• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

War on Proverty, no more War in Iraq

foreign investment

Oh, and what about all those new auto plants in the US that now employ thousands: MB, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Hyundai, Nissan?

Not for people who don't have an education because thanks to something called foreign investment

What is the linkage here? First, what has not having an education to do with "something called foreign investment"? You're just not making any sense at all here. Can you explain your position a little more clearly?

And second, why does one not have an education? In this day and age in the US, the only reason that anyone does not have at least a basic education is because they choose to not have an education. It may not be easy for some to have an education, but it is just more difficult and less convenient, not impossible. In fact, in this country today, lower income groups have more opportunities to pursue a college education than some middle income groups: some middle income groups are excluded from attending some colleges because they earn too much (even though they are solidly in the middle income group and not wealthy by any stretch and do not earn enough to pay for college out of pocket) simply because they earn too much and therefore do not qualify for financial assistance, while the lower income groups have financial assistance available. But thats another thread.

Which takes away from American jobs

No. Displaces, perhaps. Changes the mix of jobs availabe, perhaps. But it doesn't take away. Nonetheless, here you have the makings of a valid point, just not in the way that you have (so far) expressed it. If you're truly a Marxist, as your choice of names suggest (even though its my impression that Che was in actuality a thug and a murderer), then you know that Marx described the current globalization trend almost perfectly. And you also know that even though some jobs maybe be displaced from an area of high wage cost to an area of lower wage cost, whether that displacement is from the US midwest to the US southeast or from somewhere in the US to China, India, Taiwan, S. Korea, etc. You also know that Marx said that those displaced jobs would result in other new jobs being created to replace them and that
the task for social policy is to ease the workers transition from the old jobs to the new jobs (job training, interim assistance, etc). And the final state is greater income/lower cost and higher productivity for all concerned.

War on Poverty

We tried that under LBJ. All it got us was a bigger deficit and more bureaucracy and opting out of the work force in favor of welfare. What do you propose that would be different?
 
Oh, and what about all those new auto plants in the US that now employ thousands: MB, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Hyundai, Nissan?

That's only because they need a market in America. They may employ 1000's but every time a foreign company, like the ones you mention above, does well it will hurt the American companies in the area. GMC for example is closing down 3 plants I think with 30,000 workers. So the foreign companies here hurt as much as they help. Besides the only foreign companies that really have factories here are car copanies.


What is the linkage here? First, what has not having an education to do with "something called foreign investment"? You're just not making any sense at all here. Can you explain your position a little more clearly?

I'm talking about the fact that a buissnessman in America that's wants to open a factory will open it in China and ship it here because it
's cheaper usually (except for cars). This means that instead of creating jobs with a factory in America, the buissnessman will create jobs in China. Now all though this may not hurt if it's only one factory, it's not it's more like 1000s which is why China is now one of the fastest growing Countries in the world



And second, why does one not have an education?

Because although a basic public school education is easy to get it doesn't make you able to get a good job. It just puts you on the same level as most kids in America. Also there are not enough college places for many students in America and even if a student does go to a community or state college, some may not be able to pay for it and usually a degree at a community college is nothing compared to many who go to private colleges



No. Displaces, perhaps. Changes the mix of jobs availabe, perhaps. But it doesn't take away. Nonetheless, here you have the makings of a valid point, just not in the way that you have (so far) expressed it. If you're truly a Marxist, as your choice of names suggest (even though its my impression that Che was in actuality a thug and a murderer)

Oldreliable, I feel like I'm talking in circles with you. I may not no much but I know that A job in South Korea isn't going help American workers because it isn't near them. It may help South Koreans, but I believe that first we should worry about destroying the unemployment because of lack of jobs in our own country.

I feel like we're in a stalemate because we each have equally strong points about this issue

By the way, Che wasn't a thug or murderer. He was a revolutionary who supported communist revolts in Cuba, bolivia, and I think Nigeria. He wasn't ignorant eiher because he actually was college educated in medicine and had traveled around Latin America nd seen poverty first hand and thus nknew something had to be done. Che Guevara was a historical figure who even today is remebered.

We tried that under LBJ. All it got us was a bigger deficit and more bureaucracy and opting out of the work force in favor of welfare. What do you propose that would be different?

Well, if we didn't have a major deficit to begin with I'd say we could start by having the government fund public works projects for people on welfare to work on and get paid for. The project could attract commercial buissness and create jobs. When I created this thread I thinking along the lines of making housing an amendment. I haven't completely thought out a plan for the war on poverty because it's something that we should've done instead of a War in Iraq and would've been something that Americans would be more proud of.
 
