• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Poor Are the Engine of Prosperity

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Actually, the plan is to expand the public sector, and guarantee jobs at the minimum wage. But yes, that is what it amounts to.



Minimum wage at the low end. It really wouldn't amount to much more than safety nets cost now. Other public sector workers, like teachers, cops, and firemen, will earn what they always earn.



Everybody that wants a job.



I don't. How do I know that you aren't spending money on the same stuff? And don't you think you might spend some money on crap like that if you were born poor and stuck in the projects, or in some hillbilly shack in central KY where jobs are hard to come by? You can't dig yourself out - there have to be jobs available.



A jobs program would require work. But if you want to call whatever we give people to survive on a "windfall," this isn't going to be a very fruitful conversation.

Why do you work? Why don't you take advantage of the amazing windfall available to those who can't find work, or don't even try? Maybe because, underneath all of the insults you throw at the poor, you realize that you couldn't get by on that money yourself?



I think you meant to say that America is a net importer.

If you had ever bothered to listen to this argument when I have made it a hundred times before, you would know that most money spent to survive gets spent on domestic stuff - food, rent, utilities. I'd be willing to bet that you and I spend a far higher percentage of our incomes on foreign goods than the poor do.



I'd say, that raise you just got is due to a combination of a tighter labor market and increased aggregate demand, so, you're welcome. Your chances of being evicted are far higher when we are in a recession. And the poor are not the reason you got evicted in the first place. I'd also tell them that I'm for eliminating FICA taxes altogether, which would help them out more than anything.



Spending money is useful, more useful than saving it. Besides, what is your great contribution to society? What do you do for your money?



When the poor spend money, the middle class earns it next, before it all ends up in the hands of ownership.
Click to expand...
insults? Name one thing I said about the poor that you can factually prove is inaccurate? Saying it like it is is not insulting...it is being honest.

So, these handouts are just huge workfare programs? I assume the minimum wage you mention would be at $15/hr.?

What if they get fired - do they automatically get re-hired...or is that it for them? And if they do get re-hired, how many times can they be re-hired? How long in between firing and rehiring is the minimum?

Would these people have to leave their home town or would the government create these make work jobs everywhere? What if someone lives in a sparsely populated area and they are the only person that needs a job...will the government just invent something for him to do? Or will they pay for the expense of shipping him to a central location and house him - since he cannot afford it otherwise? Will you also move and provide housing for his family?

How do these pele get to their jobs everyday if it is far from their homes and they have no vehicle? Will the government pay to have them picked up and delivered to and from the job site everyday?

And what will these make work jobs be? If they are digging ditches, what if someone cannot do physical labor?
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Again. This is the theory that people do not eat.
Click to expand...

Those who can't afford to eat don't. That's why we have SNAP. Hunger is very real in America.

However, let's remember that this isn't only about eating. It's about satisfying the unfulfilled needs of the poor as a driving force for prosperity. The poor need things and they can't afford them. If we gave them the means to spend, such as by expanding SNAP, we would help no only them but the producers of what they buy and eventually everyone else. We all are part of the economy.
 
cpwill said:
... On the contrary - excess production is often shaped to match what others wish to trade their excess production for. But demand as it is actually expressed is a function of supply.
Click to expand...

Supply is a function of price and the price buyers are willing to pay reflects their ability to pay. When buyers can pay little, the supple of a good will be low.
 
cpwill said:
... On the contrary, that seems very likely to be the overwhelming reason. An able-bodied adult with no dependents is fully capable of volunteering for 6 hours a week at the local thrift store.
Click to expand...

Not everyone has access to volunteer opportunities and those who do may face barriers. A hungry person without transportation is unlikely to be a volunteer. He may feel he's better-off scavenging, relying on organized charity or begging on the street.
 
Joe Steel said:
Those who can't afford to eat don't. That's why we have SNAP. Hunger is very real in America.

However, let's remember that this isn't only about eating. It's about satisfying the unfulfilled needs of the poor as a driving force for prosperity. The poor need things and they can't afford them. If we gave them the means to spend, such as by expanding SNAP, we would help no only them but the producers of what they buy and eventually everyone else. We all are part of the economy.
Click to expand...

