could benefit everyone in Spain. As the system has become closed, it's a zero sum game - everyone who has more means someone else has less. Unless/Until someone starts bringing in wealth from space, that's how things are going to continue.

Income inequality is pretty much intrinsic to having an economy. The trick to keeping the economy healthy is to keep that inequality from either extreme. Too little inequality and there's no way to get ahead and the civilization stagnates because too few innovate. Too much inequality and civilization stagnates because the lifeblood of an economy (wealth) is tied up in a few hands instead of being available to those willing to strive for it. There are always going to be those relatively rare people that make a huge impact on the world through innovation. If they have nothing to gain (either because the government or private institutions or people are tying up the wealth, they'll stop doing their thing). The results off too much or too little income inequality are the same, the mechanics just differ.


View PostDougward5, on 09 January 2014 - 01:01 AM, said:

In my mind the solution as an overhaul of our education system.   Give people willing to work hard and learn skills a chance to be WORTH  more than min wage .....I do not see a downside to giving e everyone a chance to earn more...equal opportunity as opposed to equal results..

I agree that the best a government can do is attempt to ensure that there's lots of opportunity for people, regardless of where they started in life. The reason it's difficult to actualize is that the haves want to continue having and that means trying to prevent the have nots from getting.


#13    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Ntwadumela- He who greets with fire

  • Member
  • 12,665 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:in the depths of my mind

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:27 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 January 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:



But, but... that is Socialism... would it not be better to define poverty below minimum wages by law?

Not only is it socialist, its a ridiculas idea that would destroy us all, by sky rocketing the price of everything.

The solution is simple. Remove any and all taxes to manufactoring companies, who pay a livable wage, and put huge tarrifs on incoming products so our companies can compete. Instead we use tax payers money to move these companies over sea's. THEY TOOK OUR JOOOOBS

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#14    Purifier

Purifier

    Δ

  • Member
  • 2,847 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • We don't need to conquer the world, we need to conquer our individual selves first. Then the world will be at peace.

Posted 09 January 2014 - 07:11 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 09 January 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

The solution is simple. Remove any and all taxes to manufactoring companies, who pay a livable wage, and put huge tarrifs on incoming products so our companies can compete. Instead we use tax payers money to move these companies over sea's. THEY TOOK OUR JOOOOBS


But what is considered a livable wage, though? That was one of the problems we had before with the "Robber Barons", they payed extremely low wages and probably thought it was a "livable wage". That is also one reason Corporations moved over seas or to Mexico. So they could pay what they considered a "livable wage".

"Livable wage" sounds like another avenue of crony capitalism to me, Preacherman. Unless you have some type of regulation idea on wages you didn't specifically go in to, concerning taxes and companies.

PAWNING RESIDENT TROLLS

#15    aztek

aztek

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,619 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 09 January 2014 - 07:37 PM

View PostPurifier, on 09 January 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

But what is considered a livable wage, though?

prby more that minimum wage.

RESIDENT TROLL.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users