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

[danielpalos]

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.

I have great difficulty responding seriously, your first sentence being such a mess. I'll say this for now. We've had this experimental Republic, yes. It now needs to be made far more transparent and accountable. More democratic. Run more directly by the people. There's no longer any excuse for having shitty, highly corruptible "representatives", further distanced through some stuffy "Electoral College" nonsense, in this age of working and "meeting" from home. Yes, we can take care of all those in need much, much better, and those who need for nothing should just stfu and count their lucky stars.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner can enable greater participation in our economy and form of federal Government in an economic manner that is analogous to this political manner:

If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.--Aristotle

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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/

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Through non-Corporate welfare that has doesn't pay multimillion dollar bonuses? Right wingers seem like just plain cronies for the Rich and "hate on the Poor".

I'm not a right winger, and I don't hate you at all. I just think you are one of the most simple-minded individuals on the board.

 

[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.

On the contrary, I laid out very clearly where and why you were wrong and how you were using words the wrong way. You had to pretend my arguments were fallacy because you had no evidence to rebut any of them.

I can just as easily claim the opposite and not provide any valid arguments to support my opinion. Are you on the right wing and simply want to be Right?

That's exactly what you're doing. I have presented you evidence and logical arguments. I have shown you how you're using words wrongly, I have shown you that doing what you want to do would change the institutions you want to use and make them unworkable, but you just re-assert everything you started with and claim you're right.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[danielpalos]

Many in poverty are there by choice.

I have one friend and several family members that are living in poverty and they wont listen to a damn thing I say. I've even offered to pay for trade school for several neices and nephews...only one has taken me up on it.

And guess what...after all that expense and school work, then 2 years of working in the trade...he is no longer working as an auto mechanic and is back living in poverty.

At this point I've learned that hunger is a great motivator for the lazy!!!

I grew up in poverty and homelessness. Poverty in this country does not hurt enough. We make poverty comfortable. Starve them until their bellies swell. Close the shelters until frozen bodies line the streets. When it really hurts the people may make a different decision.

Only right wingers seem to Want to turn our Republic into a third world economy. Why not abolish our useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror since right wingers don't believe they are serious enough to pay wartime tax rates for them.

 

[hadit]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Through non-Corporate welfare that has doesn't pay multimillion dollar bonuses? Right wingers seem like just plain cronies for the Rich and "hate on the Poor".

I'm not a right winger, and I don't hate you at all. I just think you are one of the most simple-minded individuals on the board.

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?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

On the contrary, I laid out very clearly where and why you were wrong and how you were using words the wrong way. You had to pretend my arguments were fallacy because you had no evidence to rebut any of them.

I can just as easily claim the opposite and not provide any valid arguments to support my opinion. Are you on the right wing and simply want to be Right?

That's exactly what you're doing. I have presented you evidence and logical arguments. I have shown you how you're using words wrongly, I have shown you that doing what you want to do would change the institutions you want to use and make them unworkable, but you just re-assert everything you started with and claim you're right.

You are mistaken and projecting. I am merely advocating for equal protection of the laws. It really is that simple

 

[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.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

 

[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.

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.

Agreed. There is truth and common ground in most political debate. The problems come from the partisan hacks on both sides that get more election funds by demonizing the other side instead of cooperating with them.

 

[MarathonMike]

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?

 

[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.

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.

You mean like poverty wages for the employer's bottom line so the Government can pick up the tab for social services? Why has the minimum wage not kept up with inflation on its own in our market based economy.

 

[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.