SNAP gives you more then enough money to eat properly...as I proved here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/econo...-did-and-practically-ki-2.html#post1064568686

And you want to give them more food. Americans are incredible obese and the poor have by far the highest levels of obesity.

And you want to give them even more food?
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
insults? Name one thing I said about the poor that you can factually prove is inaccurate? Saying it like it is is not insulting...it is being honest.

So, these handouts are just huge workfare programs? I assume the minimum wage you mention would be at $15/hr.?

What if they get fired - do they automatically get re-hired...or is that it for them? And if they do get re-hired, how many times can they be re-hired? How long in between firing and rehiring is the minimum?

Would these people have to leave their home town or would the government create these make work jobs everywhere? What if someone lives in a sparsely populated area and they are the only person that needs a job...will the government just invent something for him to do? Or will they pay for the expense of shipping him to a central location and house him - since he cannot afford it otherwise? Will you also move and provide housing for his family?

How do these pele get to their jobs everyday if it is far from their homes and they have no vehicle? Will the government pay to have them picked up and delivered to and from the job site everyday?

And what will these make work jobs be? If they are digging ditches, what if someone cannot do physical labor?
Click to expand...

Public works programs have worked in the past. The details of how they are implemented are not important. This is a thread about economics and government spending - why don't you want to address that aspect of it?

Anyway, any make-work program would be local. It's not that hard to find the poor - they are usually stuck together in the crappier parts of cities, in large numbers.

The more important part of it would be getting money into their hands, so they can live, and spend. Now, go ahead and retort that the poor have a natural tendency to spend all of their money on crack so I can ignore your posts again. Give me a thoughtful, reasoned response, and I will be forced to answer in kind.
 
DA60 said:
SNAP gives you more then enough money to eat properly...as I proved here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/econo...-did-and-practically-ki-2.html#post1064568686

And you want to give them more food. Americans are incredible obese and the poor have by far the highest levels of obesity.

And you want to give them even more food?
Click to expand...

I would love to see how you, and maybe your family, got by on this: $6.46/day, max.

People In Household Maximum Monthly Allotment
1 $ 194
2 $ 357
3 $ 511
4 $ 649
5 $ 771
6 $ 925
7 $ 1,022
8 $ 1,169
Each additional person $ 146

That's after any deductions (for earning money).

How Much Could I Receive? | Food and Nutrition Service
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Public works programs have worked in the past. The details of how they are implemented are not important. This is a thread about economics and government spending - why don't you want to address that aspect of it?

Anyway, any make-work program would be local. It's not that hard to find the poor - they are usually stuck together in the crappier parts of cities, in large numbers.

The more important part of it would be getting money into their hands, so they can live, and spend. Now, go ahead and retort that the poor have a natural tendency to spend all of their money on crack so I can ignore your posts again. Give me a thoughtful, reasoned response, and I will be forced to answer in kind.
Click to expand...

You want to discuss ideas but you refuse to give details of how to implement those ideas. So, you have ZERO proof that your pipe dream will work...noted.
Just as I thought btw. All you evwr seem to do is spew out these ridiculous ideas and rarely/never offer concrete evidence to back them up.


As for your childish crack comment...don't be ridiculous. Obviously most poor people do not do crack.

BTW - I was once poor and I used to do crack and everyone I did it with was poor. You are a lawyer (apparently) - I know far about the poor then you ever will.
 
DA60 said:
You want to discuss ideas but you refuse to give details of how to implement those ideas. So, you have Sro proof that your pipe dream will work...noted.
Just as I thought btw.

As for your childish crack comment...don't be ridiculous. Obviously most poor people do not do crack.

BTW - I was once poor and I used to do crack and everyone I did it with was poor. You are a lawyer - I know far about their then you ever will.
Click to expand...

The implementation isn't important for the purposes of what amounts to an economics thread. I gave enough detail to make it plausible, now address the economics of it, please.

And how can you ridicule people for doing illegal stuff and wasting money when you used to do the same thing?
 
Joe Steel said:
Most commentary I have read regards SNAP benefits as too low. I doubt your analysis is accurate.
Click to expand...

Did you even check the link?

Check it for yourself.

I broke down the costs and the nutritional details PLUS I provided links to the Walmart items in question.

If you live near a Walmart (and most Americans do)...then even if you are an average male, SNAP will provide you more then enough food to love healthily.
 
Joe Steel said:
Most commentary I have read regards SNAP benefits as too low. I doubt your analysis is accurate.
Click to expand...

He provided Walmart's shopping list. Plain oatmeal every morning, rice covered in cream of mushroom soup for lunch, spaghetti and sauce every night for dinner, and a daily vitamin. Tap water to drink at every meal. Every single day.

We'd all be at McDonald's by Day Two of that diet. IF you could even manage to find a Walmart downtown, and get there and back on public transportation.
 
DA60 said:
SNAP gives you more then enough money to eat properly...as I proved here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/econo...-did-and-practically-ki-2.html#post1064568686

And you want to give them more food. Americans are incredible obese and the poor have by far the highest levels of obesity.

And you want to give them even more food?
Click to expand...

SNAP could be expanded to include hot foods from a Super market.

An already cooked broasted chicken is usually quite a bit less expensive than a fresh chicken.

It saves time and money and can be used as a start for soup, sweet and sour chicken, chicken and noodle dishes , chicken and rice dishes, Chicken and vegetable dishes, etc.
 
Last edited:
JohnfrmClevelan said:
The implementation isn't important for the purposes of what amounts to an economics thread. I gave enough detail to make it plausible, now address the economics of it, please.

And how can you ridicule people for doing illegal stuff and wasting money when you used to do the same thing?
Click to expand...

One - stating s fact is not ridicule. Everything I said (just about) was a fact. Ridicule would be to say 'those low life's all use crack'. Stating a fact would be to say that 'a higher percentage of poor people use crack then any other economic group'. You just cannot seem to get past that. Whatever.

Two - how can I comment about your idea if you give insufficient factual evidence to determine it's chances of success? What is the point in that? Or do you just want me to say 'Gee, that's a swell idea'?

If you are just going to throw out ideas without ANY statistics to back them up - why in God's name should I waste my time discussing it?
So, by your logic, anyone can come up with ANY idea (no matter how ridiculous) and I am supposed to discuss it?
Come on now.

We are done here until you actually come up with some evidence that this idea of yours has ANY realistic chance of success.

Maybe you like to endlessly debate pie-in-the-sky theories without any facts/data to back them up. I do not...life is way too short.

Good day.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
SNAP could be expanded to include hot foods from a Super market.

An already cooked broasted chicken is usually quite a bit less expensive than a fresh chicken.

It saves time and money and can be used a start for soup, sweet and sour chicken, chicken and noodle dishes , chicken and rice dishes, Chicken and vegetable dishes, etc.
Click to expand...

SNAP always looks passable on paper, but the reality is that grocery shopping is a major chore when you live in the crappy part of town. The stores are more expensive, the produce isn't good, and you've got to get home on the bus.

I don't know why this devolved into a discussion about SNAP, anyway. It's another attempt to derail an economics thread by claiming that the poor are eating too much already.
 
minnie616 said:
SNAP could be expanded to include hot foods from a Super market.

An already cooked broasted chicken is usually quite a bit less expensive than a fresh chicken.

It saves time and money and can be used as a start for soup, sweet and sour chicken, chicken and noodle dishes , chicken and rice dishes, Chicken and vegetable dishes, etc.
Click to expand...


That is not my point.

My point is that SNAP already provides adequate nutrition for most Americans and I proved it.

But you want to expend more money on a food program that already does what it is designed to do.
 
DA60 said:
One - stating s fact is not ridicule. Everything I said (just about) was a fact. Ridicule would be to say 'those low life's all use crack'. Stating a fact would be to say that 'a higher percentage of poor people use crack then any other economic group'. You just cannot seem to get past that. Whatever.

Two - how can I comment about your idea if you give insufficient factual evidence to determine it's chances of success? What is the point in that? Or do you just want me to say 'Gee, that's a swell idea'?

If you are just going to throw out ideas without ANY statistics to back them up - why in God's name should I waste my time discussing it?
You must be one bored fellow if you find that kind of discussion rewarding.
Click to expand...

The chances of success are 99%, because the purpose is simply to get money into the hands of the poor. That much can be done. Any work that comes from that effort is gravy.

Why should you waste your time discussing economic solutions to the problems your country faces? Gee, I don't know. But if you can't think on those terms, you are welcome to make your usual drop-the-mike exit, after saying nothing useful or thought-provoking. Or, you can address the economics of making sure the poor have money to spend.

Here's the problem with these discussions, DA - you always demand a ton of research and statistics, while you provide absolutely nothing in kind. And when provided with some, it's never "factual and unbiased" enough for you. It's a debate board - use your own noodle, like we do. Think your way through a problem and discuss it. Convince me that the money from government jobs won't go toward food, shelter, and utilities, or that it will do more economic harm than good. Convince me that we will go broke as a country if we enact such a program. Make an argument, because so far, it really sounds more like you just hate poor people and you want to see them suffer.
 
DA60 said:
Did you even check the link?

Check it for yourself.

I broke down the costs and the nutritional details PLUS I provided links to the Walmart items in question.

If you live near a Walmart (and most Americans do)...then even if you are an average male, SNAP will provide you more then enough food to love healthily.
Click to expand...

I did check the link but I'm not a dietitian. I don't know if your plan is adequate.
 
DA60 said:
Did you even check the link?

Check it for yourself.

I broke down the costs and the nutritional details PLUS I provided links to the Walmart items in question.

If you live near a Walmart (and most Americans do)...then even if you are an average male, SNAP will provide you more then enough food to love healthily.
Click to expand...

The nearest Walmart to Detroit , Michigan is 12 miles away.

10 Walmart stores within 30 miles of Detroit
 
Critter7r said:
Not only that, but until 2013 there was not a single big-name-chain grocery store in the city. In 2013, a Whole Foods opened up in Midtown.

I think there's a major store planned for the Woodward and 8 Mile area, right on the border of Detroit.

There are over a hundred smaller, non-chain grocery stores in the city.

Detroit's Grocery Stores
Click to expand...

A Quick look at your link showed the vast majority of the markets posted are on the north side of Detroit.

As we all know the smaller Markets change more for their food because they do not buy or sell in large in large balk like the chains do.

There were photos of 33 different markets ( some had more than 1 pic , different side of building or inside pics ) .

The first pic of a closed market.
Another market was posted as possibility closed.
It sure looked closed to me too. There was junk pile of looked metal parts taking up all of paring lot piled about 3 feet deep and there no cars nearby.

4 of the markets were on 8 mile which is the boarder line of Detroit.
16 of the markets were on 7 mile.
3 were on 6 mile.

And 4 were on Woodward ( I don't know how far north they were but Woodward runs from downtown Detroit north to 15 and beyond.

8 mile is dividing line between Detroit and the other cities and suburbs.
 
Last edited:
Besides higher prices , those small stores in Detroit offer little variety along with limited selections of fruits and vegetables.
 
minnie616 said:
The nearest Walmart to Detroit , Michigan is 12 miles away.

10 Walmart stores within 30 miles of Detroit
Click to expand...

Ummm..no, the nearest is 8 miles to downtown Detroit.

Dearborn Walmart Supercenter - Walmart.com

Besides, nothing on my list is quickly perishable. All you had to do - assuming the Walmart was the only place with food prices remotely that cheap in all of Detroit - is go to this store once every two weeks. Heck, you could go once a month and stock up.

Also, my list comes up at about 2/3'rd's of the monthly SNAP total..so even if closer prices were 20-25% higher, they would still be under the limit.
 
A little more research shows that the second market (Paul Conant ) in the link posted of Detroit's markets is actually in Hamtramck.

3805 E McNichols Rd
Hamtramck, MI 48212
Click to expand...

Pauls Conant Market - Hamtramck, MI - Yelp

Hamtramck is surrounded by the city of Detroit except for a small portion of the western border that touches the similarly surrounded city of Highland Park.

So while it is in close proximity to Detroit is cannot really be counted as a Detroit market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom