The republican solution to poverty doesn’t make any sense

[edward37]

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

Because of your dislike for him?

A couple of things he's done I can agree with Doing some good for small businesses , tax breaks ,although most go to the billionaires ,trying to get drug prices down BUT there is much to despise him for ,,a man the whole world looks down on rather than up to A vile human being

Which is as I say, a personal dislike for him.

I can only imagine if Hil-Liar got in and had these kind of results: unemployment hitting record lows, female and black unemployment the same, most Americans bringing home more in their paychecks, making NK anxious to work and please the US with disarmament, stock market bumpy, but sustainable, ISIS out of Iraq, less and less government dependents, mortgage loan applications at a seven year high, a reduction of illegal immigration and an increase in deportation judges, donating all salaries for doing the job, just a whole list of things. The media would be holding parades for queen Hillary. Instead, over 90% of the coverage on Trump by the MSM is negative.

These results are not because of Trump. And to show how ignorant you are Trump has spoken over 3,000 lies or misrepresentations yet you call Hillary a liar. If Hillary had won, republicans would be investigating every conspiracy theory told about the Clintons. And you'd be repeating them as if they were gospel. Trump has scandals out the ass, and yet we are all supposed to ignore them just to endlessly praise this motherfucker. We are going be seeing what the results of Trump policies in the next 2 years. You'll understand then what we saw now.

Trump is a vile human being.

So you're going to claim barrack the magic negro finally after eight years miraculously brought black unemployment down a year after leaving office?

Do you realize how laughable that scenario is?

Unemployment was in the 9's when Obama took over from the other repub loser and left when it was in the 4's What trump has done is just a CONTINUATION of Obamas 8 years Meanwhile schmucko takes credit for everything

 

[edward37]

A couple of things he's done I can agree with Doing some good for small businesses , tax breaks ,although most go to the billionaires ,trying to get drug prices down BUT there is much to despise him for ,,a man the whole world looks down on rather than up to A vile human being

Which is as I say, a personal dislike for him.

I can only imagine if Hil-Liar got in and had these kind of results: unemployment hitting record lows, female and black unemployment the same, most Americans bringing home more in their paychecks, making NK anxious to work and please the US with disarmament, stock market bumpy, but sustainable, ISIS out of Iraq, less and less government dependents, mortgage loan applications at a seven year high, a reduction of illegal immigration and an increase in deportation judges, donating all salaries for doing the job, just a whole list of things. The media would be holding parades for queen Hillary. Instead, over 90% of the coverage on Trump by the MSM is negative.

These results are not because of Trump. And to show how ignorant you are Trump has spoken over 3,000 lies or misrepresentations yet you call Hillary a liar. If Hillary had won, republicans would be investigating every conspiracy theory told about the Clintons. And you'd be repeating them as if they were gospel. Trump has scandals out the ass, and yet we are all supposed to ignore them just to endlessly praise this motherfucker. We are going be seeing what the results of Trump policies in the next 2 years. You'll understand then what we saw now.

Trump is a vile human being.

Yes, another one with a personal vendetta. Scandals? What do you call the phony Russia probe? But I guess to you, Trump's are the real McCoy and Hillary's were all made-up.

Yes, the Trump accomplishments are because of Trump. Why? Because Trump is the exact opposite of Ears. Trump is pro-business where DumBama was anti-business. Trump is doing things to help business whereas DumBama did things to make their life more miserable and expensive. So the results are showing with new jobs thanks to company investments, and expansion of American businesses.

You speak of new jobs as if Trump will even come close to breaking Obamas record of 75 straight months with 6 digit gains

That would be impossible because DumBama started from the very bottom; the only way to go was up. Trump started in the middle.

And let me remind you that Presidents don't create jobs. Private industry creates jobs. All a President or any representative can do is assist by making job creation easier or harder on the job creators.

I can agree but where is the confidence factor ?? IMHO people had more confidence in obama than this idiot who would turn on a dime and give you some change

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because of your dislike for him?

