The republican solution to poverty doesn’t make any sense

[rightwinger]

Even the most simple societies relied on some form of government to enforce the rules of capitalism

Chiefs, tribal elders, local councils

He stole my goat, the food he sold me was bad. Government replaced self help in those situations. You can’t kill someone because he stole your goat.

Governments also provide the monetary system that capitalists rely on

There are no rules to capitalism, it regulates itself naturally, as your reputation is everything. For that, a government isn't needed, it only impedes this.

Individuals don't need any of those. Capitalism is any form of voluntary exchange. The government only brings coercion and force into the mix, preventing it from functioning optimally. Your belief that a government always existed defies all logic. In fact, the first known government was not formed at the beginning of time, but between ca. 3500–2332 BCE, by the Sumerians, meaning that regardless of what you'd like to think, the government hasn't been infringing on our rights since the dawn of man.

If an individual steals something, their reputation is ruined, and they'll no longer have any business, effectively giving their customers over to their competition. Government doesn't form the moral fabric of society, consequences do.

No, they don't, inherent value of an object does. The government took existing valuable objects; gold, silver, etc, and created the Federal Reserve bank, which exchanged those for bank notes, which insist that the valuable objects are still there, and that the bank notes represent those. Government doesn't create value. Even aside from those, people traded objects for other objects without those valuable metals. Trading has always existed, and was not invented by the government, and arguing that they make all trading possible is just hilariously ignorant.

What the government does for capitalists

Enforces contracts
Protects intellectual property
Educates a workforce
Provides infrastructure
Provides a monetary system
Provides physical security and fire protection
Protects from unfair competition at home and abroad

1. The government isn't needed for enforcing contracts, a business that violates its contracts will not be part of future deals, due to the damage to their reputation. Of course, the government would rule in favor of lobbyists, anyway, actually meaning that the government makes this worse.
2. The government's control over this only prevents other businesses from improving upon an existing idea, this is actually bad. Similarly, patents are also a horrible concept, as it's one reason the cost of medicine is allowed to be gouged. In other words, politicians have been telling us that the government needs to fix a problem that the government is behind in the first place.
3. The government's education is not only extremely costly, as the government spends more per student than any private school, with worse results, but also unnecessary. With competition, results would be better and cheaper.
4. I'm actually still debating whether or not the government is needed for this, as businesses would have incentive to hire private sector workers to build the roads to their structures, and naturally, it would be more efficient and less costly than the government doing so.
5. Their 'monetary system' allowed the government to appropriate gold and silver from those who earned it, and was a large part of the reason the Great Depression occurred in the first place. Before the Federal Reserve Bank was created, our currency was far more stable, and the government wasn't holding all of it, simply assuring us that it's still there.
6. Private Security is more effective, at half the cost. Fire protection would likely be more efficient as well, however, even if it wasn't, it's not needed for a business to operate. It's obviously in a business' best interest for their place NOT to burn down, thus there's already incentive to protect it themselves.
7. The government itself makes the competition 'unfair' by selling out to lobbyists. More government is not the solution to too much government. If the government wasn't capable of interfering in the economy, this would not be a problem in the first lace, as there would be no regulations on businesses starting, the bad ones would naturally fail on their own. Of course, not only that, but the government also bails out failing businesses, allowing them to make bad business decisions without the threat of their own reputation or bad decisions causing them to fail. This in and of itself circumvents Capitalism's benefits, and thus is not Capitalism, but corporatism, making the government detrimental to a Capitalist system, not necessary TO one. In other words, with mommy government looking out for big corporations and selling out to lobbyists, not only does it infringe on our rights with force and coercion naturally through necessity, but it also prevents our system from being capitalist through the control it exerts over our economy, which it should not have in the first place.

You have a Pollyanna view of free markets
It is based on a survival of the fittest marketplace where anything goes. We have seen what happens when we allow the marketplace to police itself .......capitalists exploit the weak
You don’t want to protect intellectual property? Then let a large company with unlimited assets steal an invention you spent your life’s earnings on
You want each company or industry to build its own roads and bridges? You would have bedlam
Don’t want the government to provide police and fire? Works OK if you are a corporation and can work it into your bottom line. But what about the mom and pop store who have local hoods breaking in at night? If you catch a criminal, what do you do? Incarcerate them yourself?

You underestimate the importance of a stable monetary system. It is what makes commerce possible.

Don’t want any government? Then protect your own marketplace both at home and abroad. No courts, no protection against predatory capitalists who drive you out of business, intimidate your suppliers and customers, undercut your prices until you go out of business and then jack them up once the completion is gone

You view Capitalism as self policing......in practice, it is predatory and cut throat

Capitalists can't exploit anyone, as their success is based on demand. If individuals are demanding something and a Capitalist provides the supply, it's not exploitation. Your statement is based on confusing profit and exploitation.

Other companies copying a product would lead to more competition, which is better for all buyers. After that, it comes down to improving that product and selling it for a better price, as simply having a similar or same product is not the end goal, it's having a better product for a better price. Even then, it also depends on the individual, as some would prefer a cheaper and lower quality product, so that they may live within their means. Your oversimplification does, however, suit your understanding, that being minimal.

Their roads and bridges would have to be safe and efficient, otherwise nobody would want to travel to that location.

Businesses would simply incorporate the cost of private security into the cost of their items, or use their surplus to pay for it. Since it isn't police, they'd be half the cost, and more efficient. Not only this, but they would have to compete with the other private security businesses offering their services as well. Furthermore, private courts would be more efficient than state courts, they wouldn't submit to the will of lobbyists, otherwise their reputation would be ruined and they would receive no more customers.

Capitalists aren't predatory, they seek to maximize profit and minimize cost. This results in needing to meet the demands of their customers to the best of their ability. Furthermore, simply jacking prices up after competition is gone would result in more competitors rising up and meeting customer demands better. Not only this, but operating at a loss wouldn't eliminate competition, it would take a very long time and cost a fortune, and can't be permanent, as in order to create a permanent monopoly, they would need government help, OR permanent control of ALL resources used to build the product, AND would need to ensure that no OTHER resources can be used to build SIMILAR products.

