The left has gone full retard

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The graph has failed to demonstrate that increasing government spending decreases poverty. Until we have data indicating otherwise, we must assume that in general increasing government spending does not decrease poverty. The efficacy of specific programs cannot be determined based on the data presented, nor can the relation between total spending and effective spending.

Well, I am not going to call you stupid.

fat.

It must be assumed that simply increasing spending (throwing money at something) doesn't have a tangible effect. Seems logical.

Seems we are on the same page. Raev seems clueless CONFIRMED>

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Rape and Murder are human nature... we spend money fighting that. Should we not?

I think we can all agree on the answer to to that question.

Do you consider poverty as the result of force, a denial of individual liberty similar to rape and murder though?

[Lune]

Don't understand how somebody can be so fanatical about free market economics when we live on the eve of a revolution in automation, and the vast majority of human labor will be obsolete.

Even if you believe it worked well in the past (it did, it was a fantastic boon to industrialization), it's obviously not going to work in the future. It simply won't take 8 billion humans to run the economy, and consumption-driven economics is destined to destroy the planet.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Says the guy who tried to make poverty about cars and air conditioning. Come on guy... at least make it difficult on me.

I am saying poverty is relative to the culture you live in you are saying it is not. Please show me where people have to shit in the streets in the US because they lack access running water. Try to keep up fam.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Don't understand how somebody can be so fanatical about free market economics when we live on the eve of a revolution in automation, and the vast majority of human labor will be obsolete.

Even if you believe it worked well in the past (it did, it was a fantastic boon to industrialization), it's obviously not going to work in the future. It simply won't take 8 billion humans to run the economy, and consumption-driven economics is destined to destroy the planet.

What do you propose we do with the surplus people?

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The graph has failed to demonstrate that increasing government spending decreases poverty. Until we have data indicating otherwise, we must assume that in general increasing government spending does not decrease poverty. The efficacy of specific programs cannot be determined based on the data presented, nor can the relation between total spending and effective spending.



Well, I am not going to call you stupid.









fat.

But we have plenty of evidence that countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty. If someone gives you enough money -- you aren't poor anymore are you? The argument that government spending can't decrease the poverty rate is wrong via common sense. We don't even have to delve into the psychological impact of getting money from the government.

It amazes me how free market ideology so successfully gets people to ignore the obvious. They tell you with a straight face that trickle down economics helps poor/working people.

Edit: to clarify, I agree poverty is -- at least for my purposes -- somewhat relative to where you live. This is why we talk about "inequality" more than poverty. My primary concern is quality of life. I feel it is generally lower for the poor. I can't necessarily say the same for middleclass vs wealthy people.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am saying poverty is relative to the culture you live in you are saying it is not. Please show me where people have to shit in the streets in the US because they lack access running water. Try to keep up fam.

You are trying to redefine poverty to suit your purposes yes I agree.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think we can all agree on the answer to to that question.

Do you consider poverty as the result of force, a denial of individual liberty similar to rape and murder though?

I think, considering the current company on this forum, it would not be safe to agree on the answer to my question at all.

That is a good question at the end though. I think poverty CAN be a result of force and a denial of individual liberty though. Definitely not always.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What do you propose we do with the surplus people?

Batteries for the machines.. already saw this movie.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But we have plenty of evidence that countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty. If someone gives you enough money -- you aren't poor anymore are you? The argument that government spending can't decrease the poverty rate is wrong via common sense. We don't even have to delve into the psychological impact of getting money from the government.

It amazes me how free market ideology so successfully gets people to ignore the obvious. They tell you with a straight face that trickle down economics helps poor/working people.

Edit: to clarify, I agree poverty is -- at least for my purposes -- somewhat relative to where you live. This is why we talk about "inequality" more than poverty. My primary concern is quality of life. I feel it is generally lower for the poor. I can't necessarily say the same for middleclass vs wealthy people.

Common sense like Venezuela or the theoretical sort?

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think, considering the current company on this forum, it would not be safe to agree on the answer to my question at all.

That is a good question at the end though. I think poverty CAN be a result of force and a denial of individual liberty though. Definitely not always.





Batteries for the machines.. already saw this movie.

So let me get this straight. You dont know the source of poverty but you advocate an elaborate, wasteful, expensive, unproven solution to ending it?