Poor people

Many economists, following Milton Friedman, believe that the Federal Reserve inappropriately refused to lend money to small banks during the bank runs of 1929.[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
Again, I don't need your opinion. Present some facts that says the Fed Res was a cause of the great depression.

 

You blame capitalism for depressions, but the great depression didn't occur under capitalism. It occurred under statism. So you do you have any other examples?

 

It's called "keep your junk in your trunk". I know that this is like discussing quantum mechanics with a restroom attendant, but I assure you that it is possible to decide to NOT have sex because normal people with normal brains know that sex results in babies.

I know, I know... this is a difficult concept, but it is quite true. You might want to ask a biology teacher to explain the basics. I'm pretty sure it'll go unheeded because as my argument points out, there is no reason for the welfare hordes to worry about contraception or even abstaining from sex.

You don't understand abstaining, or even how to buy a condom, so I'm not exactly preaching to the choir here. More like speaking Mandarin to some guy from hickville alabama.

 

Kinda makes you want to do some "population control", eh mein fuhrer?

 

Again, your opinions don't mean much.

 

So obviously capitalism didn't cause the great depression. Statism did. Because capitalism didn't exist during the time of the great depression.

 

I posted a link to 5 reasons for the depression. And yes, capitalism played a role. Free markets where the stock market crashed, where banks over lent, where people stopped spending.
Nothing about statism in there. So your opinion isn't worth much.

You've provide not 1 thing to back up your claim. NOT ONE!!!!!
But the gov't did play a role, they instilled tariffs on Europe.

 

I have removed some of your post as it has been reported but I do want to address this knowledge deficit


As for abstinence ther are seven BILLION people on this planet. Abstinence does not work

 

Banking wasn't free. They were regulated by the state. The system was not capitalism. It was statism. Therefore, statism caused the crash.

 

Please, offer up some proof. Your opinion isn't cutting it.
You blaming 1 thing, with no proof, isn't making your case.

I am willing to look at all proof you offer up.

 

You reported my post and then say that abstinence doesn't work? What was the rule that I broke? Explaining to you why you are wrong?

I already explained the concept of epigenetics, and how that is why some people don't feel the need to bother with abstinence or protection. If the mods feel that I broke a rule by pointing out a well-established scientific theory, then... well, I will push back.

and to the mods, here's some reading material for ya...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

 

No idea what that's supposed to mean, so I'm gonna go ahead and take it as an affirmative. You're welcome.

 

The idea is that one of the kids will be able to take care of them when they are old.

 

Given the intellectual level of your comment ... calling someone else an animal is pot calling kettle black on steroids.

 

How does how much one breeds affect whether or not someone is human ? What a mindless conversation.

 

As a very general proposition, it's true that the reflex of the Right to any social problem is to oppose any expansion of government power, just as the reflex of the Left is to support it.

However, on both the Left and the Right there are people who seriously try to grapple with social problems and to come up with ideas for tackling them. Sometimes they agree on them. The Bill Clinton welfare reforms are a case in point. The Right caricatures liberals as wanting to create a mass of illiterate government-dependent voting cattle out of minority groups, but this is unfair. There are many liberals who understand the problems of welfare dependency, and want a welfare policy that works against it. Anyone seriously interested in this approach should go to Amazon and find the books of 'Robert Cherry'. [The problem with online debating forums is that many of the debaters on either side actually know anything about the subjects they argue about. You just get sterile exchanges of insults.]

There are obvious places to look for improvement beyond welfare policy.

For example, there is pretty wide agreement that getting a good education is very important, if not essential, to escaping poverty. If you're functionally illiterate, it's hard to do well in modern life, at least not by legal means.

"As of 2009, the Department of Education reported that literacy rates for more than 50 percent of African American children in the fourth grade nationwide was below the basic skills level and far below average; and by the ninth grade nationwide, the situation had gotten worse, with the rate dropping below 44 percent.

Yes, there is still an unemployment crisis in the nation’s Black communities, but what is feeding and ensuring the longevity of that crisis is the ballooning illiteracy rate among Black youth and adults. What happened to that post-antebellum slavery zeal that put educational attainment, including reading and writing skills, as the sustained priority for advancement in American society? How did we drop that ball?"
[ Source ]

So examining our public education system to see if it can be improved is one place to start. And here there are lots of proposals from both Right and Left, some of which overlap, i.e. on which people from both Right and Left agree. (Not all people from either side, just some.) In fact, next to foreign policy, education policy is one are where there are liberals and conservatives on the same side. (Again, not all, or even most, but a significant number.)

If you're interested in ways of improving education that some people on the 'Right' like, you might look at the following:

Go to Youtube and search for: 'Sigfried Engelmann' and 'Marva Collins'.

Engelmann pioneered a form of teaching called 'Direct Instruction'. (Bad name -- he has no marketing skills at all). It was tested against a number of other approaches in 'Operation Follow Through' in the early 1970s, and the young people taught be his method had better outcomes than those taught by 'progressive' methods. The Educational Establishment hated this and buried the results, but they are well worth looking at. Engelmann is not on the Right -- his group is at the University of Oregon -- but for whatever reason, most of the Left don't like his approach.

The late Marva Collins ran a school for Black children in Chicago. It had serious educational content. You'll be very impressed -- at least I was -- when you see the '60 Minutes' program on her school. If you're on the Left and don't like The Bell Curve and its conclusions, her school appears to be a direct refutation of them.

Then look up 'Ed Hirsch' and 'Cultural Literacy'. Again, Hirsch is not on the Right, but for whatever reason, the (modern) Left generally doesn't like his approach to education, and the Right generally does. I've heard 'Common Core' argued for as an attempt to bring Hirsch's ideas into the education system, but am not familiar enough with its details to know if this is true. Many on the Right don't like Common Core because they don't like increase Federal control over local education -- which agrees with your point about the Right and government -- but how you implement a decent curriculum is a question which is independent of what should be on that curriculum.

Of course the big 'Left/Right' debate about education has been one where the Left generally favors more centralized government control, and the Right less, namely, the 'vouchers' and 'charter school' debate.

Charter schools do not seem to have been a panacea. It's what they actually teach, and how, that is key. Anyone interested in this needs to look at the work of British school called 'Michaela'.

I apologize if you are already familiar with all this.

Anyone who is interested in a -- there is no 'the' -- general 'Rightist' approach to social policy needs to look at the work of the Manhattan Institute, and their publication, City Journal.

 

People who post that kind of drivel have no soul.

 

Made in China, guaranteed to break

 

You call yours 'rednecks' and we call ours 'chavs'. Either way, they're societies' parasites whose only aspiration is to breed even more parasites.

 

Most people, particularly Americans, have no conception of the poverty level and living conditions in Africa. I grew up in 70's Appalachia and thought I knew what poverty was until I served in Africa and South America.

 

Proof that banking wasn't free market but was regulated? Try unit banking laws, for a start.

 

,



Except for a giant glaring issue of women's right to their own body which the Right wants to end with Bigger Government by banning abortion which really doesn't need any banning....it doesn't need laws, banning it creates a need for Bigger Government but the Right wants Bigger government if they can oppress their enemies..



I expect there are more exceptions but that's a Big one.

 

Not really. Parasites - excluding those who are gentrified, like college professors and bureaucrats - tend to congregate in big cities, where you don't find many "rednecks".

 

OK just for you. Now tell me how capitalism fits in that definition.

Pon·zi scheme
ˈpänzē ˌskēm/
noun

1. a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.

 

Seventh decade young. A veteran, a fighter, a killer.