A couple of things he's done I can agree with Doing some good for small businesses , tax breaks ,although most go to the billionaires ,trying to get drug prices down BUT there is much to despise him for ,,a man the whole world looks down on rather than up to A vile human being

Which is as I say, a personal dislike for him.

I can only imagine if Hil-Liar got in and had these kind of results: unemployment hitting record lows, female and black unemployment the same, most Americans bringing home more in their paychecks, making NK anxious to work and please the US with disarmament, stock market bumpy, but sustainable, ISIS out of Iraq, less and less government dependents, mortgage loan applications at a seven year high, a reduction of illegal immigration and an increase in deportation judges, donating all salaries for doing the job, just a whole list of things. The media would be holding parades for queen Hillary. Instead, over 90% of the coverage on Trump by the MSM is negative.

These results are not because of Trump. And to show how ignorant you are Trump has spoken over 3,000 lies or misrepresentations yet you call Hillary a liar. If Hillary had won, republicans would be investigating every conspiracy theory told about the Clintons. And you'd be repeating them as if they were gospel. Trump has scandals out the ass, and yet we are all supposed to ignore them just to endlessly praise this motherfucker. We are going be seeing what the results of Trump policies in the next 2 years. You'll understand then what we saw now.

Trump is a vile human being.

So you're going to claim barrack the magic negro finally after eight years miraculously brought black unemployment down a year after leaving office?

Do you realize how laughable that scenario is?

Unemployment was in the 9's when Obama took over from the other repub loser and left when it was in the 4's What trump has done is just a CONTINUATION of Obamas 8 years Meanwhile schmucko takes credit for everything

A continuation of Obama? A continuation of what? Can you name me three things that Obama did that were totally positive for business?

The left constantly complains about Trump De-Bamaing the country. And I agree with them that he is. It's why we voted him in; to reverse as many things that DumBama did during his two terms.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is as I say, a personal dislike for him.

I can only imagine if Hil-Liar got in and had these kind of results: unemployment hitting record lows, female and black unemployment the same, most Americans bringing home more in their paychecks, making NK anxious to work and please the US with disarmament, stock market bumpy, but sustainable, ISIS out of Iraq, less and less government dependents, mortgage loan applications at a seven year high, a reduction of illegal immigration and an increase in deportation judges, donating all salaries for doing the job, just a whole list of things. The media would be holding parades for queen Hillary. Instead, over 90% of the coverage on Trump by the MSM is negative.

These results are not because of Trump. And to show how ignorant you are Trump has spoken over 3,000 lies or misrepresentations yet you call Hillary a liar. If Hillary had won, republicans would be investigating every conspiracy theory told about the Clintons. And you'd be repeating them as if they were gospel. Trump has scandals out the ass, and yet we are all supposed to ignore them just to endlessly praise this motherfucker. We are going be seeing what the results of Trump policies in the next 2 years. You'll understand then what we saw now.

Trump is a vile human being.

Yes, another one with a personal vendetta. Scandals? What do you call the phony Russia probe? But I guess to you, Trump's are the real McCoy and Hillary's were all made-up.

Yes, the Trump accomplishments are because of Trump. Why? Because Trump is the exact opposite of Ears. Trump is pro-business where DumBama was anti-business. Trump is doing things to help business whereas DumBama did things to make their life more miserable and expensive. So the results are showing with new jobs thanks to company investments, and expansion of American businesses.

You speak of new jobs as if Trump will even come close to breaking Obamas record of 75 straight months with 6 digit gains

That would be impossible because DumBama started from the very bottom; the only way to go was up. Trump started in the middle.

And let me remind you that Presidents don't create jobs. Private industry creates jobs. All a President or any representative can do is assist by making job creation easier or harder on the job creators.

I can agree but where is the confidence factor ?? IMHO people had more confidence in obama than this idiot who would turn on a dime and give you some change

Consumer and corporate confidence are both up since Trump took over. Need the link?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So what’s the solution to poverty, republicans?

I'm not a republican and if history has proven anything it is that there is no solution

Indeed.