Again you reply with Pollyanna logic depending on the inherent goodness of Capitalism.

The history of unfettered Capitalism shows a predatory institution with survival of the fittest.

While you think it results in lower prices for the consumer, it ultimately leads to monopolies that control the marketplace

Capitalism is the preferred method of economic expansion. But it needs a strong government in place to ensure a level playing field and an opportunity for small businesses to exist and prosper

 

[gallantwarrior]

The Republican ‘solution’ to most everything doesn’t make any sense.

And Republicans have no desire to end poverty; conservative economic dogma maintains that one is poor as a consequence of his own failings, poor decisions, and an inability to compete and be successful in a capitalist system – in essence Social Darwinism.

For conservatives the poor have only themselves to blame and deserve neither assistance nor a ‘solution.’

And yet every single time it's tried across the entire world, it works. China is proof that Capitalism works. India is proof Capitalism works.

And the left-wing government socialist approach has failed every single time. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and of course the USSR. All hell-holes of misery and suffering, brought on by the same ideology that Democrats routinely support.

Albert Einstein is broadly credited with exclaiming “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
That being said, liberals are insane and should never be permitted to have firearms. So, all registered Democrats should have their homes and businesses raided and all firearms confiscated.

 

[Norman]

Only a leftist would talk about solving poverty for all, while not even being able to solve his own poverty.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

All that bribery money ya took from the Iranians I bet could help a few people

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

I thought you watched CNN and Madcow?

MSNBC CNBC CNN and when I need a laugh FOX

So you believe Madcow lied about Trumps taxes?

So what did the ole dyke say.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

All that bribery money ya took from the Iranians I bet could help a few people

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

I thought you watched CNN and Madcow?

MSNBC CNBC CNN and when I need a laugh FOX

So you believe Madcow lied about Trumps taxes?

No here we go It was ONE return cherry picked by trump AND who knows how much of those taxes he paid were refunded the following years ? And I strongly believe there's much money laundering to be exposed soon

Pure speculation on your part.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

So.....your solution? If they can't get jobs, are we who work our derrieres off for what little we earn, to be expected to give over our hard-earned dollars to those who sit on their derrieres and do nothing? There will ALWAYS be poor people. There's no such thing as eliminating poverty. Travel to North Korea and watch the dirt poor farmers who barely scrape by and are oppressed by their socialist/communist overlords. If they try to leave to find a better life, they are arrested, put in re-education camps or murdered.
Go to China. Aside from the shiny tall skyscrapers in their major cities, wander among the back crowded areas......there is poverty. Try Cuba.....there is poverty there as well. Perhaps you should travel to Venezuela. You might want to bring some food with you, otherwise you will get very hungry.
Or, perhaps you think that Sweden's socialist policies would be great. Well, technically, Sweden as well as the rest of western Europe is a Capitalist country with some social programs (health care, retirement, basically, cradle to grave care....in return, if you call out of work, you better really be sick, because they don't take your word for it, they actually check up on you to make sure). The problem with their social programs is that they are actually in the process of collapsing due to the huge influx of migrants and the money isn't there to cover for all the people. Socialist policies can't handle huge influxes of peoples. It overloads the systems. Now, most of the migrants are not only poor, but homeless, living in the streets of Paris, et cetera.
Millions of people flocked to this country over the last few hundred years to flee oppression and persecution from.....religious led governments, military juntas, Nazi Germany(National SOCIALIST German Workers Party), Fascism (Mussolini's Italy), Communism, Oligarchies and other dictatorships. They came here to seek their dreams and live their lives without large government interference in their lives.
If I might suggest, actually read our US Constitution, its Amendments and the Federalist papers. Also, take some economics classes. Learn.
The best way to get out of poverty remains: 1. Stay in school. 2. Don't get pregnant, or if a male, don't get a girl pregnant. 3. Get a job, no matter how trivial the job is...at least you're working (everyone starts out at the bottom). As your job experience increases, try for better paying jobs. 3. Once you have a steady income AND can afford it, you can get married, only then have children and only as many children as you can afford. If all you can afford is one, get snipped so you don't have more, or use precautions.
I started out mowing lawns as a kid to bring in money to the household. When I was in high school, I worked part-time as a dishwasher in a Chinese restaurant. I've painted fences, dug post-holes, moved furniture, been a night watchman, made pizzas, driven taxis, bartended, door-to-door sales, was a bag-machine repairman in a bag factory, delivered mail/sorted mail, drifting from job to job, not really happy in any one of them, all to bring in money, I finally settled into the military and liked it and accepted the risks. But, what I didn't do, is go around with the belief that I should be sitting on my can. No matter how crappy the pay, it's work and food on the table.

Don't need your sermon. You aren't giving your dollars to anything. What you give amounts to less than 2 cents when you consider the the amount really spent and the number of taxpaying citizens. And you definitely aren't paying for anyone to sit on heir butts because the average stay on welfare was less than 2 years before they only allowed 2 consecutive years on welfare by law. There are people working the full 40 on poverty. Our military in the lower ranks have to get welfare to help them out. So all your repeating that silly conservative garbage is just you wasting bandwidth.

During my career in the military, I donated regularly for two decades to the Combined Federal Campaign to help others, but it was "voluntary," not mandated. When I got out, I didn't sit back, I got another job. As long as you breathe, get jobs. Some of those jobs I listed were part of working more than one job at a time. Working two jobs makes you damn tired at the end of the day, but there's a roof over your head and food on the table. As for the working poor, my daughters pay puts her into that category and I supplement her income and when I go, she'll have my life insurance and the money I've amassed.
As you seem to think socialism is such a great deal, point out a socialist country that flourishes and doesn't have a population of poor people. Even precious Canada has poor people and the Canadians are getting sick of Trudeau and have started looking to conservatives.
The vast majority in this great nation have a roof over their heads, food in the refrigerator, a bed to sleep in, a television, can read, money in their pockets and some money in the bank and even if low income, can get emergency medical services under Medicaid and Medicare. The homeless in the streets consist of the following:
1. Drug addicts. 2. Alcoholics. 3. Mentally-ill. 4. Some illegal migrants. 5. Some who actually like the nomadic lifestyle and have said so. 6. Criminals on the run.
My solution for them: 1. Provide drug/alcohol treatment and "temporary" housing for those individuals. 2. Illegal migrants sent back to their native nations. The US gives more millions to each of those Central American nations each year than there are actual people living there and those governments need to change their policies or we should not be giving them dime one. 3 and 4. We can't do anything about those individuals. Since they prefer their nomadic lifestyle and others are criminals on the move, well, that's on them.

 

[jc456]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

WOW!!!!! I knew the left were stupid, this guy advertises it.

there is no solution to poverty. As the words were written in Jesus Christ Superstar. "There will be poor always pathetically struggling."

there are over 5 million available jobs for qualified people. why don't the poor go after those? I bet you actually try and answer that.

 

[LuckyDuck]

The best way to get out of poverty remains: 1. Stay in school. 2. Don't get pregnant, or if a male, don't get a girl pregnant. 3. Get a job, no matter how trivial the job is...at least you're working (everyone starts out at the bottom). As your job experience increases, try for better paying jobs. 3. Once you have a steady income AND can afford it, you can get married, only then have children and only as many children as you can afford. If all you can afford is one, get snipped so you don't have more, or use precautions.

The one thing I would like to add is not having children until you get into a field of work that you can use in other companies. Just because a company is paying you good enough money to get married and have kids doesn't mean that company will be around in four years. You need to have a skill set of some kind where if your company gets bought out, moves to another state or country, closes down, you still have the ability to make the same money somewhere else.

I agree with that and companies that offer technical jobs, should offer training programs so that applicants, even if not familiar with the type of work needed, can learn as long as they sign on for a pre-determined number of years to compensate for training costs and benefit the company.
The policies of a company advertising that any applicant "must" have x-number of years working in one program and another x-number of years in another, keeps people out of learning the job and ultimately benefiting the company. Teaching applicants while mandating a number of years service with the companies would be a step up for the applicant and beneficial for the company and also the applicant wouldn't come in with his/her own pre-conceived ideas about how to run the program.

 

[edward37]

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

I thought you watched CNN and Madcow?

MSNBC CNBC CNN and when I need a laugh FOX

So you believe Madcow lied about Trumps taxes?

No here we go It was ONE return cherry picked by trump AND who knows how much of those taxes he paid were refunded the following years ? And I strongly believe there's much money laundering to be exposed soon

Pure speculation on your part.

Yes Here it is But knowing how filthy trump has been his whole life I'd say it's an educated guess

 

[Oldstyle]

The Republican solution to poverty is the old proverb.......Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime

But what happens when there are no more fish in the pond?

Republicans just say......not my problem

Ah...if there are no more fish in the pond then how are you going to "give" that man his fish?

Perhaps the dumbest analogy of all time, Winger!

We are a society of We the People. We can draw on our reserves of fish and make sure people do not starve

First you claim there are no fish in the pond...then you claim that we have fish "reserves"? Not only is your analogy awful, Winger...it seems to have confused you.

So which is it...no fish in the pond...or so many that we have "reserves"?

As for what made American society great? It wasn't that we gave things away...it's that we gave people the opportunity to get the things that they dreamed of! That's the gist of the "American Dream"! That's why people have been trying to get to this country for hundreds of years! Not because of handouts...but because of opportunity!

 

[edward37]

The Republican solution to poverty is the old proverb.......Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime

But what happens when there are no more fish in the pond?

Republicans just say......not my problem

Ah...if there are no more fish in the pond then how are you going to "give" that man his fish?

Perhaps the dumbest analogy of all time, Winger!

We are a society of We the People. We can draw on our reserves of fish and make sure people do not starve

First you claim there are no fish in the pond...then you claim that we have fish "reserves"? Not only is your analogy awful, Winger...it seems to have confused you.

So which is it...no fish in the pond...or so many that we have "reserves"?

As for what made American society great? It wasn't that we gave things away...it's that we gave people the opportunity to get the things that they dreamed of! That's the gist of the "American Dream"! That's why people have been trying to get to this country for hundreds of years! Not because of handouts...but because of opportunity!

Does kinder ,generous and fair enter the picture ,,and of course opportunity

 

[Pumpkin Row]

There are no rules to capitalism, it regulates itself naturally, as your reputation is everything. For that, a government isn't needed, it only impedes this.

Individuals don't need any of those. Capitalism is any form of voluntary exchange. The government only brings coercion and force into the mix, preventing it from functioning optimally. Your belief that a government always existed defies all logic. In fact, the first known government was not formed at the beginning of time, but between ca. 3500–2332 BCE, by the Sumerians, meaning that regardless of what you'd like to think, the government hasn't been infringing on our rights since the dawn of man.

If an individual steals something, their reputation is ruined, and they'll no longer have any business, effectively giving their customers over to their competition. Government doesn't form the moral fabric of society, consequences do.

No, they don't, inherent value of an object does. The government took existing valuable objects; gold, silver, etc, and created the Federal Reserve bank, which exchanged those for bank notes, which insist that the valuable objects are still there, and that the bank notes represent those. Government doesn't create value. Even aside from those, people traded objects for other objects without those valuable metals. Trading has always existed, and was not invented by the government, and arguing that they make all trading possible is just hilariously ignorant.

What the government does for capitalists

Enforces contracts
Protects intellectual property
Educates a workforce
Provides infrastructure
Provides a monetary system
Provides physical security and fire protection
Protects from unfair competition at home and abroad

1. The government isn't needed for enforcing contracts, a business that violates its contracts will not be part of future deals, due to the damage to their reputation. Of course, the government would rule in favor of lobbyists, anyway, actually meaning that the government makes this worse.
2. The government's control over this only prevents other businesses from improving upon an existing idea, this is actually bad. Similarly, patents are also a horrible concept, as it's one reason the cost of medicine is allowed to be gouged. In other words, politicians have been telling us that the government needs to fix a problem that the government is behind in the first place.
3. The government's education is not only extremely costly, as the government spends more per student than any private school, with worse results, but also unnecessary. With competition, results would be better and cheaper.
4. I'm actually still debating whether or not the government is needed for this, as businesses would have incentive to hire private sector workers to build the roads to their structures, and naturally, it would be more efficient and less costly than the government doing so.
5. Their 'monetary system' allowed the government to appropriate gold and silver from those who earned it, and was a large part of the reason the Great Depression occurred in the first place. Before the Federal Reserve Bank was created, our currency was far more stable, and the government wasn't holding all of it, simply assuring us that it's still there.
6. Private Security is more effective, at half the cost. Fire protection would likely be more efficient as well, however, even if it wasn't, it's not needed for a business to operate. It's obviously in a business' best interest for their place NOT to burn down, thus there's already incentive to protect it themselves.
7. The government itself makes the competition 'unfair' by selling out to lobbyists. More government is not the solution to too much government. If the government wasn't capable of interfering in the economy, this would not be a problem in the first lace, as there would be no regulations on businesses starting, the bad ones would naturally fail on their own. Of course, not only that, but the government also bails out failing businesses, allowing them to make bad business decisions without the threat of their own reputation or bad decisions causing them to fail. This in and of itself circumvents Capitalism's benefits, and thus is not Capitalism, but corporatism, making the government detrimental to a Capitalist system, not necessary TO one. In other words, with mommy government looking out for big corporations and selling out to lobbyists, not only does it infringe on our rights with force and coercion naturally through necessity, but it also prevents our system from being capitalist through the control it exerts over our economy, which it should not have in the first place.

You have a Pollyanna view of free markets
It is based on a survival of the fittest marketplace where anything goes. We have seen what happens when we allow the marketplace to police itself .......capitalists exploit the weak
You don’t want to protect intellectual property? Then let a large company with unlimited assets steal an invention you spent your life’s earnings on
You want each company or industry to build its own roads and bridges? You would have bedlam
Don’t want the government to provide police and fire? Works OK if you are a corporation and can work it into your bottom line. But what about the mom and pop store who have local hoods breaking in at night? If you catch a criminal, what do you do? Incarcerate them yourself?

You underestimate the importance of a stable monetary system. It is what makes commerce possible.

Don’t want any government? Then protect your own marketplace both at home and abroad. No courts, no protection against predatory capitalists who drive you out of business, intimidate your suppliers and customers, undercut your prices until you go out of business and then jack them up once the completion is gone

You view Capitalism as self policing......in practice, it is predatory and cut throat

Capitalists can't exploit anyone, as their success is based on demand. If individuals are demanding something and a Capitalist provides the supply, it's not exploitation. Your statement is based on confusing profit and exploitation.

Other companies copying a product would lead to more competition, which is better for all buyers. After that, it comes down to improving that product and selling it for a better price, as simply having a similar or same product is not the end goal, it's having a better product for a better price. Even then, it also depends on the individual, as some would prefer a cheaper and lower quality product, so that they may live within their means. Your oversimplification does, however, suit your understanding, that being minimal.

Their roads and bridges would have to be safe and efficient, otherwise nobody would want to travel to that location.

Businesses would simply incorporate the cost of private security into the cost of their items, or use their surplus to pay for it. Since it isn't police, they'd be half the cost, and more efficient. Not only this, but they would have to compete with the other private security businesses offering their services as well. Furthermore, private courts would be more efficient than state courts, they wouldn't submit to the will of lobbyists, otherwise their reputation would be ruined and they would receive no more customers.

Capitalists aren't predatory, they seek to maximize profit and minimize cost. This results in needing to meet the demands of their customers to the best of their ability. Furthermore, simply jacking prices up after competition is gone would result in more competitors rising up and meeting customer demands better. Not only this, but operating at a loss wouldn't eliminate competition, it would take a very long time and cost a fortune, and can't be permanent, as in order to create a permanent monopoly, they would need government help, OR permanent control of ALL resources used to build the product, AND would need to ensure that no OTHER resources can be used to build SIMILAR products.

Again you reply with Pollyanna logic depending on the inherent goodness of Capitalism.

The history of unfettered Capitalism shows a predatory institution with survival of the fittest.

While you think it results in lower prices for the consumer, it ultimately leads to monopolies that control the marketplace

Capitalism is the preferred method of economic expansion. But it needs a strong government in place to ensure a level playing field and an opportunity for small businesses to exist and prosper

I don't have to depend on anything but the drive to earn as much money as possible. I don't have to rely on inherent goodness in people, in fact, I believe the vast majority of humans are worthless trash. What I'm pointing out to you is the fact that in their drive to earn as much money as possible, the businesses are at the mercy of their consumers when the government is taken out of the equation. They have to provide a service, and they have to have a good reputation, or nobody will want to perform voluntary exchange with them. If they rip off their consumers or do something perceived as unethical by the general masses, they won't seek to conduct business with them. What you're assuming is 'goodness' is just logic.

Survival of the fittest is exactly what the masses want. Those unfit for business go under, and those who give the customers what they demand are the successful. A business only fails if nobody demands their service, and that's exactly as it should be.

Monopolies are inherently impossible without government support. Not a single monopoly has ever existed without the government helping it along, because otherwise a business would need to ALSO control every resource needed for their service, which is impossible, because no business' control reaches to every corner of the globe, or even every corner of a single state or Nation. The fact that you haven't seen me already state this fact to you, and the fact that you haven't even attempted to debunk it or acknowledge it only shows me that you have no argument against it.

No, a strong government is what strangles the economy and prevents it from operating optimally, as I've already explained to you, and you haven't attempted to argue against it. I've countered your entire argument, and you've only restated your claim, rather than counter my argument. This shows me that you have nothing left.

 

[Flash]

The best way to alleviate poverty is to stop voting for Liberals and their failed Left economic policies, that always leads to more poverty. We have seen that all over the world.

Under Obama's stupid Left polices poverty increased, family income decreased, debt soared, income disparity increased and we had dismal economic growth.

 

[rightwinger]

The Republican solution to poverty is the old proverb.......Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime

But what happens when there are no more fish in the pond?

Republicans just say......not my problem

Ah...if there are no more fish in the pond then how are you going to "give" that man his fish?

Perhaps the dumbest analogy of all time, Winger!

We are a society of We the People. We can draw on our reserves of fish and make sure people do not starve

First you claim there are no fish in the pond...then you claim that we have fish "reserves"? Not only is your analogy awful, Winger...it seems to have confused you.

So which is it...no fish in the pond...or so many that we have "reserves"?

As for what made American society great? It wasn't that we gave things away...it's that we gave people the opportunity to get the things that they dreamed of! That's the gist of the "American Dream"! That's why people have been trying to get to this country for hundreds of years! Not because of handouts...but because of opportunity!

Our country is made up of many, many ponds
Collectively, we have many fish
Individual ponds may be fished out

 

[rightwinger]

What the government does for capitalists

Enforces contracts
Protects intellectual property
Educates a workforce
Provides infrastructure
Provides a monetary system
Provides physical security and fire protection
Protects from unfair competition at home and abroad

1. The government isn't needed for enforcing contracts, a business that violates its contracts will not be part of future deals, due to the damage to their reputation. Of course, the government would rule in favor of lobbyists, anyway, actually meaning that the government makes this worse.
2. The government's control over this only prevents other businesses from improving upon an existing idea, this is actually bad. Similarly, patents are also a horrible concept, as it's one reason the cost of medicine is allowed to be gouged. In other words, politicians have been telling us that the government needs to fix a problem that the government is behind in the first place.
3. The government's education is not only extremely costly, as the government spends more per student than any private school, with worse results, but also unnecessary. With competition, results would be better and cheaper.
4. I'm actually still debating whether or not the government is needed for this, as businesses would have incentive to hire private sector workers to build the roads to their structures, and naturally, it would be more efficient and less costly than the government doing so.
5. Their 'monetary system' allowed the government to appropriate gold and silver from those who earned it, and was a large part of the reason the Great Depression occurred in the first place. Before the Federal Reserve Bank was created, our currency was far more stable, and the government wasn't holding all of it, simply assuring us that it's still there.
6. Private Security is more effective, at half the cost. Fire protection would likely be more efficient as well, however, even if it wasn't, it's not needed for a business to operate. It's obviously in a business' best interest for their place NOT to burn down, thus there's already incentive to protect it themselves.
7. The government itself makes the competition 'unfair' by selling out to lobbyists. More government is not the solution to too much government. If the government wasn't capable of interfering in the economy, this would not be a problem in the first lace, as there would be no regulations on businesses starting, the bad ones would naturally fail on their own. Of course, not only that, but the government also bails out failing businesses, allowing them to make bad business decisions without the threat of their own reputation or bad decisions causing them to fail. This in and of itself circumvents Capitalism's benefits, and thus is not Capitalism, but corporatism, making the government detrimental to a Capitalist system, not necessary TO one. In other words, with mommy government looking out for big corporations and selling out to lobbyists, not only does it infringe on our rights with force and coercion naturally through necessity, but it also prevents our system from being capitalist through the control it exerts over our economy, which it should not have in the first place.

You have a Pollyanna view of free markets
It is based on a survival of the fittest marketplace where anything goes. We have seen what happens when we allow the marketplace to police itself .......capitalists exploit the weak
You don’t want to protect intellectual property? Then let a large company with unlimited assets steal an invention you spent your life’s earnings on
You want each company or industry to build its own roads and bridges? You would have bedlam
Don’t want the government to provide police and fire? Works OK if you are a corporation and can work it into your bottom line. But what about the mom and pop store who have local hoods breaking in at night? If you catch a criminal, what do you do? Incarcerate them yourself?

You underestimate the importance of a stable monetary system. It is what makes commerce possible.

Don’t want any government? Then protect your own marketplace both at home and abroad. No courts, no protection against predatory capitalists who drive you out of business, intimidate your suppliers and customers, undercut your prices until you go out of business and then jack them up once the completion is gone

You view Capitalism as self policing......in practice, it is predatory and cut throat

Capitalists can't exploit anyone, as their success is based on demand. If individuals are demanding something and a Capitalist provides the supply, it's not exploitation. Your statement is based on confusing profit and exploitation.

Other companies copying a product would lead to more competition, which is better for all buyers. After that, it comes down to improving that product and selling it for a better price, as simply having a similar or same product is not the end goal, it's having a better product for a better price. Even then, it also depends on the individual, as some would prefer a cheaper and lower quality product, so that they may live within their means. Your oversimplification does, however, suit your understanding, that being minimal.

Their roads and bridges would have to be safe and efficient, otherwise nobody would want to travel to that location.

Businesses would simply incorporate the cost of private security into the cost of their items, or use their surplus to pay for it. Since it isn't police, they'd be half the cost, and more efficient. Not only this, but they would have to compete with the other private security businesses offering their services as well. Furthermore, private courts would be more efficient than state courts, they wouldn't submit to the will of lobbyists, otherwise their reputation would be ruined and they would receive no more customers.

Capitalists aren't predatory, they seek to maximize profit and minimize cost. This results in needing to meet the demands of their customers to the best of their ability. Furthermore, simply jacking prices up after competition is gone would result in more competitors rising up and meeting customer demands better. Not only this, but operating at a loss wouldn't eliminate competition, it would take a very long time and cost a fortune, and can't be permanent, as in order to create a permanent monopoly, they would need government help, OR permanent control of ALL resources used to build the product, AND would need to ensure that no OTHER resources can be used to build SIMILAR products.

Again you reply with Pollyanna logic depending on the inherent goodness of Capitalism.

The history of unfettered Capitalism shows a predatory institution with survival of the fittest.

While you think it results in lower prices for the consumer, it ultimately leads to monopolies that control the marketplace

Capitalism is the preferred method of economic expansion. But it needs a strong government in place to ensure a level playing field and an opportunity for small businesses to exist and prosper

I don't have to depend on anything but the drive to earn as much money as possible. I don't have to rely on inherent goodness in people, in fact, I believe the vast majority of humans are worthless trash. What I'm pointing out to you is the fact that in their drive to earn as much money as possible, the businesses are at the mercy of their consumers when the government is taken out of the equation. They have to provide a service, and they have to have a good reputation, or nobody will want to perform voluntary exchange with them. If they rip off their consumers or do something perceived as unethical by the general masses, they won't seek to conduct business with them. What you're assuming is 'goodness' is just logic.

Survival of the fittest is exactly what the masses want. Those unfit for business go under, and those who give the customers what they demand are the successful. A business only fails if nobody demands their service, and that's exactly as it should be.

Monopolies are inherently impossible without government support. Not a single monopoly has ever existed without the government helping it along, because otherwise a business would need to ALSO control every resource needed for their service, which is impossible, because no business' control reaches to every corner of the globe, or even every corner of a single state or Nation. The fact that you haven't seen me already state this fact to you, and the fact that you haven't even attempted to debunk it or acknowledge it only shows me that you have no argument against it.

No, a strong government is what strangles the economy and prevents it from operating optimally, as I've already explained to you, and you haven't attempted to argue against it. I've countered your entire argument, and you've only restated your claim, rather than counter my argument. This shows me that you have nothing left.

Consumers couldn’t care less about the business ethics of whom they buy their products from. If my business uses every dirty trick in the book to drive you out of business, they really don’t know or care.
But in the end, there will be one business to buy from, at the price they ask

That is capitalism at its core

 

[IM2]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

So.....your solution? If they can't get jobs, are we who work our derrieres off for what little we earn, to be expected to give over our hard-earned dollars to those who sit on their derrieres and do nothing? There will ALWAYS be poor people. There's no such thing as eliminating poverty. Travel to North Korea and watch the dirt poor farmers who barely scrape by and are oppressed by their socialist/communist overlords. If they try to leave to find a better life, they are arrested, put in re-education camps or murdered.
Go to China. Aside from the shiny tall skyscrapers in their major cities, wander among the back crowded areas......there is poverty. Try Cuba.....there is poverty there as well. Perhaps you should travel to Venezuela. You might want to bring some food with you, otherwise you will get very hungry.
Or, perhaps you think that Sweden's socialist policies would be great. Well, technically, Sweden as well as the rest of western Europe is a Capitalist country with some social programs (health care, retirement, basically, cradle to grave care....in return, if you call out of work, you better really be sick, because they don't take your word for it, they actually check up on you to make sure). The problem with their social programs is that they are actually in the process of collapsing due to the huge influx of migrants and the money isn't there to cover for all the people. Socialist policies can't handle huge influxes of peoples. It overloads the systems. Now, most of the migrants are not only poor, but homeless, living in the streets of Paris, et cetera.
Millions of people flocked to this country over the last few hundred years to flee oppression and persecution from.....religious led governments, military juntas, Nazi Germany(National SOCIALIST German Workers Party), Fascism (Mussolini's Italy), Communism, Oligarchies and other dictatorships. They came here to seek their dreams and live their lives without large government interference in their lives.
If I might suggest, actually read our US Constitution, its Amendments and the Federalist papers. Also, take some economics classes. Learn.
The best way to get out of poverty remains: 1. Stay in school. 2. Don't get pregnant, or if a male, don't get a girl pregnant. 3. Get a job, no matter how trivial the job is...at least you're working (everyone starts out at the bottom). As your job experience increases, try for better paying jobs. 3. Once you have a steady income AND can afford it, you can get married, only then have children and only as many children as you can afford. If all you can afford is one, get snipped so you don't have more, or use precautions.
I started out mowing lawns as a kid to bring in money to the household. When I was in high school, I worked part-time as a dishwasher in a Chinese restaurant. I've painted fences, dug post-holes, moved furniture, been a night watchman, made pizzas, driven taxis, bartended, door-to-door sales, was a bag-machine repairman in a bag factory, delivered mail/sorted mail, drifting from job to job, not really happy in any one of them, all to bring in money, I finally settled into the military and liked it and accepted the risks. But, what I didn't do, is go around with the belief that I should be sitting on my can. No matter how crappy the pay, it's work and food on the table.

Don't need your sermon. You aren't giving your dollars to anything. What you give amounts to less than 2 cents when you consider the the amount really spent and the number of taxpaying citizens. And you definitely aren't paying for anyone to sit on heir butts because the average stay on welfare was less than 2 years before they only allowed 2 consecutive years on welfare by law. There are people working the full 40 on poverty. Our military in the lower ranks have to get welfare to help them out. So all your repeating that silly conservative garbage is just you wasting bandwidth.

