Total posts: 2,799
So, it has been seeming like any disparities among races are always just tossed up to "White Racism" or "Systemic Racism", and I was simply wondering, at what point do you consider minorities to be people who are responsible for their own actions?
Are we assuming that all cultures and peoples are the same and that any disparity at all is because of racism? How much disparity in SAT scores and household wealth needs to be closed before you blame individuals for making bad choices like having kids out of wedlock?
And how does this apply to disparities in which White people are lower in achievement? Asians from many cultures and countries have the highest IQ scores and earn much higher incomes than White people.
Black women are 3x more likely to die during childbirth than White women, but Hispanics are 13% less likely to die than White people. Are White women making bad health decisions and Black women are suffering from this unspeakable racism on the part of White doctors, and it is of no fault of their own?
Maybe telling people that all of their problems are because the White man is keeping people down is causing them to act irrationally. Maybe they don't try as hard to finish high school, because 'what is the point'? The evil White man will keep you from succeeding anyway.
It seems to me that removing personal agency from people is only going to cause more harm than good. You can fight the occasional racism when you find it, but it by no means is rampant like lefties try to make it out to be.
So lefties in particular, let me in on this: At what point do you blame people over a boogeyman?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is becoming my venting place, anyone else know the people who suddenly stop responding whenever you ask for them to actually look at your evidence? LIke, they just dismiss it out of hand, and then you actually push them to respond to the evidence, and they just poof?
That's why if I want to really dig down into an issue, I just set up a debate. They can't escape you there, or they actually have "consequences".
Otherwise, forum is just for fun, semi-/non-serious discussion more or less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yeah, our gerrymanderers need to train up on the latest strategies. Not quite the best, but getting there!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ah yes, from the people who want to expand the size of the Supreme Court because we legally voted for a new justice.
Or the people who lost because of the electoral college and now want to get rid of the electoral college.
Can't win? Just change the rules!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
We love our gerrymanderers, don't we, folks? We have the best gerrymanderers!
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don’t know, we’re told to “hate the sin, not the sinner”.
Worst you could expect from us is to not hire you to teach religion classes or something.
Some religions like Islam, at least the more radical sects, might kill you even without God telling them to. Precisely why intersectionality confuses me.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I am Gay - though I am specifically pansexual - I still trend towards being attracted to men - and your god told you to murder me (like the doctrine of the bible does) would you murder me?
I would probably assume that I was insane, since it is against Christian morals to kill people for no reason (thou shalt not murder and all of that)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
it is a core principle of right-wing economics. If you funnel all the money to the rich, it will somehow, some day, trickle down to other people. That is some magical thinking.
I thought trickle-down economics was more of a strawman, like companies having more money means they would pay employees more. I don't think that is correct.
However, if you can analyze the wealth created from giving extra money via tax breaks or subsidies to a company for R&D and find that whatever would be created would increase the quality of life for a lot of people, then you definitely should do it.
Creating new good products and services is supply-side economics, which is "right-wing". Again, you can't simply go one side or the other. You still need a strong consumer base.
since that data included food as a "premium item", i have no faith in that info. But again, there are a limited number of jobs. You keep pretending like if every american went to college, they would all be CEOs making millions. That is a fantasy. There are a limited number of high paying jobs. Yes, getting more education will help you fight to get them. but if I get that job, someone else doesn't. no matter how hard everyone works the majority of the country is going to struggle financially. It is how the system is designed.
And economies will adapt. People get laid off or fired, others take their place, new high-paying jobs are created. Not everybody can be a winner, but there are always hundreds of things you can do to improve your position. Most people just aren't willing to put in the effort, poor or rich, because moving is an inconvenience or working and doing classes at the same time is hard.
There is no system, not your little "democratic" socialist paradise nor anarcho-communist one where everybody will be a winner. Capitalism is a far superior system for wealth creation as long as it promotes competition, which is pro-consumer.
that's because blue states are more urbanized and have higher wages than red states.
And the higher taxes and regulations like rent control that result in housing shortages contribute to the much higher cost of living which offsets those "higher wages"
that's a great plan if you want america to decline. The US needs immigrants or it's population will start to decline. You are right, if america stopped immigration the cost of labor would rise. but this would also cause a drop in the size of america's workforce and cause the economy to decline.
Well, I would support more financial programs to allow families to have children younger so they will likely have more kids over their lifetime. Currently, they are waiting too long for financial stability and they have highly reduced fertility by then. Increasing your population via immigration is a disaster-immigrants are willing to accept much lower wages for jobs than domestic-born people, which depresses wages then there is the reduced social cohesion, etc. Increase birthrates domestically and do so in a manner that would allow stable growth of the workforce. That way you don't kill your economy nor depress wages with "low standards" workers. Solves like 3-5 problems at once.
you keep ignoring my argument. If everyone is a manager, then they aren't managing anyone. There is a limit to the number of high paying jobs. Even if every single american was highly educated, half (if not more) would struggle financially. Education helps you fight over the limited number of good jobs, but no matter how hard the general population fights, half the country will struggle to make ends meet.
Well it is hard to know what the landscape would look like if people were making smarter life decisions. If more people went to trade school, as the supply of these workers is very low, and people moved cities to look for jobs instead of staying in dying cities, then we can move from there.
It is the role of the government to take measures to increase the availability of high-paying jobs through making a good economic environment: that means efficient regulations and not taxing the crap out of corporations and small businesses. It means investing in infrastructure and occasionally in people for education, as long as it is an investment on the part of the government and only then.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
For America perhaps, literally any other country with people who's Overton window isn't shifted to the right super far he's moderate (Just like the rest of the world uses metric, the rest of the world is also waaay less shifted right in political outlook)
I think I would agree with that. Compared to a lot of other countries, he would be considered a center-left candidate, I'm sure.
It seems like the DNC economically is fairly moderate globally, but socially, they seem pretty far-left to me.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
He's nearly a center politician, and while he went a little more to the left with some of his policies most of them are still pretty moderate.
He is more left-wing in many ways than any other DNC presidential candidate.
Green New Deal support (as per his website, he supports it or at least many of the main provisions) is more radical than any previous environmental policy.
He is going super-hard on illegal alien citizenship.
Public option healthcare. I think that Carter might have mentioned that, so he is at least tied on most far-left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
please demonstrate why its bad please
I'd ask a few French priests and teachers about it, but they are having a hard time speaking out against it after their recent decapitations.
Thats literally America
Post-1960s America, maybe. It went from aggressively forcing people to assimilate to the current woke "what's wrong with having people with radically different values and cultures in close proximity?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why do you guys support objectively bad things like multiculturalism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
Okay. I am really tired of hearing about "the first step towards confiscation". No one is trying to pry your gun out of your fingers! But WHY do you need more than a handgun???? Why? I REALLY, REALLY WANT TO KNOW?
To eliminate looter savages
And you completely ignored everything else I said to say “no one is coming for your guns” when he is forcing you to register or sell them back. Forcible buyback if you don’t register! Not far-fetched at all to think they are going to do it. Plenty of other countries have.
What I heard was that he was repealing the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy. As for corporations, Amazon paid nothing for 2 straight years!
Nothing federally. Paid plenty of state and FICA taxes. They paid none federally because we made R&D expenditures tax-deductible. Should they not be?
What? Really? Unless by "health" you mean "death" --- then that is horrible. New York really passed a bill like that? I'll have to do some research on that tomorrow. But really, that is truly unprecedented. As for de facto late-term abortion, do you mean they passed an ambiguous law so that anyone wanting a late-term abortion could more easily get one? I can't believe they would create a bill like that without spelling it out in VERY specific terms. Like I said. Horrible if true.
“The RHA legalized all abortions up to 24 weeks of gestation. Beyond 24 weeks gestation, abortion was deemed legal if the woman's health or life are at risk or if the fetus is not viable.[4] Per the norm to not define medical terms in the law, the terms "health", "at risk", and "viable" were not defined in the RHA. It was determined that it is up to the discretion of a woman's medical provider and that woman to determine if her health is at risk, and it is up to medical providers to determine if a fetus is viable based on specific medical criteria.”
They don’t define health. Stress is bad for your health. Could simply say that having a baby is causing you stress.
So, any doctor can allow it if they want to. No prescriptions or suggestions in the law that I know of
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
- Restricting gun rights: He only wants universal background checks and an eventual ban on assault weapons.
Patently false. That's all he wants? Not allowing law suits against gun companies for misuse of their products? Ban "high-capacity" magazines? Forcible registration of assault weapons (aka the first step towards confiscation)? Take guns from people convicted of MISDEAMEANOR hate crimes? End all online sales of firearms? If firearms are "accessible" to children, they can be prosecuted even if the kid never even saw or touched the gun?
