• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

War on Proverty, no more War in Iraq

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There are 1.2 billion people living in poverty as of the late 90's.That means 1 out of every 6 people is dead broke. Why don't we use the billions of dollars that we are wasting now on a war for oil that's based on lies, and put it towards ending poverty?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That means 1 out of every 6 people is dead broke.
No it doesn't. Figuratively perhaps, but not literally. There are actually two slightly different versions of the federal poverty measure:

> the poverty thresholds - used mainly for statistical purposes, e.g., applying the thresholds to a family's income to determine its poverty status;

> the poverty guidelines - a simplification of the thresholds for use for administrative purposes, e.g., determining financial eligibility for certain federal programs.


2004 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Size of
Family Unit 48 Contiguous
States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $ 9,310 $11,630 $10,700
2 12,490 15,610 14,360
3 15,670 19,590 18,020
4 18,850 23,570 21,680
5 22,030 27,550 25,340
6 25,210 31,530 29,000
7 28,390 35,510 32,660
8 31,570 39,490 36,320
For each additional
person, add 3,180 3,980 3,660
SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 30, February 13, 2004, pp. 7336-7338.
Programs using these guidelines include Head Start, Food Stamps, Nat'l School Lunch Program, and others.

More info http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"There are 1.2 billion people living in poverty as of the late 90's.That means 1 out of every 6 people is dead broke. Why don't we use the billions of dollars that we are wasting now on a war for oil that's based on lies, and put it towards ending poverty?"

-Che



Brilliant argument. Um, we tried ignoring foreign threats under Democrats (Bill Clinton) for almost a decade. All it got us was an emboldened Saddam, a nuclear North Korea, and 9/11. By the way, 9/11 hurt the precious economy you want to throw everything else away to focus on (which is just dumb, since that would destroy the economy) more than anything else Democrats have done...like protecting frivolous lawsuits, helping labor unions send jobs overseas, raising taxes, outlawing refineries from being built-which is what caused the gas price hikes, not any oil shortage. And the absence of any threat to our crude oil supplies decimates the pathetically lame conspiracy theory you just endorsed about Iraq being for oil.

:roll:
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aquapub said:
"There are 1.2 billion people living in poverty as of the late 90's.That means 1 out of every 6 people is dead broke. Why don't we use the billions of dollars that we are wasting now on a war for oil that's based on lies, and put it towards ending poverty?"

-Che



Brilliant argument. Um, we tried ignoring foreign threats under Democrats (Bill Clinton) for almost a decade. All it got us was an emboldened Saddam, a nuclear North Korea, and 9/11. By the way, 9/11 hurt the precious economy you want to throw everything else away to focus on (which is just dumb, since that would destroy the economy) more than anything else Democrats have done...like protecting frivolous lawsuits, helping labor unions send jobs overseas, raising taxes, outlawing refineries from being built-which is what caused the gas price hikes, not any oil shortage. And the absence of any threat to our crude oil supplies decimates the pathetically lame conspiracy theory you just endorsed about Iraq being for oil.

:roll:



1) how is Clinton responsible for 9/11? didn't happen the day after a paper was handed to President Bush stating that a major terror attack was about to take place?

2) Yeah I guess the republican view on the economy of just not giving a $*** about the economy is better because now we're only in a major deficeit monstorous debt. But yeah over all we're doing well.

3) helping labor unions send jobs over seas: Please stop talking this bull give me a link

4) raising taxes. Well if you want to fight a war, then you'll have to pay the price. What do you expect us to do? send our troops out naked. If you don't want taxes then don't fight a war.

5) it's not the fact that democrats are illegalizing oil rigs to be built, which I would like to see a link to, it's the fact that Americans waste gas like crazy. We are the most enviromentally unconscious nation in the world and that needs to change
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Comrade Brian said:
No link needed, most who can't see that are blinded.
I see the San Francisco Op?ed that Che provided. I see nothing substantial. When will you people learn that just saying it doesn't make it so? You need to get your information from something other than Michael Moore-like opinion websites and blogs. :rofl
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The link I provided was a .ORG . .COMs are for opinions .ORGs are not.

Plus why would Bush go into Iraq of all the countries that have dictatorships in them. There are many other countries he could have gone into that are dangerous. North Korea for example is now nuclear. Why didn't he go there and weren't there no WMDs in Iraq? So I guess you can rule out going into Iraq because it was dangerous.

If you think that it was because Osama was there, you're dead wrong because the US Secratary of State said himself that Iraq had no connection with Osama. Al Queda in Iraq only started after we arrived there.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Che said:
The link I provided was a .ORG . .COMs are for opinions .ORGs are not
I don't care if it came from .xyz. It was still an Op/Ed written by Seattle members and friends of the CVO

Slanderous garbage.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So then tell me why we're there? I already explained in my last post that none of the popular reasons are legit
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes but you miss my point KC, I'm saying Why Iraq? Why not Communist Cuba 5 mile away from our border why not North Korea with Nuclea weapons? Why Iraq which the Secretary of State said doesn't have connections with Osama? One word OIL!
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
I've always hated posts on poverty. I work 40+ hours a week and my wife works part time 30 hours so we can provide a comfortable lives for ourselves. I'm I supposed to feel guilty because I make sacrifices and chose to support my family and not rely on government assist programs?

If Americans want to see real poverty they should go to countries in Central and South America. I see people in the US on welfare that have a 50 inch HD TV, Playstation, and two cars. The government needs to only assist those who truly deserve it. Cut the others off and force them to work a 40 hour work week. People will respect the money they earn and spend it more wisely then.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Red_Dave said:
well put it this way: If bush didnt lie then where are the w.m.d.s
If you've read the resolutions, it was made very clear that the burden of proof was with Saddam and not the inspectors...

You're asking the wrong people...

You should be saying, "Mr. Hussein...Why did you provide inadequate documentation to the United Nations, and what happened to the some of the arsenal that you declared and WAS THERE in 1998 when you kicked he inspectors out?"...
 

mesue

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The rich and the ever shrinking middle class blame the poor for being poor but yet the government will not raise the minimum wage while they give themselves a cost of living wage raise every year. But thats all okay to say all of the government workers including the ones voting on it deserve a raise but for 7 years in a row the minimum wage has not been raised. That is hypocrisy at its worst. The working poor paying taxes so they the congress and the senate can increase their own wages but will not raise the minimum wage.

The living wage
http://www.answers.com/topic/living-wage
a wage sufficient for a worker and family to subsist comfortably

usually a certain amount set that provides enough to live and have access to the neccessities, a few cities have these rules and allow no industry in that refuses to pay a living wage to its workers. Right now in the US the minimum wage 5.15 and a lot of those jobs do not have access to healthcare. In the UK it is approximately 9.00.

The truth is as it stands now the rich are getting richer off of the backs of the poor.
 
Last edited:

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
mesue said:
The rich and the ever shrinking middle class blame the poor for being poor but yet the government will not raise the minimum wage while they give themselves a cost of living wage raise every year. But thats all okay to say all of the government workers including the ones voting on it deserve a raise but for 7 years in a row the minimum wage has not been raised. That is hypocrisy at its worst. The working poor paying taxes so they the congress and the senate can increase their own wages but will not raise the minimum wage.

The living wage
http://www.answers.com/topic/living-wage
a wage sufficient for a worker and family to subsist comfortably

usually a certain amount set that provides enough to live and have access to the neccessities, a few cities have these rules and allow no industry in that refuses to pay a living wage to its workers. Right now in the US the minimum wage 5.15 and a lot of those jobs do not have access to healthcare. In the UK it is approximately 9.00.

The truth is as it stands now the rich are getting richer off of the backs of the poor.
Let's say we raise the minimum wage to $6.00 an hour. And some company that makes buttons employees 100 minimum wage employees. It would cost the company an additional $1,248,000 per year in wages. That company is going to raise its price of buttons being sold to a shirt company that employs 1,000 people.

That 1,000 employee shirt company is going to pay an additional $12,480,000 a year in wages. To offset the increased expense of wages and the initial cost increase of the bottons that company will raise the price of the shirt to retailers.

Now lets say there are 100,000 people employed by all the retailers that sell that shirt. That means those companies pays an additional $1,248,000 a year in wages. How do you think the retailer is going to offset the increased wage expense, the increased price of the shirt from the shirt makers, and the price of all other goods affected by the minimum wage increase?

So while a drastic increase in minimum wage will appear to be a good idea initially, it would drive inflation through the roof. People would be making more, but paying more everything they buy.

People would reduce the amount of good and services they purchase driving the economy into a recession.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
a wage sufficient for a worker and family to subsist comfortably
"comfortably"? Why comfortably? How do you define "comfortably"?
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ANAV said:
I've always hated posts on poverty. I work 40+ hours a week and my wife works part time 30 hours so we can provide a comfortable lives for ourselves. I'm I supposed to feel guilty because I make sacrifices and chose to support my family and not rely on government assist programs?

If Americans want to see real poverty they should go to countries in Central and South America. I see people in the US on welfare that have a 50 inch HD TV, Playstation, and two cars. The government needs to only assist those who truly deserve it. Cut the others off and force them to work a 40 hour work week. People will respect the money they earn and spend it more wisely then.
-ANAV

Yes, but what you take for granted is the fact that you had opportunities and were able to get an education. You were then able to get a job and support your family.

Many people don't have those opportunities. They get poor educations, if any at all, definately don't go to college. As a result of this the best job they can expect to get is the fry guy at McDonalds. Since there aren't very many jobs in the US now, more Americans can't even get a job like that. It's not like jobs can just pop out of thin air. In some countries this results in starvation where people die because of the lack of food. This is called poverty and I do expect you to feel guilty about it because it's a horrible lifestyle. Also that's BS that people on welfare have Playstaions and HD TV. The welfare check in America is 2,000 dollars a year. That doesn't even cover food for a month. Also you're only allowed 5 years of welfare and if you have kids, it counts for them too so the next generation has a even bigger hole to climb out of. Lastly the average person on welfare is a single mother with 5 children, so realize that maybe you should be guilty considering the fact that we have thrown away more than $281 billion to a BS war when we could have used it for a war on poverty.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Che said:
Yes but you miss my point KC, I'm saying Why Iraq? Why not Communist Cuba 5 mile away from our border why not North Korea with Nuclea weapons? Why Iraq which the Secretary of State said doesn't have connections with Osama? One word OIL!
Two more words: prove it.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Red_Dave said:
If bush didnt lie then where are the w.m.d.s
I don't know where the WMD's are, Dave. I know that they were once there. So did Bush, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Pelosi, Boxer, Kerry and so on. Are they liars too, Dave?

Now where's the lie?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why not Communist Cuba 5 mile away from our border
Remember October of '62? The 'Cuban Missle Crisis'? When we thought the situation called for it, we right to the brink of nuclear war over nukes in Cuba. Today, Fidel has more to think about than testing the US over nukes. He still talks tough, but he knows that we will not tolerate nukes at our back door.

why not North Korea
As of this moment, we believe that North Korea still does not have actual weapons/warheads, though there is a good possibility of that they will have them relatively soon. There is also a question as to whether or not they have a reliable delivery system. They have tested a very few rockest that went over Japan out into the sea of Japan, but right now, we don't think so, but it is really unclear as to whether they have any such capable of reaching the US mainland.

What we really fear from NK is that they will sell or otherwise provide some form of nuke or dirty bomb to a terrorist organization. They have sold missiles and missile tech to Iran and Iraq and I think Syria in the past, so they have a history of arms dealing in the region.

In the meantime, we are still trying diplomacy.
 
T

The Real McCoy

Che said:
-ANAV

Yes, but what you take for granted is the fact that you had opportunities and were able to get an education. You were then able to get a job and support your family.

Many people don't have those opportunities. They get poor educations, if any at all, definately don't go to college. As a result of this the best job they can expect to get is the fry guy at McDonalds.
There's a lot of people who never went to college but have taken advantage of our free market economy and become very successful.


Che said:
Since there aren't very many jobs in the US now, more Americans can't even get a job like that.
Aren't very many jobs in the US now? You must be joking.


Che said:
It's not like jobs can just pop out of thin air.
In a capitalist society they can. Entreprenuers invest in new business ventures to compete with existing ones and *TA-DA!* jobs are created.


Che said:
In some countries this results in starvation where people die because of the lack of food.
Another one of the beauties of the free market is that corporations can provide jobs overseas to people in third world countries.


Che said:
This is called poverty and I do expect you to feel guilty about it because it's a horrible lifestyle.
Most of the woes of poverty on the international scene is due to corrupt, thieving governments...


Che said:
Also that's BS that people on welfare have Playstaions and HD TV. The welfare check in America is 2,000 dollars a year. That doesn't even cover food for a month.
Perhaps if you're on a strict caviar diet...

Besides, I've been to a welfare recipients house and they had luxuries including a relatively new computer, the internet, 20+ inch TV with satelite



Che said:
Also you're only allowed 5 years of welfare
Welfare was doing more harm than good and Bill Clinton, the liberal democrat knew this which is why he approved of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 which is what gave us the current 5 year limit. 5 years is plenty of time to find a job.



Che said:
and if you have kids, it counts for them too so the next generation has a even bigger hole to climb out of. Lastly the average person on welfare is a single mother with 5 children, so realize that maybe you should be guilty considering the fact that we have thrown away more than $281 billion to a BS war when we could have used it for a war on poverty.
We'e thrown away trillions upon trillions on welfare and where has it gotten us?
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There's a lot of people who never went to college but have taken advantage of our free market economy and become very successful.
Yeah but that doesn't work every jobless screwed over person on welfare


which is why I reccomend the fair alternative: state property/communist economy!


Aren't very many jobs in the US now? You must be joking.


Not for people who don't have an education because thanks to something called foreign investment and the rich being taxed less, The rich will take there savings and build a factory in China or India which doesn't help bring jobs to America.


In a capitalist society they can. Entreprenuers invest in new business ventures to compete with existing ones and *TA-DA!* jobs are created.


Look at what I said about foreign investment.

Maybe there will be jobs for college educated americans but not the people who got the bad end of the straw




Another one of the beauties of the free market is that corporations can provide jobs overseas to people in third world countries.


Which takes away from American jobs




Most of the woes of poverty on the international scene is due to corrupt, thieving governments...


Ah hem..



Perhaps if you're on a strict caviar diet...




yes I could be on a cavier diet but if you're a single mother on welfare with 5 kids to feed 2,000 isn't going to make a major dent

besides try the entire year on $2000 dollars


Welfare was doing more harm than good and Bill Clinton, the liberal democrat knew this which is why he approved of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 which is what gave us the current 5 year limit. 5 years is plenty of time to find a job.


but 0 isn't enough for the kid has no education and as no job opportunity



We'e thrown away trillions upon trillions on welfare and where has it gotten us?


No where which leads me to my point Mr. McCoy! A War on Poverty that's organized will get us somewhere
 
Top Bottom