 

[edward37]

These results are not because of Trump. And to show how ignorant you are Trump has spoken over 3,000 lies or misrepresentations yet you call Hillary a liar. If Hillary had won, republicans would be investigating every conspiracy theory told about the Clintons. And you'd be repeating them as if they were gospel. Trump has scandals out the ass, and yet we are all supposed to ignore them just to endlessly praise this motherfucker. We are going be seeing what the results of Trump policies in the next 2 years. You'll understand then what we saw now.

Trump is a vile human being.

Yes, another one with a personal vendetta. Scandals? What do you call the phony Russia probe? But I guess to you, Trump's are the real McCoy and Hillary's were all made-up.

Yes, the Trump accomplishments are because of Trump. Why? Because Trump is the exact opposite of Ears. Trump is pro-business where DumBama was anti-business. Trump is doing things to help business whereas DumBama did things to make their life more miserable and expensive. So the results are showing with new jobs thanks to company investments, and expansion of American businesses.

You speak of new jobs as if Trump will even come close to breaking Obamas record of 75 straight months with 6 digit gains

That would be impossible because DumBama started from the very bottom; the only way to go was up. Trump started in the middle.

And let me remind you that Presidents don't create jobs. Private industry creates jobs. All a President or any representative can do is assist by making job creation easier or harder on the job creators.

I can agree but where is the confidence factor ?? IMHO people had more confidence in obama than this idiot who would turn on a dime and give you some change

Consumer and corporate confidence are both up since Trump took over. Need the link?

Obama’s Final Numbers

Statistical indicators of President Obama's eight years in office.

By Brooks Jackson

Posted on September 29, 2017 | Updated on February 14, 2018

[/paste:font]

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Beating a competitor through better service is the basis of capitalism

But what if you beat them by stealing their patents, threatening their suppliers and consumers, spreading false rumors, undercutting their prices until they are forced out of business

All are acceptable in your ideal capitalism

Patents shouldn't exist regardless. Threatening people would ruin a business' reputation, as it's using force and coercion, rumors can be verified. Undercutting prices can't beat out everyone, as product quality is also a factor. even if a business does this, once they stop, other competitors will rise up, and if they continue to do so, they will simply damage their own business, as they can't sustain prices. Likewise, other businesses can also undercut. Nobody can permanently stifle competition without help from the government, it isn't possible.

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?

Beating a competitor through better service is the basis of capitalism

But what if you beat them by stealing their patents, threatening their suppliers and consumers, spreading false rumors, undercutting their prices until they are forced out of business

All are acceptable in your ideal capitalism

Patents shouldn't exist regardless. Threatening people would ruin a business' reputation, as it's using force and coercion, rumors can be verified. Undercutting prices can't beat out everyone, as product quality is also a factor. even if a business does this, once they stop, other competitors will rise up, and if they continue to do so, they will simply damage their own business, as they can't sustain prices. Likewise, other businesses can also undercut. Nobody can permanently stifle competition without help from the government, it isn't possible.

So in your unfettered capitalism........if I sweat and develop a better mousetrap that significantly outperforms any other mousetrap. I put my life savings into its development and testing

Once I have my final product, you can come in and just produce it and sell it

 

[KissMy]

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 poverty, republicans?

Entry level jobs are for people just entering the workforce, thus the name. More than 200,000 people in the US enter the workforce each month for the first time, that is who is supposed to take the entry level jobs. Those in them now would, ideally, work hard and move up to make room for the next batch.

In the past 6 year I finished my bachelors and masters and my wife got her nursing degree. The result of doing that is that our family income has more than tripled in the last 4 years. Working hard and going to college can and does pay off.

So now you are massively in debt???

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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?

Beating a competitor through better service is the basis of capitalism

But what if you beat them by stealing their patents, threatening their suppliers and consumers, spreading false rumors, undercutting their prices until they are forced out of business

All are acceptable in your ideal capitalism

Patents shouldn't exist regardless. Threatening people would ruin a business' reputation, as it's using force and coercion, rumors can be verified. Undercutting prices can't beat out everyone, as product quality is also a factor. even if a business does this, once they stop, other competitors will rise up, and if they continue to do so, they will simply damage their own business, as they can't sustain prices. Likewise, other businesses can also undercut. Nobody can permanently stifle competition without help from the government, it isn't possible.

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?

Beating a competitor through better service is the basis of capitalism

But what if you beat them by stealing their patents, threatening their suppliers and consumers, spreading false rumors, undercutting their prices until they are forced out of business

All are acceptable in your ideal capitalism

Patents shouldn't exist regardless. Threatening people would ruin a business' reputation, as it's using force and coercion, rumors can be verified. Undercutting prices can't beat out everyone, as product quality is also a factor. even if a business does this, once they stop, other competitors will rise up, and if they continue to do so, they will simply damage their own business, as they can't sustain prices. Likewise, other businesses can also undercut. Nobody can permanently stifle competition without help from the government, it isn't possible.

So in your unfettered capitalism........if I sweat and develop a better mousetrap that significantly outperforms any other mousetrap. I put my life savings into its development and testing

Once I have my final product, you can come in and just produce it and sell it

Yes, I guess that means you should either give better service, continue developing a better Mousetrap, or sell it cheaper, or sell it at lower cost. In this case, there would always be incentive to continue innovating, so that you have to always be better than your competitors. If you don't, they will.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Beating a competitor through better service is the basis of capitalism

But what if you beat them by stealing their patents, threatening their suppliers and consumers, spreading false rumors, undercutting their prices until they are forced out of business

All are acceptable in your ideal capitalism

Patents shouldn't exist regardless. Threatening people would ruin a business' reputation, as it's using force and coercion, rumors can be verified. Undercutting prices can't beat out everyone, as product quality is also a factor. even if a business does this, once they stop, other competitors will rise up, and if they continue to do so, they will simply damage their own business, as they can't sustain prices. Likewise, other businesses can also undercut. Nobody can permanently stifle competition without help from the government, it isn't possible.

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?

Beating a competitor through better service is the basis of capitalism

But what if you beat them by stealing their patents, threatening their suppliers and consumers, spreading false rumors, undercutting their prices until they are forced out of business

All are acceptable in your ideal capitalism

Patents shouldn't exist regardless. Threatening people would ruin a business' reputation, as it's using force and coercion, rumors can be verified. Undercutting prices can't beat out everyone, as product quality is also a factor. even if a business does this, once they stop, other competitors will rise up, and if they continue to do so, they will simply damage their own business, as they can't sustain prices. Likewise, other businesses can also undercut. Nobody can permanently stifle competition without help from the government, it isn't possible.

So in your unfettered capitalism........if I sweat and develop a better mousetrap that significantly outperforms any other mousetrap. I put my life savings into its development and testing

Once I have my final product, you can come in and just produce it and sell it

Yes, I guess that means you should either give better service, continue developing a better Mousetrap, or sell it cheaper, or sell it at lower cost. In this case, there would always be incentive to continue innovating, so that you have to always be better than your competitors. If you don't, they will.

You have just destroyed the incentive for R&D

Why invest in R&D when you can just steal from other people’s R&D ?

 

[opinionator]

Why can't those who don't make enough on their own have roommates? Or find ways to otherwise share expenses. Is every individual entitled to a certain standard pile of possession simply because they exist? If they can't earn it should others be forced to pay their way? Who says there must be a government or collective solution to this or any other issue?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

Republicans are to blame because there are not enough low wage workers ?

Who knew ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why can't those who don't make enough on their own have roommates? Or find ways to otherwise share expenses. Is every individual entitled to a certain standard pile of possession simply because they exist? If they can't earn it should others be forced to pay their way? Who says there must be a government or collective solution to this or any other issue?

Liberalsim is all about victimization. Victims of big business, victims of big oil, victims of guns, victims of fast food, victims of big phrama.

So in the mind of a liberal, people who work minimum wage are victims, therefore, the solution to victimization is more government.

They avoid discussing real solutions like a two-parent family, advanced education, learning a trade, living at home with mom and dad while saving a ton of money for the future, no. Go out, start having kids at 16 years old, and when you have no work experience or talent to offer in order to make a living wage, you are a victim.

 

[danielpalos]

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

the right wing is about helping the rich get richer faster, even at the expense of the poor.

 

[rightwinger]

Why can't those who don't make enough on their own have roommates? Or find ways to otherwise share expenses. Is every individual entitled to a certain standard pile of possession simply because they exist? If they can't earn it should others be forced to pay their way? Who says there must be a government or collective solution to this or any other issue?

Liberalsim is all about victimization. Victims of big business, victims of big oil, victims of guns, victims of fast food, victims of big phrama.

So in the mind of a liberal, people who work minimum wage are victims, therefore, the solution to victimization is more government.

They avoid discussing real solutions like a two-parent family, advanced education, learning a trade, living at home with mom and dad while saving a ton of money for the future, no. Go out, start having kids at 16 years old, and when you have no work experience or talent to offer in order to make a living wage, you are a victim.

Liberalism is about helping those who need help
Conservatism is about helping the rich grow richer

 

[TheDude]

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?

Your title reads "The republican solution to poverty doesn’t make any sense" while your post is completely different. In other terms, your effort doesn't any make sense.

If you're suggesting everyone has the same drive etc., that's kind of ignorant don't you think? Every society has poor people. I suppose you'd be happy if we shared all the wealth equally.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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?

This is the best example of the democrat slave agenda I’ve ever seen.

We can’t let these poor people improve their lives. Where else will we get our drive thru employees, maids and Gardner’s? We can’t live without these people. You know what we should do? Give them just enough welfare to keep them doing those low level jobs. Then we can live our own upper class lives without the worry our maid may some day be in our country club.

The democrat KKK never died off.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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 poverty, republicans?

Entry level jobs are for people just entering the workforce, thus the name. More than 200,000 people in the US enter the workforce each month for the first time, that is who is supposed to take the entry level jobs. Those in them now would, ideally, work hard and move up to make room for the next batch.

In the past 6 year I finished my bachelors and masters and my wife got her nursing degree. The result of doing that is that our family income has more than tripled in the last 4 years. Working hard and going to college can and does pay off.

So now you are massively in debt???

Nope, no debt at all except for a car loan I just took out last week. I used the GI bill to finish my degrees and we paid for my wife's school out of pocket

 

[KissMy]

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 poverty, republicans?

Entry level jobs are for people just entering the workforce, thus the name. More than 200,000 people in the US enter the workforce each month for the first time, that is who is supposed to take the entry level jobs. Those in them now would, ideally, work hard and move up to make room for the next batch.

In the past 6 year I finished my bachelors and masters and my wife got her nursing degree. The result of doing that is that our family income has more than tripled in the last 4 years. Working hard and going to college can and does pay off.

So now you are massively in debt???

Nope, no debt at all except for a car loan I just took out last week. I used the GI bill to finish my degrees and we paid for my wife's school out of pocket

So all the taxes I paid, paid for your masters degree. I hope you don't complain about paying taxes on all that high income you now enjoy thanks to US tax payers!

 

[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.

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.

Your paragraph clearly demonstrates your socialist side and thus you don't even have to acknowledge it. Drug addicts knew the drugs the heroin, cocaine and methadone, were addictive when they bought it and knew it was addictive when they actually used it, and didn't care. My sympathy only goes to providing them with treatment, counseling and temporary housing. That's it. Not being their caretaker for the rest of their lives. Many mentally-ill are helped with medication, but don't stick with it. In the past, we had institutions that provided them with a roof over their heads, psychiatric care and medications, but thanks to the ACLU, they had to be released and thus we have non-functioning mentally-ill scattered across this nation. The ILLEGAL migrants don't belong here. If they want in so bad, they need to go through proper channels so that they can be properly vetted to ensure that they aren't foreign criminal fugitives, drug-cartel members, or terrorists. And again, millions go to the Central American nations specifically for their public, their public needs to make use of the money provided to their native governments to help them.
Go live in one of those countries if you think any are doing a better job than we do here.