No, he just wants "universal background checks and an eventual ban on assault weapons". I guess he just never read his website. https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
- Raising taxes: He is ONLY raising taxes on people whose income is over 400K a year (don't know much about corporate taxes, so I won't comment there).
Said he is repealing Trump tax cuts. Those included middle class tax cuts. Corporate taxes are going to be raised from 21% to 28% if he gets his way.
- Late-term abortion: It has nothing to do with "the balls to try it". They don't believe in it! No one does! (I'm not saying there isn't some wierdo faction out there).
Depends. New York passed a bill that allows abortions in the third trimester and use ambiguous, undefined terms such as "health" as a valid reason for abortion. It is de facto late-term abortion, not explicit.
As for restricting gun rights . . . . aren't you SICK of school shootings and Walmart massacres? No one wants to take your gun to defend your home or to make anyone stop hunting. They just want to stop the ability of some sicko to mow down 15 people in 30 seconds. THIS IS JUST COMMON SENSE. Major assault weapons are for the military. That is who they were designed for!
Well most of the perpetrators are thugs who acquire them through illegal means. We have a gun trafficking problem, not a gun problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
Whenever I asked, I got short sentences in response like, "Biden wants to take our freedom away" or "Biden is going to raise taxes" or "Democrats will legalize late term abortion". And they "seemed" to believe these things, even though they are not true.
Restricting gun rights *check*
Going to raise taxes *(corporate *check* income *check*)*
Legalize late term abortion (doubt they would have the balls try it nationally, so I'll give you that one)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Unfortunately this corporate sponsored "culture" is the death of all real culture, both American and otherwise, but that's a different discussion.
I was talking with Dr. Franklin about this one time. I told him that the best way that I have heard it put is that, under a multicultural country where people have next to nothing in common, all "art"/movies/songs/etc. has to appeal to the lowest common denominator. What does an African immigrant, a White born in America, and an Indian immigrant have in common? Not religion, not cultural values. Just the fact that they all enjoy sex, eat food, and go sh*t. So, naturally, darn near every song is about sex. But I agree, that is a different discussion. Just thought I'd make a comment on that.
The remaining cultural trappings are just that--trappings. This is also why all the "cultural appropriation" stuff is even a thing, btw. People feel the need to aggressively defend their groups traditional clothing and food and such because that's all they have left, and they know it.
I think that is a good potential point, but if you'd notice, most people complaining about cultural appropriation are privileged White people. Decent amount of Blacks are starting to do that, though, especially the "eDuCaTeD" ones who have a sociology degree.
But if you wear a sombrero, I would highly doubt that any Mexican immigrant would care. They appreciate that you celebrate their culture.
For immigration not to be toxic for the mainstream society the immigrant (or at least their children) has to lose their uniqueness, what makes them THEM, and replace it with something different. It's not a fair thing to ask of people.
I agree. It is cruel to make people give up their culture, which is why it needs to be clear coming in that they must do so. That is the only way to ensure our social fabric doesn't unravel rapidly.
If they are to truly be "American", they must give up their past. I think the really only way to accomplish this is to take back the schools and put patriotism at the heart of education during history and government classes. Show them what makes American liberty so great.
Well. Yes, in a way. But I can't help but notice that the flavor of right wing politics I prefer (right wing populism) is much more palatable to minorities than Bush/Romney style austerity. Immigration did kill the old Republican consensus but honestly that surprisingly turned out to be a good thing. A white-working class and Latino coalition might actually be in the works (https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1325524794570313730). I certainly hope it is.
I also do like this new flavor of right-wing politics. Nationalism, populism, protectionism. I think that a Latino coalition is possible, although again I'm not sure that their support will ever reach 50%. A lot of them are becoming less religious and more favorable towards abortion as they assimilate to leftism, though, so I'm not going to hold my breath. Mass immigration will be a net negative to the GOP, just like illegal alien amnesty will kill our country (something that Biden said he would do). He phrased it as "path to citizenship", but they result in the same thing.
Hispanic:
Control gun ownership support: 62%
Protect gun freedom: 36%
They also majority support hate speech legislation if I remember correctly.
However, they are still as a total group good on abortion and are against weed legalization.