ANAV said:
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.

Yes and their taxes might go up when the senate and congress give themselves a living wage and might drive these company's prices up too, but thats ok? If people were making a living wage they might be able to afford those goods and services. There is a large portion of the people in the US barely eeking a living, and many are stuck in jobs that do not even provide health care plans for their workers. They can barely afford the essentials of life like food and shelter, much less those goods you are talking about. If more people in the US made a living wage they could then afford those goods and services and the economy would probably improve.
 
oldreliable67 said:
"comfortably"? Why comfortably? How do you define "comfortably"?

It is defined by the cost to live in the area they live in. Here is a list of several cities who have done this and also has the affects of changing to a living wage for all within their boundaries. From what I am reading it works and is not producing the economic gloom you all keep talking about. http://www.livingwagecampaign.org/

http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/inside.php?sid=3484

The concept of a living wage is not new. In 1933, President Roosevelt said "No business that depends for existence on paying less than living wages has any right to continue in this country."
 
KCConservative said:
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?

How du know they where onece there? because those in government told you? The fact that saddam never used the w.m.ds against us when we attacked and the lack of w.m.ds in iraw now surgests to me that there wherent any
 
Che 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?

ENDING POVERTY starts with SELF!

I have been working on ending poverty for about 9-years! (my own poverty! and I would bet a buck to your wooden nickle that I have lived in more adverse poverty than ANYONE else on this board)
 
Red_Dave said:
How du know they where onece there? because those in government told you? The fact that saddam never used the w.m.ds against us when we attacked and the lack of w.m.ds in iraw now surgests to me that there wherent any

Everyone, except maybe you, are in agreement that Saddam had WMD. He used them against his own people, for crying out loud. Answer the question. Are Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi liars too?
 
KCConservative said:
Everyone, except maybe you, are in agreement that Saddam had WMD. He used them against his own people, for crying out loud. Answer the question. Are Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi liars too?

he used chemical weapons with our help, [see iran-iraq war and look at who suporrted sadam] but not weapons of mass destruction. In my book a weapon of mass destruction would be something that destroyed on a large scale, like a nuke
 
Red_Dave said:
he used chemical weapons with out help, [see iran-iraq war and look at who suporrted sadam] but not weapons of mass destruction. In my book a weapon of mass destruction would be something that destroyed on a large scale, like a nuke
Thankfully we didn;t play by your book. Are you going to answer the question?
 
KCConservative said:
Thankfully we didn;t play by your book. Are you going to answer the question?

As i have explained before they are either mistaken or lying. It is unlikely bush was mistaken. Mind you he plainly knows alot more about chemical weapons than me. Look at falluja
 
Che,

"That's only because they need a market in America."

No, they already had a market here. There is one and only reason that foreign mfr's have plants here: because they can produce their products here at a competitive price and be close to their market. Whichobviously begs the question: if those foreign companies can do it, why can't GM and Ford dot it as well? The answers are several, but they all boil down to these:

1) American mfr's have been perceived to be of lesser quality than non-US mfg vehicles. Edmunds.com notes that the average incentive for non-US mfgrs is $1,500 per vehicle while that for US mfgs is $3,500 per vehicle. Edmunds attributes this difference to the willingness of buyers to pay a 'bounty' for better perceived quality. To their credit,GM and Ford have been moving up in the JD Power quality rankings, but it may be too little, too late.

2) American mfrs have made some poor business decisions: in terms of health care and retiree benefits, the average US vehicle has about 3 times the cost of non-US vehicles.

3) American mfrs have been slow to respond to changes in the market. The greater flexibility of the non-US mfrs has permitted them to stay on top of consumer preferences. If it weren't for SUV's and pickups, GM and Ford might have been gone already.
 
Che,

I'm well aware of who Che Guevara was, as well as who he widely thought to be. I wonder if you are. A lot of myth, almost cult like, has grown up around Che, helped along by Hollywood and the media. Look a little closer and you'll find that he was a thug and murderer. Read here for another view.
 
oldreliable67 said:
Che,



No, they already had a market here. There is one and only reason that foreign mfr's have plants here: because they can produce their products here at a competitive price and be close to their market. Whichobviously begs the question: if those foreign companies can do it, why can't GM and Ford dot it as well? The answers are several, but they all boil down to these:

1) American mfr's have been perceived to be of lesser quality than non-US mfg vehicles. Edmunds.com notes that the average incentive for non-US mfgrs is $1,500 per vehicle while that for US mfgs is $3,500 per vehicle. Edmunds attributes this difference to the willingness of buyers to pay a 'bounty' for better perceived quality. To their credit,GM and Ford have been moving up in the JD Power quality rankings, but it may be too little, too late.

2) American mfrs have made some poor business decisions: in terms of health care and retiree benefits, the average US vehicle has about 3 times the cost of non-US vehicles.

3) American mfrs have been slow to respond to changes in the market. The greater flexibility of the non-US mfrs has permitted them to stay on top of consumer preferences. If it weren't for SUV's and pickups, GM and Ford might have been gone already.


yes, so like I said these foreign companies are huring as much as they're helping
 
oldreliable67 said:
Che,

I'm well aware of who Che Guevara was, as well as who he widely thought to be. I wonder if you are. A lot of myth, almost cult like, has grown up around Che, helped along by Hollywood and the media. Look a little closer and you'll find that he was a thug and murderer. Read here for another view.


your link is written based on the thoughts of the writer. Che was actually a socialist who did no totalitarionist ruling of his own. He only sparked revolutions. I know all this because recently I read a biography of his life.
The writer was talking through an extreme right wing look at his life. What the writer say's about killing himself and others is bull along with the labor camps because Che was in Cuba for only about a year and then moved along. The cult you're talking is about as true as bush claiming a war in Iraq would be a last resort. The reason why alot of people are wearing his shirt is because he is a main figure to those of the left. Just like Ronald Reagan of the right. If you read up on how Che challenged christian nuns ,who treated Leper infected people like dirt , and went into the their camp and treated them with respect playing soccer, talking with them, and eating with them, you'll know that Che wasn't an evil person as the Right wingers make him out to be, but more a man with a message who knew about Ltin America and how it should be run. oldreliable, I'm afraid you've just been pulled in to a propaganda that throws dirt on a cold war enemy.
 
How about looking at the title of this topic with a different slant . . .

People hollar about getting rid of poverty.

Isn't THAT what is actually happening in Iraq?

Aren't there MORE satellite dishes and cell phones than ever before in the history of Iraq?

Haven't they even opened up their own stock exchange too?

It has been a war that has reduced a lot of poverty!

IN this country - poverty is a result of personal choices.

Back in 1973 I ran away from home at the age of 15 - 9-years ago I finally stopped feeling sorry for myself and started doing FOR MYSELF!

Now, with a 9th grade education:
  • I own a new home that no one else ever lived in before me - nothing fancy - it appraised at about $125,000.00 brand new.
  • got a 2001 Lariat with all the whistles and bells.
  • got a 2004 M6 with the luxury and sport package
  • got a 1970 Coup De Ville convertible that runs like a top!

So, when I here how poor people need help - I personally know that they need to start by helping themselves.

There is an old saying:

You Can Lead A Horse To Water BUT You Can't Make Him Drink!

. . . . . AND . . . . .

You can show the poor how to do better - but you can't make them!

When you were going to school did you give up part of your grade to help another student who chose to get waisted and play doctor instead of studying?


Look at the difference between the conservative and liberal ways to see the same thing.

Conservative: the unschooled chose to do different from those who were aiming to make a good life for themselves.

Liberal: The poor people didn't have a chance.

The Successful Chose To: take on a ton of loans and debt to get more schooling.

The Poor Chose To: hung out and hit the next party - some became an unprepared parent.

The Successful Chose To: Go after a profession

The Poor Chose To: Go after a job at a fast food joint (and complained about low wages!)

So; can someone explain to me - why successful people must pay for another person's poor choices?

HOW IS THAT FAIR?
 
Red_Dave said:
As i have explained before they are either mistaken or lying. It is unlikely bush was mistaken. Mind you he plainly knows alot more about chemical weapons than me. Look at falluja

So all of your liberal heros are mistaken but Bush is a liar. Yeah, got it. :roll:
 
Che said:
He only sparked revolutions. I know all this because recently I read a biography of his life.

Then you should know he was a loser. Every revolution he was involved in was a failure (save for Cuba) and the Cuban revolution was a disaster anyway. Look at that country today, one of the poorest in the world. I'm willing to bet that biography you read took an extreme leftist view on his life and failed to mention plenty of things about him.. Otherwise, you probably wouldn't idolize him unless you really are insane.
 
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.

Provide sources of this: not personal anecdotes and commentary,
 
Slantedfacts said:
How about looking at the title of this topic with a different slant . . .

People hollar about getting rid of poverty.

Isn't THAT what is actually happening in Iraq?

Aren't there MORE satellite dishes and cell phones than ever before in the history of Iraq?

Haven't they even opened up their own stock exchange too?

It has been a war that has reduced a lot of poverty!

IN this country - poverty is a result of personal choices.

Back in 1973 I ran away from home at the age of 15 - 9-years ago I finally stopped feeling sorry for myself and started doing FOR MYSELF!

Now, with a 9th grade education:
  • I own a new home that no one else ever lived in before me - nothing fancy - it appraised at about $125,000.00 brand new.
  • got a 2001 Lariat with all the whistles and bells.
  • got a 2004 M6 with the luxury and sport package
  • got a 1970 Coup De Ville convertible that runs like a top!

So, when I here how poor people need help - I personally know that they need to start by helping themselves.

There is an old saying:

You Can Lead A Horse To Water BUT You Can't Make Him Drink!

. . . . . AND . . . . .

You can show the poor how to do better - but you can't make them!

When you were going to school did you give up part of your grade to help another student who chose to get waisted and play doctor instead of studying?


Look at the difference between the conservative and liberal ways to see the same thing.

Conservative: the unschooled chose to do different from those who were aiming to make a good life for themselves.

Liberal: The poor people didn't have a chance.

The Successful Chose To: take on a ton of loans and debt to get more schooling.

The Poor Chose To: hung out and hit the next party - some became an unprepared parent.

The Successful Chose To: Go after a profession

The Poor Chose To: Go after a job at a fast food joint (and complained about low wages!)

So; can someone explain to me - why successful people must pay for another person's poor choices?

HOW IS THAT FAIR?


What a wonderful strawman of reality this post was.
 
RD,

yes, so like I said these foreign companies are huring as much as they're helping

Thats a very strange statement. Would you elaborate on that? Frankly, I fail to understand how an efficient manufacturer being successful through good management, good products, and providing employment to thousands hurts anyone. If there are other companies that are unable to compete because their management is unable to incompetent, because they are unable to produce the products that consumers prefer, then those companies risk falling by the wayside.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Then you should know he was a loser. Every revolution he was involved in was a failure (save for Cuba) and the Cuban revolution was a disaster anyway. Look at that country today, one of the poorest in the world. I'm willing to bet that biography you read took an extreme leftist view on his life and failed to mention plenty of things about him.. Otherwise, you probably wouldn't idolize him unless you really are insane.

I don't idolize him as you assume. I just agree with his political ideals, and since this is a politcal forum I chose the user name Che. Cuba was actually worse off before Castro. It was run by a corrupt beaurocratic American supported government that pocketed most of the money that came into it. The only reason it actually ran was because of American tourists. You can never expect Cuba to become a super power because it's a island whose products are boycotted by the worlds biggest economy. Have you ever been to Cuba? I have and I can tell you something about the people there. They may not be wasteful obese pigs with millions of dollars sticking out their a$$, but they are proud. They're very proud people. They have an amazing sense of national pride that no other country I know will ever have.
 
RD,

They're very proud people. They have an amazing sense of national pride that no other country I know will ever have.

Don't know about that last part ("that no other country will ever have"), but the first part is certainly true ("They're very proud people. They have an amazing sense of national pride...) Have to admire them for that.

Ok, ok, some cynic is going to respond with, "Then why do so many of them keep risking drowning in makeshift boats and stuff to leave?" The partial answer is that, even those that have left still evince a great deal of pride in their homeland, but even so, they recognize that it is not what they want it to be.
 
Che said:
The only reason it actually ran was because of American tourists.

The only reason it STILL runs is because of tourism.


Che said:
You can never expect Cuba to become a super power because it's a island whose products are boycotted by the worlds biggest economy.

It's a shame too because I enjoy a good Cuban cigar.. unfortunately I enjoy boycotting corrupt communist/socialist countries more.



Che said:
Have you ever been to Cuba? I have and I can tell you something about the people there. They may not be wasteful obese pigs with millions of dollars sticking out their a$$, but they are proud. They're very proud people. They have an amazing sense of national pride that no other country I know will ever have.

You should do a little more travelling/thinking if you think Cubans have the most sense of national pride of any country in history.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Look at that country today, one of the poorest in the world.

But Cuba is one of the best off Latin American countries, the govt. spews tons of benefits. And also Cuba was one of the poorest before Castro, did you look at what US-backed Batista's govt. did?
 
Back
Top Bottom