During my career in the military, I donated regularly for two decades to the Combined Federal Campaign to help others, but it was "voluntary," not mandated. When I got out, I didn't sit back, I got another job. As long as you breathe, get jobs. Some of those jobs I listed were part of working more than one job at a time. Working two jobs makes you damn tired at the end of the day, but there's a roof over your head and food on the table. As for the working poor, my daughters pay puts her into that category and I supplement her income and when I go, she'll have my life insurance and the money I've amassed.
As you seem to think socialism is such a great deal, point out a socialist country that flourishes and doesn't have a population of poor people. Even precious Canada has poor people and the Canadians are getting sick of Trudeau and have started looking to conservatives.
The vast majority in this great nation have a roof over their heads, food in the refrigerator, a bed to sleep in, a television, can read, money in their pockets and some money in the bank and even if low income, can get emergency medical services under Medicaid and Medicare. The homeless in the streets consist of the following:
1. Drug addicts. 2. Alcoholics. 3. Mentally-ill. 4. Some illegal migrants. 5. Some who actually like the nomadic lifestyle and have said so. 6. Criminals on the run.
My solution for them: 1. Provide drug/alcohol treatment and "temporary" housing for those individuals. 2. Illegal migrants sent back to their native nations. The US gives more millions to each of those Central American nations each year than there are actual people living there and those governments need to change their policies or we should not be giving them dime one. 3 and 4. We can't do anything about those individuals. Since they prefer their nomadic lifestyle and others are criminals on the move, well, that's on them.

Yawn! What countries do you think are socialist? I've not mentioned socialism but you assume. And most of your post is assumptions. I worked with homeless people. I can say that you are wrong. There are some of what you say, but there are many who don't fit your description. And the problem with you amateurs full of yourselves is that even if people are drug addicts or alcoholics there is a reason why they became that way and it was not just because they decided to make a choice to become that way. As a nation of people we need to drop the attitude. The greatest resource we have are the people who live here. There should be no amount of money spared investing in the people who live here. Instead we want to invest as little as possible in our people then expect that to be a winning formula. It's a recipe for failure and that's where we are headed if we do things the way you conservatives think should be done.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Republican solution to poverty is the old proverb.......Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime

But what happens when there are no more fish in the pond?

Republicans just say......not my problem

Ah...if there are no more fish in the pond then how are you going to "give" that man his fish?

Perhaps the dumbest analogy of all time, Winger!

We are a society of We the People. We can draw on our reserves of fish and make sure people do not starve

First you claim there are no fish in the pond...then you claim that we have fish "reserves"? Not only is your analogy awful, Winger...it seems to have confused you.

So which is it...no fish in the pond...or so many that we have "reserves"?

As for what made American society great? It wasn't that we gave things away...it's that we gave people the opportunity to get the things that they dreamed of! That's the gist of the "American Dream"! That's why people have been trying to get to this country for hundreds of years! Not because of handouts...but because of opportunity!

Our country is made up of many, many ponds
Collectively, we have many fish
Individual ponds may be fished out

Then you go to where the ponds are stocked.

 

[IM2]

The Republican solution to poverty is the old proverb.......Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime

But what happens when there are no more fish in the pond?

Republicans just say......not my problem

Ah...if there are no more fish in the pond then how are you going to "give" that man his fish?

Perhaps the dumbest analogy of all time, Winger!

We are a society of We the People. We can draw on our reserves of fish and make sure people do not starve

First you claim there are no fish in the pond...then you claim that we have fish "reserves"? Not only is your analogy awful, Winger...it seems to have confused you.

So which is it...no fish in the pond...or so many that we have "reserves"?

As for what made American society great? It wasn't that we gave things away...it's that we gave people the opportunity to get the things that they dreamed of! That's the gist of the "American Dream"! That's why people have been trying to get to this country for hundreds of years! Not because of handouts...but because of opportunity!

Actually there were loads of handouts involved.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The best way to get out of poverty remains: 1. Stay in school. 2. Don't get pregnant, or if a male, don't get a girl pregnant. 3. Get a job, no matter how trivial the job is...at least you're working (everyone starts out at the bottom). As your job experience increases, try for better paying jobs. 3. Once you have a steady income AND can afford it, you can get married, only then have children and only as many children as you can afford. If all you can afford is one, get snipped so you don't have more, or use precautions.

The one thing I would like to add is not having children until you get into a field of work that you can use in other companies. Just because a company is paying you good enough money to get married and have kids doesn't mean that company will be around in four years. You need to have a skill set of some kind where if your company gets bought out, moves to another state or country, closes down, you still have the ability to make the same money somewhere else.

I agree with that and companies that offer technical jobs, should offer training programs so that applicants, even if not familiar with the type of work needed, can learn as long as they sign on for a pre-determined number of years to compensate for training costs and benefit the company.
The policies of a company advertising that any applicant "must" have x-number of years working in one program and another x-number of years in another, keeps people out of learning the job and ultimately benefiting the company. Teaching applicants while mandating a number of years service with the companies would be a step up for the applicant and beneficial for the company and also the applicant wouldn't come in with his/her own pre-conceived ideas about how to run the program.

It's really not the companies business to be educating people. People need to prepare themselves for the job, not expect the company to prepare them for the job. Very few places are going to pay you to learn something because a business can't make profit off a worker going to school. Businesses make profit by putting somebody to work and selling the work for a profit.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

1. The government isn't needed for enforcing contracts, a business that violates its contracts will not be part of future deals, due to the damage to their reputation. Of course, the government would rule in favor of lobbyists, anyway, actually meaning that the government makes this worse.
2. The government's control over this only prevents other businesses from improving upon an existing idea, this is actually bad. Similarly, patents are also a horrible concept, as it's one reason the cost of medicine is allowed to be gouged. In other words, politicians have been telling us that the government needs to fix a problem that the government is behind in the first place.
3. The government's education is not only extremely costly, as the government spends more per student than any private school, with worse results, but also unnecessary. With competition, results would be better and cheaper.
4. I'm actually still debating whether or not the government is needed for this, as businesses would have incentive to hire private sector workers to build the roads to their structures, and naturally, it would be more efficient and less costly than the government doing so.
5. Their 'monetary system' allowed the government to appropriate gold and silver from those who earned it, and was a large part of the reason the Great Depression occurred in the first place. Before the Federal Reserve Bank was created, our currency was far more stable, and the government wasn't holding all of it, simply assuring us that it's still there.
6. Private Security is more effective, at half the cost. Fire protection would likely be more efficient as well, however, even if it wasn't, it's not needed for a business to operate. It's obviously in a business' best interest for their place NOT to burn down, thus there's already incentive to protect it themselves.
7. The government itself makes the competition 'unfair' by selling out to lobbyists. More government is not the solution to too much government. If the government wasn't capable of interfering in the economy, this would not be a problem in the first lace, as there would be no regulations on businesses starting, the bad ones would naturally fail on their own. Of course, not only that, but the government also bails out failing businesses, allowing them to make bad business decisions without the threat of their own reputation or bad decisions causing them to fail. This in and of itself circumvents Capitalism's benefits, and thus is not Capitalism, but corporatism, making the government detrimental to a Capitalist system, not necessary TO one. In other words, with mommy government looking out for big corporations and selling out to lobbyists, not only does it infringe on our rights with force and coercion naturally through necessity, but it also prevents our system from being capitalist through the control it exerts over our economy, which it should not have in the first place.