And as for the Black vote, voting Democrat is part of their little subculture lol. Even though illegal immigrants kill their wages, they will never vote for the GOP unless Dems bring back slavery or something.
I wouldn't have allowed mass immigration if I were in charge in the 1960's, but honestly it's a fait accompli at this point. The good news is that I anticipate Biden's presidency to be the last great wave of immigration before the spigot is turned off again for a while.
I sure hope you are right, but if he can give citizenship to those 11 million illegal immigrants, we are electorally boned for life. Same way California turned permanently blue after Reagan did amnesty.
They will reward that citizenship bribe with a vote for the DNC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I think that if Republicans really care, they will start taking the opioid epidemic seriously. It is killing thousands of their people in West Virginia and Ohio.
But the Republican party doesn't demonize the "backwards, mouth-breathing hicks and yokels" in those areas like the Democrats do. Dems pretend to care about the working class, but that really only means the working class that votes for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Until they have something to offer to the White working class, I'd say that yes, it is lost for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
What leftists don't realize is that the assimilation process takes a lot of cultural energy and before it happens things aren't always pleasant. And even when it's finally over, it changes the country permanently in a way that the existing population never intends or consents to. The waves of Irish immigration in the 1840s-60s ABSOLUTELY changed America dramatically, and the know-nothings were absolutely right to oppose those immigrants coming in. So too with the 1880s-1890s wave from Eastern and Southern Europe...and let's not even get started on how the original wave of British settlers completely changed things for the Native Americans.
Yes, but you are making the bold assumption that a lot of people make. This is the idea that these immigrants will assimilate.
The America we live in today has a different culture than the time of the Ellis Island immigrants. The people we are letting in are no longer from the "Western world". Their cultures may be less receptive to what we have to offer. Our economic style, now heading towards a service economy is much harder to adapt to than a factory job that doesn't even require a high school diploma. We also have a welfare state that allows people to not learn the language, while older waves of immigrants would have starved had they not adopted the language. We used to change peoples' names to be more "American" to cut their old ties with foreign lands.
The incentives and type of immigrants now coming to the country aren't conducive to assimilation.
I don't think mass immigration has ever been a good thing, but I also just don't agree that it results in the end of politics. The parties just change. I oppose mass immigration but back in 2016 or so I saw it as an existential threat to America and our way of life, it terrified and enraged me to the point where I believed in and expressed things I'm not proud of. Now I just view it as one of many issues I want to win on, although its still in my top three...
Let us assume that the GOP won't become irrelevant ever. That all they simply have to do, as you say, is "change". Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of being the "conservative" party? If they must abandon their values to reach a broader range of immigrants who don't hold American values, then any form of conservatism as we know it will be forever gone. The culture real conservatives wish to conserve is a Christian and Western one, and allowing non-Christian and non-Western people in certainly makes that more difficult. (Luckily, a decent amount of Hispanics are Catholic and are more receptive to right-wing cultural values. That is why I think outreach to them is more worthwhile).
Don't get me wrong, there is some current good change in the GOP. I like the appeals to the working class, but I also think we have thrown out so many cultural issues over the past 20 years. Remember when even Democrats opposed gay marriage in 2008? Do you even hear any major Republicans saying anything negative about it or plans to alter it 12 years later? Regardless of your personal views on the matter, it is disheartening to see this shift that will inevitably lead to widespread acceptance of "degenerate" behaviors.
I think that it is wise that you still consider mass immigration to be a huge issue. Allowing people with radically different values to live together will lead to large conflict. Look at countries made during arbitrary deals after the World Wars. They put opposing groups together. We are doing that willingly right now, and the longer we delay cutting off the flow, the longer large ethnic enclaves will persist (some areas in the US, you can't even communicate with others without speaking Spanish). Mass immigration makes assimilation a near impossibility. It becomes a choice rather than a necessity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I'd have to disagree. The only group that votes majority Republican is White people, except the subset of the Latino vote (Cubans).
The highest Latino vote for GOP was 40% in 2004. Those votes are more malleable than Black votes to be fair, but saying they swung hard to Trump is probably because his 29% in 2016 was hard to fall from.
I think they should put most effort into maintaining their White base, and trying to grow their decent numbers with Latinos and Asians, which are remotely near half support.
Chasing the Black vote, to be very frank, is a waste of time for the GOP. Don't piss them off, but don't work too hard for it, either.
While we can grow our numbers with these groups, I'm not sure they will ever be over 50% GOP like White people are, so I still think that the "browning of America" will be the death of the GOP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
-The “demographics is destiny” argument that democrats liked to make is dangerously wrong and extraordinarily toxic. I freely admit I believed in it and supported some pretty nasty things as a consequence
False. Trump spit on the White man for 4 years. He never once mentioned "White unemployment" (Whites got this guy into power), but it seemed like once a week he mentioned "Historic Black Unemployment" or "The Platinum Plan" or now he has some plan for hispanics.
Never once did he mention a plan for White people, which is why White men left him by 5%.
Throwing your base under the bus to get small and temporary gains in the minority community is not a viable strategy.
Georgia turning blue (potentially) and Stacey Abrams almost becoming governor tells you one thing: demographics IS destiny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
Well, I don't know if government debt has a huge effect on unemployment, but tax cuts certainly help.
As for your other points, I would agree. They should cut wasteful programs and invest government funds wisely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i dont think most welfare recipients oppose the welfare programs they receive.the dude who is pissed he has to now support biden supporters should be more pissed that he has to support trump supporters
To be honest, most Republicans don't even touch social programs after elected. They talk about it to play the "fiscally responsible" card. So, no matter how they vote, the nanny state is here to stay.
But, perhaps they want job creating tax-cuts so they can have a job instead of being dependent on the government? There is and should be shame associated with welfare use. People should want to get off it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I don't see what your point is.
They pay taxes. Not taking free money would just be stupid. They can be against it while still taking handouts that they qualify for.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
5) Barring foreign policy fuckups or domestic crises, future elections will depend on who is hardest on China.....
You hit the point that protectionism is going to be much more popular going forward, but I disagree that this specific point is as powerful as you mention.
Throughout Biden's entire political career, he has supported China. Permanent Normal Trade Relations, supported them going into the WTO, said that China succeeding is good for us.
That seems to have not really hurt him in the rust belt. Meanwhile, Trump has been the hardest on China of any president in decades, potentially ever, and it doesn't seem to have helped him that much.
So, while protectionism will gain presidents some points like being hard on China, I don't see this issue being particularly that big for at least another decade or two when they would surpass our GDP and take more aggressive measures globally.
2) Future GOP nominees will copy Trump's political playbook
I think that this could be a tossup. They might point to Trump's probable loss this year as evidence that his way won't work. They are touting his much larger GOP support among minorities.... They are ignoring that Trump won by a huge margin with tiny minority support and huge White turnout. Bragging about Black unemployment and not once mentioning White unemployment alienated the White rural base, which is something I think they will refuse to learn. They will continuously whore themselves out for small gains in minority votes at the expense of their base. While gaining more minority support should be part of a long-term strategy, they need to do so without alienating their base.
I have also unfortunately seen a lot of support for Nikki Haley, who is by no means a Trumpian and who will not fire up the base.
At the same time, I think the record turnout for Trump all around is promising. Hopefully there can be future candidates who can adopt Trump's policies but be able to communicate them in a more mature manner. Keep the fire, but act like an adult. I'm hoping very hard for a Tucker Carlson-type for that position.
Other than that, I think this was a pretty good analysis. Don't leave the website, bro!
I think that something you might have missed was how much more distrust people will have in the media, especially left-wing media, going forward. They damaged their credibility horrendously by pursuing the "Russian collusion" narrative that never panned out. They got emotional and clearly conveyed information in a very skewed lens. The "fake news" slogan has penetrated the American political realm, and I think that this will be around for years to come.
Tucker Carlson, on the other hand, is making huge gains in his program. If he is on an opposition news network, I assume that those numbers will only continue to grow. A new right-wing populist/nationalist working class movement is gaining a lot of ground in the GOP, and I couldn't be happier.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so working for wages that are barely sufficient to keep them alive, they are magically going to get a high paying job and become wealthy? Even you can't believe that fairy tale.
No, sorry, in right-wing economics, we don't believe in "magic".
I think that not spending a considerable amount of your income on premium items and instead saving that money and investing in yourself will get you to be wealthy. Imagine if they saved that money to pay for night classes instead of buying a new pair of basketball shoes.
Imagine if they waited until they were economically stable to have children. These VERY simple ideas? Not magic, but would make a huge difference.
oh, we are just making stuff up and guessing are we? maybe they are homeless because they lost their job and they can't afford the thousands upon thousands it takes to get an education.
My guess was much better than: I guess the people with no money or car or food just moved three states over to get to a blue state.
The cost of living in blue states is much higher. If you cannot pay for the high housing costs, of course you're going to be homeless. Let's see if you can recognize that basic fact real quick.
I act like "rich people" aren't increasing wages even in periods of record corporate profits. that is an absolute fact.
Maybe stop importing a million third-worlders a year? Maybe, just maybe, increasing the supply of something decreases its price......
But I'm sure that economic principle will once again go over your head.
there's that generalization and contempt again. mangers, by their nature are limited in number. You cannot have every employee become a manager. So even if every person works their absolute hardest, most of them will not succeed. So you acting like it is their fault that success is not possible says alot about you.
There is the possibility of going to other jobs, possibility of becoming a manager, move to a place with jobs, and then save money to take night courses. There are dozens of things you can do. Your apparent choice is for them to whine for more money than their job merits while also not holding people accountable for their reckless life decisions like dropping out of high school then having 6 kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
that seems like some really stupid hair splitting.
Not really. I'm saying that they aren't just dumb, but that they make dumb decisions. They can learn better and make non-dumb decisions. If they are better educated on how to run a budget and invest, they are capable of making good decisions that will raise their position.
i can't seem to access the stats. it wants me to create an account. but again, what do they classify as a "luxury shoe"? or "luxury clothes".
Well they use the word "premium" as well, which generally refers to "name brands". Luxury food would probably be buying Domino brand sugar instead of Great Value brand sugar.
Buying Jordan's would be a premium brand, since you pay extra for the brand recognition.
ok, but again, you aren't talking about an improvement to their finances, IE wealth trickling down. You are talking about more consumer products for them to buy despite their wages being stagnant and living costs rising.
I partially agree. Their lives are improved when they can purchase appliances for much less than they could 30 years ago. They might not have more free income, but they can achieve a higher quality of life with the same amount of money than they used to.
because in republican states they simply drive off homeless people. so they naturally move to states where they won't be harassed or even attacked (as much).
How are homeless people able to move 3 states over to get to blue states? Maybe there are so many homeless people there because your building codes and taxes made housing very expensive?
lol, even when trying to make fun of me you can't keep your utter contempt of poor people out of your answer.
There is no contempt there unless it is their fault that they are poor.
You demonize rich people and then put poor people on a pedestal, acting like against their best efforts, evil rich people are keeping them down. Like it is not their fault they have 5 kids out of wedlock and never try to go rise above their fry cook job to become a manager.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i'll believe all ya'll's conspiracy theories when i see respectable reporters reporting on it.
"Respectable reporters" might as well be an oxymoron these days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
yes, i have heard this argument from republicans alot. poor people are stupid, lazy and bad. Rich people are moral and awesome. we should just give all the tax breaks and government support to those rich people. it is a tired argument.
They aren't stupid, they just make stupid decisions. It is just a fact.
The lowest quintile in the US spends 40% of their income on luxury goods and 60% on necessities. That is insane. They can save and invest that money to improve their lives, but they don't. Simply giving them welfare isn't going to solve poverty, decades of the war on poverty proved that. These people need better personal finance education and need to work on delayed gratification.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/low-income-families-spend-40-of-their-money-on-luxuries-2017-06-28
32% of low income people bought luxury shoes, 31.5% bought luxury clothes, 33% luxury electronics.
but that isn't wealth trickling down. Poor people having phones doesn't improve their financial situation at all. In fact, it creates one more consumer product that society now says they need to own which might actually make their situation worse. building better phones is great, but that doesn't actually help the financial situation of most americans.
I don't know, it applies to other home devices too. Microwaves and refrigerators also used to be luxury items but people can buy most of those now.
I don't expect these devices to improve the "financial situation" of most Americans, but I'd argue it raises their quality of life being able to have these.
this doesn't make any sense. The poor person uses the money to pay for food, shelter etc. That isn't "destroying wealth". That is the backbone of the economy.
The vast majority of Americans have housing and food. Death by starvation is so rare, the CDC doesn't even include it in causes of death statistics. Homelessness *shocker* is most prevalent in areas that adopt your lefty policies. Washington, DC, and California have huge homelessness problems. Iowa? Nebraska? Not so much.
apparently not. your response simply didn't make any sense.
Says Mr. "EAT THE RICH" ALL RICH PEOPLE ARE EVIL AND GAINED WEALTH THROUGH THEFT.
I LOVE THE VIRTUOUS POOR PERSON WHO DOES DRUGS AND DOESN'T WORK AND SPENDS 40% OF THEIR MONEY ON LUXURY GOODS
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
strong economies are not pushed from the top, they are driven from the bottom. IE strong consumer demand for something creates business opportunities. This gives wealthy or just talented people the opportunity to meet that need an become wealthy. So the more money you can give to the people on the bottom of the system, the stronger the economy becomes. The more money you funnel to people at the top, the weaker it becomes. Helping people at the top go higher helps a small number of people. Helping people at the bottom helps everyone.
You can't go all-in on supply-side or demand-side economics. You need to play both sides. You do need high consumer buying power, yes, but at the same time, I doubt those consumers are necessarily going to be putting their money towards the most valuable things. Like if they are spending their money on basketball shoes and cognac, then giving them money isn't going to help things.
Poor people make a lot of poor purchasing decisions. The fact that people live paycheck-to-paycheck isn't simply because they don't make enough to live off of, it is because they are often very wasteful with their money.
Supply-side economics says that if you give $100 dollars to an entrepreneur, it is better than giving $1 to 100 people who will probably just go buy a hamburger at McDonald's. Those innovations in cheaper and more advanced technology do trickle down in the fact that most people own a smartphone, even the very poor. Phones are useful for a lot of work functions.
no, you accomplish it by funneling all the wealth to a tiny slice of society while everyone else slides lower and lower. That is what right wing economics does.
And left wing economics just takes wealth from producers and gives it to people that didn't earn nor deserve it, thus destroying wealth.
See? I can mischaracterize your economic beliefs too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
they want to give every american the opportunity to chase the american dream... oh god, the horror. Don't they know that poor people are immoral and deserve to stay in poverty?
Of course they dress it up all cute with that false analogy.
In reality, they bring down that top person a lot and push the bottom person up a tiny bit, then neither of them reach the summit. One climbs and the other sits back because they don't have to work hard to rise.
Everyone wants everybody to be able to follow the American dream, but you certainly don't accomplish it that way.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why would you like authoritarian socialist but not capitalist?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I went through a libertarian phase in late high school.
Then I realized just how important social issues are. You can't have an excellent society and culture if you don't have high standards. When you allow countries to degenerate like Weimar Germany and the Romans, then you collapse.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Economically, I am centrist.
Socially, I am pretty far-right.
Moderate authoritarian.
Never seen any of Brother Thomas's stuff. Franklin is a nice fella, though.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well I’m actually sure we aren’t incredibly different on economics. I’m more of a centrist
I just believe in societal standards and you libertarians do not
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
An electric lamp, in theory, is a good idea.
Communism, in theory and in practice, is a terrible idea. Ignoring basic human nature tends to never work out (plus his attempts at making a lamp didn't enslave and kill millions of people).
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
then you are as bad as those dictators who misinterpreted communism.
"It wasn't RREEEAAAAALLLL communism"
To put it bluntly: no matter how you interpret communism, it is dumb as hell. Not even good on paper.
Interesting how every single person that attempted it caused mass starvation and resulted in a dictatorship, huh?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
No. As a Libleft I advocate for freedom and equality. I try my best to not have opinions just on what that one believes, and will not forcefully discriminate.
Well now that is just silly. Can't have commies running amok, no no no.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Authright redemption arc? >:)
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don’t like the typical test. It makes social issues “authoritarian” and puts way too much focus on economics
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
“Lib left” my least favorite... although I’m sure you feel the same about me. :P
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You say "authright" like it is a bad thing....
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The part that allows communists to have rights
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
he told the squad to go back where they came from. the squad is that group of colored congress women. born in the usa.
Ilhan was born in Somalia
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Nixon
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Yeah, if Biden loses his Senate run, he will handle it okay. He knows he can still run for president someday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
This about sums up how the biased moderators operate:
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Speaking of the Covington kids, I have found something beyond parody.
"Time to Take on the Covington Smirk"
"Harris won’t stop her ‘smirk.’ Nor should she. It’s Black women’s superpower."
Both WaPo
Created: