Do you think you would do better in a free-enterprise capitalist environment, a socialist or communist system, or a mixture of them?
2007-07-02 18:52:26 · 10 answers · asked by Boomer Wisdom 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The way to end poverty in America in 3 easy steps:
1: Remove the 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.
2: Give their jobs to poor people.
3: Take a nap, you're finished.
By the way, history has shown that government assistance only causes dependence. People on welfare never get off 98% of the time, and that's the way the system is set-up.
Communist society results in poverty 100% of the time. It's the very focus of the communist philosophy.
Capitalism says, everyone should work hard and be rich.
Communism says, everyone should be lazy and poor.
The war on poverty can only be won in a capitalist society.
2007-07-02 19:13:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I think now it would be called the "War on the Poverty of the Rich." As far as an exit strategy, "Let the poor stew in their own juices. The rich are the only ones that count."
Corporate welfare is a sad consequence of our current society. I think Hell has a special place reserved for those who get rich on the blood and suffering of others.
Personally, I would do better in a free-enterprise sysem; however, my ethics demand that some level of social system exist to protect the weak. Who knows? Fate may at some point make me or a member of my family part of that lot.
2007-07-03 02:14:39 · answer #2 · answered by James S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The "War on Poverty," like the "War on Terrorism," is a war that has no end and no exit strategy. Both are by definition unwinnable and unending. Wartime Presidents have a very strong grip on political power, as the people look to them for protection and leadership, and generally trust them (at least for awhile) regardless of how good a job they are actually doing. When there is no real war, some Presidents have created or escalated a real or imagined war just to keep themselves and/or their party in power.
Poverty is real. Terrorism is real. But both are concepts. Poverty is a condition, terrorism is a strategy. Neither is a tangible or legitimate "enemy" in the sense of warfare. There is no point at which we can declare these wars to be "won."
These "wars" are simply political gimmicks, one from a Democrat and one from a Republican, designed to keep their respective parties in power.
2007-07-03 02:26:26 · answer #3 · answered by Don P 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mixed economies always work the best.
Example:
Las vegas
Dispite the fact, that it appears to be completely capitalistic, there are several businesses that are owned by the state or county, and everything is highly regulated compared to most places.
It works very well and provides a good standard of living by moderate regulaton of businesses, and zero state income tax, because revenues from state or county owned businesses compensate for the lost revenue from taxes.
2007-07-03 02:00:38 · answer #4 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Free enterprise system for sure! There was no exit strategy, LBJ was an internationalist. There was No war on poverty, it was his war on the free market & capitalism. FDR got this nightmare of social inter dependence going & LBJ just thru fuel on the fire! People really need to learn to stand on their own two feet & quit begging others to help them get thru life. People go down on their fortune & charity, family & friends are there for support. You don't need politicians(magicians!) taxing others out of their hard earned wealth to support you! We as Americans really have a problem here as it is enslaving us to a bogus social system! Vote for Ron Paul & support OUR Libertarian party to take back YOUR country/freedom!
2007-07-03 02:18:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
i guess the exit strategy would be eliminating poverty,too bad that is as unrealistic as the war on terror. the mix of capitalism and socialism that we have has worked out pretty well so far
2007-07-03 02:05:13 · answer #6 · answered by here to help 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You cannot compare capitalistic because it is a economic system not a government system.
2007-07-03 01:59:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Capitalism.
In socialist or communist countries everyone is equal; dirt poor and powerless.
2007-07-03 01:58:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Capitalism of course, social programs are used for votes, not to help the poor.
2007-07-03 02:01:38 · answer #9 · answered by Miss Kitty 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
socialism and communism havent worked anywhere else, why would it work here?
2007-07-03 01:58:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