What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[danielpalos]

Thanks for your completely biased and unsubstantiated opinion. Have any valid arguments to prove your point or are you a right winger and don't know it?

You are close enough to Sierra College to commute, and once you get your G.E.D. , perhaps you could go there and take that first step towards improving yourself.

It certainly beats living off other people your whole life.

Capitalism still has a natural rate of unemployment even if Labor is required to obtain a doctorate to participate in the market for labor.

 

[danielpalos]

there is nothing "simple" about poverty. It is
NOT a simple "lack of money"

Yes, simple poverty can be solved merely with money. Complex poverty must be means tested.

You can't be serious. "Means" testing?

Means tested welfare is means tested.

 

[danielpalos]

DaniePalos,I greatly doubt if there’s a single congressional act that could remedy poverty. But poverty in the USA can be incrementally reduced. To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor. That’s its purpose and justification.

A bill targeting the federal minimum’s rate’s purchasing power at no less than 125% of the minimum‘s Febuary-1968 value, annually increasing rate by uniform increments until it achieves its targeted value, and thereafter annually monitored and adjusted to retain that purchasing power, would improve USA’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

I agree to disagree. We could have solved simple poverty, yesterday but for the right wing having a problem with helping the Poor but not the Rich. It could be done by simple executive order regarding faithful execution of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.

The two largest transfers of wealth occurred under a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress and a Republican President and a split Congress. Republican or Democrat, they are owned by the rich. Time to rid America of the two party and the crooks that operate them.

I would agree with you, but for right wingers being willing to insurrect against the Union. Equal protection of the laws seems more straight forward and is actually enumerated in our federal and State Constitutions.

Yep, thank you for pointing out that the Democrats are just as guilty of transferring money to the rich as the GOP, that cannot be denied. Blame who you need to however the facts show the Dems and GOP are equally responsible for the transfer so think either one would be willing to fix the issue is just wishful thinking.

I agree with you that even the reality tv guy was unable to get real for the Poor, only the rich in the Middle East.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Capitalism still has a natural rate of unemployment even if Labor is required to obtain a doctorate to participate in the market for labor.

Ah, so THAT'S your excuse for wanting to live off other people. Got it.

 

[Slade3200]

there is nothing "simple" about poverty. It is
NOT a simple "lack of money"

Yes, simple poverty can be solved merely with money. Complex poverty must be means tested.

The issues fall within the political debate. The Left wants to help the poor by giving them money, healthcare, and resources... the Right wants to minimize welfare and promote self sufficiency. They see the poor as lazy so giving them what they need only perpetuates the problem and disincentivizes them to work harder.

I would agree with you, but that is not what is happening. Right wingers don't care about the Poor and would prefer to simply criminalize poverty instead of actually solve it.

Corporate downsizing is about the Profit not the self-sufficiency of the People. Poverty is simply an externality to the private sector and they have no capital basis to actually care about self-sufficiency of the Poor; it is just a Talking point for the right wing.

Corporations often do what’s best for their bottom line but I wasn’t talking about corporations I was talking about the political debate. There is a crossover which may have been your point as the Right wing is more supportive of and supported by corporations. They promote business friendly policies and the reduction of government. This can help jobs and wages for some and can also contribute poverty for others. Back to my original point about the importance of working towards smart policy within the common ground that both sides share. There needs to be a balance not a constant fight for absolute power.

 

[Papageorgio]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

You've already had this debate with me, many times, and I've given you the reasons why what you are advocating won't work. Why didn't you listen and learn?

All you had was fallacy not any valid arguments but still want to be Right. Only right wingers do that. Besides, I already know it will work simply because y'all have no arguments to the contrary. Fallacy is not a valid argument for rebuttal, just You wanting to be Right. You must be on the right wing.

It has been tried and a couple of countries and it failed. So, far your idea is a fallacy. You want to be right is just stupidity and has nothing to do with left or right, it has to do with economics.

No, it hasn't been tried. Equal protection of the laws is a civil right guaranteed in our federal and State Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law but are more than willing to blame the less fortunate.

On the contrary, the laws have been applied equally to those who work and those who do not. Your problem is your insistence on re-defining the words in the law to mean something they do not. Post THE TEXT of a specific law, (not just vague, unemployment compensation law) that you think is not being applied equally and I'll demonstrate.

This is one law that is not being applied equally to Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

It is a State (labor code) Law.

Which state? Could we get a link?

 

[Slade3200]

DaniePalos,I greatly doubt if there’s a single congressional act that could remedy poverty. But poverty in the USA can be incrementally reduced. To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor. That’s its purpose and justification.

A bill targeting the federal minimum’s rate’s purchasing power at no less than 125% of the minimum‘s Febuary-1968 value, annually increasing rate by uniform increments until it achieves its targeted value, and thereafter annually monitored and adjusted to retain that purchasing power, would improve USA’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

I agree to disagree. We could have solved simple poverty, yesterday but for the right wing having a problem with helping the Poor but not the Rich. It could be done by simple executive order regarding faithful execution of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.

The two largest transfers of wealth occurred under a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress and a Republican President and a split Congress. Republican or Democrat, they are owned by the rich. Time to rid America of the two party and the crooks that operate them.

I would agree with you, but for right wingers being willing to insurrect against the Union. Equal protection of the laws seems more straight forward and is actually enumerated in our federal and State Constitutions.

Yep, thank you for pointing out that the Democrats are just as guilty of transferring money to the rich as the GOP, that cannot be denied. Blame who you need to however the facts show the Dems and GOP are equally responsible for the transfer so think either one would be willing to fix the issue is just wishful thinking.

I think the largest transfer of wealth that ever occurred in this country, by far, is going to come from Trumps tax cuts and the Pandemic stimulus. We are going down a huge rabbit hole

 

[Papageorgio]

DaniePalos,I greatly doubt if there’s a single congressional act that could remedy poverty. But poverty in the USA can be incrementally reduced. To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor. That’s its purpose and justification.

A bill targeting the federal minimum’s rate’s purchasing power at no less than 125% of the minimum‘s Febuary-1968 value, annually increasing rate by uniform increments until it achieves its targeted value, and thereafter annually monitored and adjusted to retain that purchasing power, would improve USA’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

I agree to disagree. We could have solved simple poverty, yesterday but for the right wing having a problem with helping the Poor but not the Rich. It could be done by simple executive order regarding faithful execution of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.

The two largest transfers of wealth occurred under a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress and a Republican President and a split Congress. Republican or Democrat, they are owned by the rich. Time to rid America of the two party and the crooks that operate them.

I would agree with you, but for right wingers being willing to insurrect against the Union. Equal protection of the laws seems more straight forward and is actually enumerated in our federal and State Constitutions.

Yep, thank you for pointing out that the Democrats are just as guilty of transferring money to the rich as the GOP, that cannot be denied. Blame who you need to however the facts show the Dems and GOP are equally responsible for the transfer so think either one would be willing to fix the issue is just wishful thinking.

I agree with you that even the reality tv guy was unable to get real for the Poor, only the rich in the Middle East.

Nothing to do with the GOP or Democrats. Please explain why the left made a choice to help the 1% not once but twice gain the most wealth ever in history? I mean once is a mistake but twice? It seems just as bad as the GOP except you expect that, but the Dems? Really? After pretending to be for the poor and getting paid off by the rich, how does that make one feel? Betrayed?

 

[Papageorgio]

DaniePalos,I greatly doubt if there’s a single congressional act that could remedy poverty. But poverty in the USA can be incrementally reduced. To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor. That’s its purpose and justification.

A bill targeting the federal minimum’s rate’s purchasing power at no less than 125% of the minimum‘s Febuary-1968 value, annually increasing rate by uniform increments until it achieves its targeted value, and thereafter annually monitored and adjusted to retain that purchasing power, would improve USA’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

I agree to disagree. We could have solved simple poverty, yesterday but for the right wing having a problem with helping the Poor but not the Rich. It could be done by simple executive order regarding faithful execution of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.

The two largest transfers of wealth occurred under a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress and a Republican President and a split Congress. Republican or Democrat, they are owned by the rich. Time to rid America of the two party and the crooks that operate them.

I would agree with you, but for right wingers being willing to insurrect against the Union. Equal protection of the laws seems more straight forward and is actually enumerated in our federal and State Constitutions.

Yep, thank you for pointing out that the Democrats are just as guilty of transferring money to the rich as the GOP, that cannot be denied. Blame who you need to however the facts show the Dems and GOP are equally responsible for the transfer so think either one would be willing to fix the issue is just wishful thinking.

I think the largest transfer of wealth that ever occurred in this country, by far, is going to come from Trumps tax cuts and the Pandemic stimulus. We are going down a huge rabbit hole

The first was 2009 when overwhelmingly Congress passed TARP and other packages and a Democratic President signed off, the next was the pandemic bailout which was passed by congress by an overwhelming majority of both Republicans and Democrats and signed off by a Republican

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism still has a natural rate of unemployment even if Labor is required to obtain a doctorate to participate in the market for labor.

Ah, so THAT'S your excuse for wanting to live off other people. Got it.

You seem more like a right winger. The point is that there is a simple and market friendly solution available by simply being moral enough to faithfully execute our own laws.

To directly address your bias however, the remedy for you is to simply quit your job and go on unemployment if you have any problem whatsoever with sufficient moral fortitude to make enough money to pay taxes that may help the Poor. It is immoral to complain about paying taxes in any at-will employment State.

And, here is the point that is being addressed via economics in our first world economy.

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”

― Calvin Coolidge

 

[danielpalos]

They promote business friendly policies and the reduction of government.

How do they do that with poverty wages that may require those actually employed to seek social services and that form of Big Government nanny-Statism? Are you sure you are simply being a right winger about this? Raising the minimum wage can actually help lower the cost of Government while generating more tax revenue in the process.

 

[danielpalos]

Which state? Could we get a link?

It doesn't matter which State, it applies to Any at-will employment State.

Here is a more comprehensive definition:

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

 

[danielpalos]

DaniePalos,I greatly doubt if there’s a single congressional act that could remedy poverty. But poverty in the USA can be incrementally reduced. To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor. That’s its purpose and justification.

A bill targeting the federal minimum’s rate’s purchasing power at no less than 125% of the minimum‘s Febuary-1968 value, annually increasing rate by uniform increments until it achieves its targeted value, and thereafter annually monitored and adjusted to retain that purchasing power, would improve USA’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

I agree to disagree. We could have solved simple poverty, yesterday but for the right wing having a problem with helping the Poor but not the Rich. It could be done by simple executive order regarding faithful execution of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.

The two largest transfers of wealth occurred under a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress and a Republican President and a split Congress. Republican or Democrat, they are owned by the rich. Time to rid America of the two party and the crooks that operate them.

I would agree with you, but for right wingers being willing to insurrect against the Union. Equal protection of the laws seems more straight forward and is actually enumerated in our federal and State Constitutions.

Yep, thank you for pointing out that the Democrats are just as guilty of transferring money to the rich as the GOP, that cannot be denied. Blame who you need to however the facts show the Dems and GOP are equally responsible for the transfer so think either one would be willing to fix the issue is just wishful thinking.

I agree with you that even the reality tv guy was unable to get real for the Poor, only the rich in the Middle East.

Nothing to do with the GOP or Democrats. Please explain why the left made a choice to help the 1% not once but twice gain the most wealth ever in history? I mean once is a mistake but twice? It seems just as bad as the GOP except you expect that, but the Dems? Really? After pretending to be for the poor and getting paid off by the rich, how does that make one feel? Betrayed?

The republicans are worse. At least, the democrats are for healthcare reform and raising the minimum wage.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

there is nothing "simple" about poverty. It is
NOT a simple "lack of money"

Yes, simple poverty can be solved merely with money. Complex poverty must be means tested.

The issues fall within the political debate. The Left wants to help the poor by giving them money, healthcare, and resources... the Right wants to minimize welfare and promote self sufficiency. They see the poor as lazy so giving them what they need only perpetuates the problem and disincentivizes them to work harder.

And as usual, there is truth in both approaches. Certainly, having resources available to help when someone falls on hard times is a good thing. At the same time, long term reliance on that help DOES result in dependency and a reluctance to provide for one's self.

There are those who steadfastly refuse to provide for themselves and consider their poverty a point of pride. These must be allowed to experience the fullness of their decisions.

 

[hadit]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

You've already had this debate with me, many times, and I've given you the reasons why what you are advocating won't work. Why didn't you listen and learn?

All you had was fallacy not any valid arguments but still want to be Right. Only right wingers do that. Besides, I already know it will work simply because y'all have no arguments to the contrary. Fallacy is not a valid argument for rebuttal, just You wanting to be Right. You must be on the right wing.

It has been tried and a couple of countries and it failed. So, far your idea is a fallacy. You want to be right is just stupidity and has nothing to do with left or right, it has to do with economics.

No, it hasn't been tried. Equal protection of the laws is a civil right guaranteed in our federal and State Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law but are more than willing to blame the less fortunate.

On the contrary, the laws have been applied equally to those who work and those who do not. Your problem is your insistence on re-defining the words in the law to mean something they do not. Post THE TEXT of a specific law, (not just vague, unemployment compensation law) that you think is not being applied equally and I'll demonstrate.

This is one law that is not being applied equally to Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

It is a State (labor code) Law.

Okay, now tell me how that is not applied equally.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We could have an epidemic and destroy a bunch of small businesses with government restrictions.
Then we can make federal loans for new small businesses and pick the winners and losers.
Then we can have nit-wits explain why that is the best exercise of Capitalism.

.

Would you rather have people dying in the streets? Our hospitals are already being stressed at capacity and our morgues are overflowing to the point some are renting refrigerated trucks to keep the bodies. It seems like you are claiming it is the profit not the people that counts.

Currently the hospitals are not near capacity, you might want more recent information. The time when we were closing in on hospital capacity was the beginning to middle of December. We started to see numbers rising quickly in October but failed to do any restrictions because of the upcoming elections. A week after the elections the governors then imposed their restrictions however the numbers would grow and present an issue with hospitals. More of the party over country decisions.

Are you on the right wing? You provided no link.

States in West and South have highest shares of residents hospitalized as Los Angeles hospitals turn away ambulances

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/05/covid-hospitalizations-los-angeles-oxygen/

Los Angeles turns away ambulances filled with the diseased homeless. In fact, EMTs and Paramedics are instructed not to even bother picking these people up.

 

[Papageorgio]

Which state? Could we get a link?

It doesn't matter which State, it applies to Any at-will employment State.

Here is a more comprehensive definition:

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

You claimed you quoted a state law, which state? Every state has a different view, I'd like to see which state you are quoting from.

 

[usmcstinger]

Poverty can be caused by many reasons. It is up to the individual to do what is needed to get out of it. Bad choices can lead to poverty. There are many mechanisms provided by the State and Federal Governments to help them get out. . However, you can not make people take advantage of them. High School Dropouts, mental illness, personalty disorders, alcoholism, drug addiction, and many more human conditions get in the way.. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

The point is we should have no homeless problem in our first world economy. Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner means more capital circulating in our economy and fewer problems. Who would not benefit by that form of full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism?

For example, people with drug addictions or mental illness would be able to afford rehabilitation to help them be more productive in our economy. And, people with an income would be more market friendly and better able to afford housing to stay off the street. They would benefit, landlords would benefit, and the general public would benefit by not having a homeless problem in their neighborhood.

Homelessness is on a downward trend.

Homelessness statistics in the US for 2021 | Policy Advice

Despite the efforts to provide adequate housing, homelessness statistics reveal that they haven’t been enough. Look here to learn more.

policyadvice.net

• 39.8% of homeless persons are African-Americans.
• 61% of homeless persons are men and boys.
• 20% of homeless persons are kids.
• 42% of street children identify as LGBT.
• New York City has one-fifth of all US sheltered homeless.
• The homeless problem is on a downward trend.
• Permanent housing interventions have grown by 450% in 5 years.

The point is, we have a first world economy or should have, and we should have no homeless problem. There is a market friendly solution that merely requires enough morals to faithfully execute our own laws.

There will always be some homeless people.

no matter what the economy is like.

I agree to disagree. Simply camping out for fun is not the same as being homeless due to an inefficiency in public policies that enables it.

Many homeless people are mentally ill and will not ever submit to forced housing

Who said anything about forced housing with persons who have an income. Most would Want to get off the street on their own simply by having an income. And, those with mental health issues would be able to look into rehab with their income. Seems more like a form of free market capitalism than what we have now under our current regime.

So all mental health issues should be dealt with by sending people to rehab? The ignorance of our poverty, mental health and drug dependence issues is stunning. Not sure a person with no understanding of a basic issue in America is qualified to show us a way out.

Only if you want to quibble. I meant mental health issues due to drugs since many have claimed drug issues are a problem with the homeless. Mental health issues should be treated by mental health professionals. Simply having an income makes that more likely under any form of, free market capitalism.

And, those persons would be less likely to have trouble with law enforcement. A cost savings in both lives and money simply by being able to participate in our market based economy in a market friendly manner.

Obviously you are clueless about the real world. Theories and philosophy treat the symptoms not the problem.

 

[Papageorgio]

DaniePalos,I greatly doubt if there’s a single congressional act that could remedy poverty. But poverty in the USA can be incrementally reduced. To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor. That’s its purpose and justification.

A bill targeting the federal minimum’s rate’s purchasing power at no less than 125% of the minimum‘s Febuary-1968 value, annually increasing rate by uniform increments until it achieves its targeted value, and thereafter annually monitored and adjusted to retain that purchasing power, would improve USA’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

I agree to disagree. We could have solved simple poverty, yesterday but for the right wing having a problem with helping the Poor but not the Rich. It could be done by simple executive order regarding faithful execution of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation.

The two largest transfers of wealth occurred under a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress and a Republican President and a split Congress. Republican or Democrat, they are owned by the rich. Time to rid America of the two party and the crooks that operate them.

I would agree with you, but for right wingers being willing to insurrect against the Union. Equal protection of the laws seems more straight forward and is actually enumerated in our federal and State Constitutions.

Yep, thank you for pointing out that the Democrats are just as guilty of transferring money to the rich as the GOP, that cannot be denied. Blame who you need to however the facts show the Dems and GOP are equally responsible for the transfer so think either one would be willing to fix the issue is just wishful thinking.

I agree with you that even the reality tv guy was unable to get real for the Poor, only the rich in the Middle East.

Nothing to do with the GOP or Democrats. Please explain why the left made a choice to help the 1% not once but twice gain the most wealth ever in history? I mean once is a mistake but twice? It seems just as bad as the GOP except you expect that, but the Dems? Really? After pretending to be for the poor and getting paid off by the rich, how does that make one feel? Betrayed?

The republicans are worse. At least, the democrats are for healthcare reform and raising the minimum wage.

Why did the left agree to the two biggest transfers in wealth? They did this twice, does that seem like a group taking care of the poor? Giving more money to the rich helps the poor? How? Raising the minimum wage? That supports you supporting the Democrats after they transferred trillion to the rich? Healthcare? It is minimal at best, large deductibles, requiring people to pay to remain legal in their own country? Allowing rich health care providers guaranteed profit is good for America?

I see two corrupt political parties that seem only interested in putting money into their pockets and not the pockets of the American people.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You think it's cheaper to eat junk food than it is to make your own meals

Liar.

How about some statistics. Ad hominems are worthless.

Pointing out that someone has lied about your position is not ad hominem. But indeed, the first one asserting such a claim should be expected to provide "some statistics" to back it up! One waiting three pages to put their foot down won't cut the mustard.

You seem to be implying that cooking your meals at home where you have total control of what you are cooking is less healthy than food prepared in a commercial establishment.

That phrase "You seem to be implying" is weasel piss. Stop doing that. If you desire clarification, simply request it! You've been trained to think and talk that way (like an idiot) by idiots such as these you're currently engaged with here. No, that is not what I said nor my intent. Likewise, BM declaring "You think it's cheaper to eat junk food than it is to make your own meals" was not just wrong, it was a lie! I should know. These accusations amount to straw man personal attacks, not attempts at honest conversation. Weasels weasel, piss, and moan. Honest people quote others where appropriate and ask rather than accuse.

To the point, it's been well established for decades that "junk" or unhealthy foods are made deliberately cheap and largely "market"ed to leverage people already provided limited choices. The poor and busy people who "have to" work. School cafeterias, WalMart shoppers,.. Within grocery stores, the healthiest prepared foods and food ingredients cost more than their crappy, cheap counterparts. This is common sense, but please do let me know if pertinent research indicates otherwise. More specifically, "cooking your meals at home where you have total control of what you are cooking is" skilled. It requires a well provisioned "home." One must be relatively independent, privileged, healthy, wealthy,.. Not "poor." Circular reasoning is unsurprisingly circular.