You have a Pollyanna view of free markets
It is based on a survival of the fittest marketplace where anything goes. We have seen what happens when we allow the marketplace to police itself .......capitalists exploit the weak
You don’t want to protect intellectual property? Then let a large company with unlimited assets steal an invention you spent your life’s earnings on
You want each company or industry to build its own roads and bridges? You would have bedlam
Don’t want the government to provide police and fire? Works OK if you are a corporation and can work it into your bottom line. But what about the mom and pop store who have local hoods breaking in at night? If you catch a criminal, what do you do? Incarcerate them yourself?

You underestimate the importance of a stable monetary system. It is what makes commerce possible.

Don’t want any government? Then protect your own marketplace both at home and abroad. No courts, no protection against predatory capitalists who drive you out of business, intimidate your suppliers and customers, undercut your prices until you go out of business and then jack them up once the completion is gone

You view Capitalism as self policing......in practice, it is predatory and cut throat

Capitalists can't exploit anyone, as their success is based on demand. If individuals are demanding something and a Capitalist provides the supply, it's not exploitation. Your statement is based on confusing profit and exploitation.

Other companies copying a product would lead to more competition, which is better for all buyers. After that, it comes down to improving that product and selling it for a better price, as simply having a similar or same product is not the end goal, it's having a better product for a better price. Even then, it also depends on the individual, as some would prefer a cheaper and lower quality product, so that they may live within their means. Your oversimplification does, however, suit your understanding, that being minimal.

Their roads and bridges would have to be safe and efficient, otherwise nobody would want to travel to that location.

Businesses would simply incorporate the cost of private security into the cost of their items, or use their surplus to pay for it. Since it isn't police, they'd be half the cost, and more efficient. Not only this, but they would have to compete with the other private security businesses offering their services as well. Furthermore, private courts would be more efficient than state courts, they wouldn't submit to the will of lobbyists, otherwise their reputation would be ruined and they would receive no more customers.

Capitalists aren't predatory, they seek to maximize profit and minimize cost. This results in needing to meet the demands of their customers to the best of their ability. Furthermore, simply jacking prices up after competition is gone would result in more competitors rising up and meeting customer demands better. Not only this, but operating at a loss wouldn't eliminate competition, it would take a very long time and cost a fortune, and can't be permanent, as in order to create a permanent monopoly, they would need government help, OR permanent control of ALL resources used to build the product, AND would need to ensure that no OTHER resources can be used to build SIMILAR products.

Again you reply with Pollyanna logic depending on the inherent goodness of Capitalism.

The history of unfettered Capitalism shows a predatory institution with survival of the fittest.

While you think it results in lower prices for the consumer, it ultimately leads to monopolies that control the marketplace

Capitalism is the preferred method of economic expansion. But it needs a strong government in place to ensure a level playing field and an opportunity for small businesses to exist and prosper

I don't have to depend on anything but the drive to earn as much money as possible. I don't have to rely on inherent goodness in people, in fact, I believe the vast majority of humans are worthless trash. What I'm pointing out to you is the fact that in their drive to earn as much money as possible, the businesses are at the mercy of their consumers when the government is taken out of the equation. They have to provide a service, and they have to have a good reputation, or nobody will want to perform voluntary exchange with them. If they rip off their consumers or do something perceived as unethical by the general masses, they won't seek to conduct business with them. What you're assuming is 'goodness' is just logic.

Survival of the fittest is exactly what the masses want. Those unfit for business go under, and those who give the customers what they demand are the successful. A business only fails if nobody demands their service, and that's exactly as it should be.

Monopolies are inherently impossible without government support. Not a single monopoly has ever existed without the government helping it along, because otherwise a business would need to ALSO control every resource needed for their service, which is impossible, because no business' control reaches to every corner of the globe, or even every corner of a single state or Nation. The fact that you haven't seen me already state this fact to you, and the fact that you haven't even attempted to debunk it or acknowledge it only shows me that you have no argument against it.

No, a strong government is what strangles the economy and prevents it from operating optimally, as I've already explained to you, and you haven't attempted to argue against it. I've countered your entire argument, and you've only restated your claim, rather than counter my argument. This shows me that you have nothing left.

Consumers couldn’t care less about the business ethics of whom they buy their products from. If my business uses every dirty trick in the book to drive you out of business, they really don’t know or care.
But in the end, there will be one business to buy from, at the price they ask

That is capitalism at its core

Yes even in this government-controlled Nation, Youtube's investors started pulling their funding when they disagreed with the content. Consumers do care, and Youtube nearly went bankrupt as a solid example of just how much they care. In fact, I'm pretty sure the government is the only reason they survived the adpocalypse.

Driving another business out of business isn't a dirty tactic, as doing so requires one to provide a better service or the other to provide mediocre service. In fact, I bet the reason you didn't go into detail is because only force or coercion can be dirty tactics, and anything else is completely acceptable, as they're simply improvements upon what the business already does.

In order for a business to become the only option, with no other business rising to oppose, they would need government assistance, or full control over every resource. Without government, it is impossible, and for evidence I cite that there isn't a single business that has ever become a monopoly without government help. How about you actually attempt to counter my argument instead of ignoring it and re-stating your bogus claim?