General US Politics

[Res]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

You just said that the poor will SAVE $100.00.  But you're saying that your $1000.00 is at the expense of the poor?  

The real advantage the poor will be seeing is that the middle class will open new or expand existing businesses.  I've said it before, somewhat controversially, anyone can go from poor to the middle class the general sense (excluding things like disabilities or drug abuse).  The reason they don't is that either they don't believe they can or they don't know how to.  With more expansion and creation in businesses, I think we can expect demand for workers to increase which gives the poor a better shot at surviving in society.  Certainly more than giving them temporary relief through things like redistribution of wealth or free public services.  Classical "teach a man to fish" philosophy.  

Tax reform should help ALL classes.  The real victims of tax reform are government workers and the federal budget.  Not the poor, not the rich, and not the middle class.

They will save $100.00 in taxes (maybe) but lose far more in terms of benefits/welfare/medical care.

And no, lower taxes don't lead to expansion and creation of businesses and jobs. The only people who usually end up benefiting from lowered corporate taxes are the CEOs and shareholders. There's a couple of thoughtful analyses of what happens here (using the UK and Ireland as examples) and here. 

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, Res said:

They will save $100.00 in taxes (maybe) but lose far more in terms of benefits/welfare/medical care.

And no, lower taxes don't lead to expansion and creation of businesses and jobs. The only people who usually end up benefiting from lowered corporate taxes are the CEOs and shareholders. There's a couple of thoughtful analyses of what happens here (using the UK and Ireland as examples) and here. 

Obamacare is a separate issue.  Right now, it's just tax reform.  So right now, the poor are getting a $100.00 bonus in taxes (acc't to a democrat lean) and the same benefits when it comes to welfare and medical care.  Yea that could change, but that's a separate topic...

My personal example.  My dad is a businessman who has ~6 employees at any given time.  He has said, multiple times, that if he ever gets a huge portion of his income taxed away, he will simply lay off one of his employees so that everyone else including him can make the same income.  Specifically "It ain't coming out of my wallet".  Under Trumps tax reform, he is considering hiring a new employee because he was concerned about the coming retirement of one individual and thinks the tax breaks could help offset the price (especially small business tax breaks).  It's an anecdote, but an extremely direct one at that.  

As for your articles.  The first one acknowledges that when they did this, they observed a better economy.  They then attempted to explain that this didn't happen for those particular reasons, but it is a very defensive argument.  It even seemed to suggest that it did work, but the writers opinion is that it wouldn't work in the US.  Again, very defensive argument.  The second article is based entirely on an anecdote of AT&T.  I know I used an anecdote, but the explanation for why he would hire/fire an employee were directly in result of increased/decreased taxes.  With AT&T, who knows what's going on, it certainty didn't attempt to directly attribute one to the other but rather assumed causation = correlation.  It also complained about tax loopholes and what a big problem they are...which is also in the GOP's tax reform plan.  

There's also a ton of history that suggests that tax breaks DO help the economy (and the poor).  http://www.heritage.org/node/18247/print-display

We can play anecdote / historical evidence games all day.  The fact is that both economic theories have some evidence behind them.  I was simply saying that the 1% are not evil and that trickle down economics is not a conservative viewpoint.  And also that the democrat's appeal to the poor is more a political strategy than a real effort.  I'm not even criticizing them for that, I think both parties do this all the time.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

33 minutes ago, Lushen said:

What bernie has been doing is exactly what I said democrats (even though he's not a democrat) are doing.  Incredibly focused on how tax reform helps the rich and ignores the fact that it helps everyone.  Are the rich going to end up saving more money from a dollar standpoint?  Yea, duh, they have more taxable money.  Bernie doesn't care if tax reform helps the poor or the middle class.  He's mad at tax reform because of some specific situations where it benefits the rich.  Bernie would probably pass legislature that forces the rich to burn half their income because it would be more fair.

 There's also a huge differentiation between trickle down economics, a term used exclusively by the left, and what conservatives believe.  If some rich guy wants to purchase a Yacht, there are two things that need be realized.  One, when he purchases the Yacht that money will go into financing manufacturing companies involved with the production of the Yacht and the sales people.  Two, the money he saved up would have been placed in a bank and then the bank will loan out said money to the entry level members of the middle class so they can start businesses.  This is not trickle down economics, no conservative I know of suggests trickle down economics.  Trickle down economics implies that if you give the rich more more money, they will purchase two yachts instead of one.  Really both trickle down economics and Keynesian economics were invented by the left, one meant to receive praise and one meant to condemn the republican party.  Basically, people need to stop seeing the 1% as the enemy.  As I said before, the 1%'s distribution of democrat/republican and liberal/conservative is almost identical to the 99%.  It's not that there's some giant group of greedy 1%ers that steal money from the poor.  The democrats appeal to the poor is exactly identical to the southern strategy - it is entirely a political strategy and ignores the fact that the ten poorest cities are being run by democrats.  The appeal to the poor is entirely a political move and there is no evidence that democrat policies has ever helped the poor.  

Bill Gates very nearly single handedly destroyed Polio.  He's a 1%er (he's also a socialist).

And FYI, plenty of people have caught fish with their hands.  It's not ideal, or easy, but if you can do it you won't starve.  Either way, conservative policies generally end up with more money in the bank such that the fisherman can more easily take out a bank loan to finance the purchase of a fishing pole.  And the liberal side of the argument is most certainty not to give them a fishing pole either, it's to give them fish.  Then we run out of fish because no one is producing fish and we're giving it to everyone for free.  Hence, why America has the longest 5 year cancer survival rate.  But hell, all human beings should have the right to eat fish!  "Free public services" is not the bogymen, but it's not free from flaws.  It most certainty destroys the entirety of innovation.

Bernie makes a decent amount of money himself even if he is one of the lowest earning senators - certainly enough to constitute as "well off". I hardly think he (or I) hates rich people, but I do think they certainly get off easy on the US on the money they pay (or don't pay, in the cases where people find loopholes to exploit).

You also talk about Democrats like they actually are leftist. Once again, this is the problem. The Democrats have abandoned their status as the party of the workers in favour of corporations, even if they keep trying to say that they are.

I never said anything about trickle down economics, but you are aware that Reagan actually implemented this exact thing and it was called Reaganomics, right? Yes, it was called trickle-down economics by political opponents, but it was absolutely what he, and George Bush did with his tax cuts (which crashed the economy in the not-so-distant 2008, if you recall). Supply-side economics is absolutely a thing that American conservatives can believe in, and often do if you listen to Republicans, lol.

No evidence that Democrat policies have helped the poor? I may as well say that there's no evidence that Republican policies have helped the poor either and see if that sticks.

By the way, you don't need to be a leftist to support a welfare state. It can be a social democrat, a liberal, a conservative viewpoint. Angela Merkel is the leader of Germany and is a conservative, but they provide a strong welfare state.

 

But hey, you have Republicans saying that taxing earners making a million dollars or more annually would be 'class warfare'.

"Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK) said Monday that maintaining the top marginal tax rate for Americans earning $1,000,000 or more yearly would be “class warfare.” "

I wouldn't be surprised if these people find themselves on the wrong end in "The Year of Tha Boomerang", as Rage Against the Machine puts it.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Bernie makes a decent amount of money himself even if he is one of the lowest earning senators - certainly enough to constitute as "well off". I hardly think he (or I) hates rich people, but I do think they certainly get off easy on the US on the money they pay (or don't pay, in the cases where people find loopholes to exploit).

You also talk about Democrats like they actually are leftist. Once again, this is the problem. The Democrats have abandoned their status as the party of the workers in favour of corporations, even if they keep trying to say that they are.

I never said anything about trickle down economics, but you are aware that Reagan actually implemented this exact thing and it was called Reaganomics, right? Yes, it was called trickle-down economics by political opponents, but it was absolutely what he, and George Bush did with his tax cuts (which crashed the economy in the not-so-distant 2008, if you recall). Supply-side economics is absolutely a thing that American conservatives can believe in.

No evidence that Democrat policies have helped the poor? I may as well say that there's no evidence that Republican policies have helped the poor either and see if that sticks.

By the way, you don't need to be a leftist to support a welfare state. It can be a social democrat, a liberal, a conservative viewpoint. Angela Merkel is the leader of Germany and is a conservative, but they provide a strong welfare state.

I honestly fully believe that Bernie hates the rich, despite being among the rich.  He was poor for much of his life and I think he blames the rich for this.  I think Bernie Sanders is one of the worst political figures in American History, and has given people the idea that "Socialism is ok" which directly contradicts American culture.  

I actually said not too long ago that Democrats need to move away from the left.  I fully realize that democrats are different from the left.  However, it's not secret that democrats have moved towards the left at an alarming rate under Obama and Clinton.  Hence, the separation of the party into progressives and moderates (similar to classical republicans and tea party republicans).  I've also said that while I am republican and conservative, I would never want to see a 2/3 majority of republicans because I think if we're going to have political parties, it's best that they are on equal footing.  HOWEVER, I am significantly more open to suggestion with democratic moderates than I am with progressive.  I think the progressive movement from the democrats is incredibly harmful and they need to go back to their old ideals.

You can certainty say there's no evidence that Republicans have helped the poor.  I concur.  As I've said before, the key to helping the poor is to create a positive environment such that they can realize for themselves how to get out of their situation.  I don't think Republicans or Democrats are doing that.  I think Republicans are leaving them alone and democrats want to "give them fish".  I'm opposed to both parties on this.  But I do think the republican solution is less harmful to the rest of society.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

I honestly fully believe that Bernie hates the rich, despite being among the rich.  He was poor for much of his life and I think he blames the rich for this.  I think Bernie Sanders is one of the worst political figures in American History, and has given people the idea that "Socialism is ok" which directly contradicts American culture.  

Simple question: what is socialism?

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Simple question: what is socialism?

According to me or Bernie Sanders?  Two very different questions.

[Tryhard]

According to both of you if you feel Sanders view of it is so different from what you believe the reality of socialism to be. Remember, the more accurate term for Sanders is a social democrat.

(also assumedly how you think Sanders would go about implementing that socialism is okay if he was in power)

Edited October 26, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

6 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

And especially hurray for my older brother, who is now going to inherit his parent's farm without paying more money than he's made in his life beforehand. Hooray for my grandparents being able to pass down their hard-earned cash to the next generation instead of spending it all as fast as possible on themselves because "when we're dead, the government will just take it all and use it for things we don't agree with."

So you feel slighted (because it's just a small decrease most likely) but it's bad for a vast majority of Americans.

Lushen, I thought we told you to learn about what you're talking about before speaking. The democratic platform is "teach a man to fish, and make rods affordable." Republican philosophy is "throw him into the water, tell him to catch some fish, then blame him when he can't do it."

being from a wealthy family must make this shit hard to grasp lol because my dad is also a small business owner who should be rich in a meritocracy but he's not. I think you need to exit your bubble and talk to a poor person once in your life. And I don't mean small talk; I mean actually have a very deep and personal conversation about their lives and their struggle because you're literally projecting your own experiences onto the way things work and you assume the republicans are doing things that the Democrats actually want to do.

Hell as a guy who's perpetually been in the working class I can extend my hand to you as well and talk about the stuff my family and I have been through in our history. That's why I'm not taking your argument seriously; you have such a limited perspective that you refuse to acknowledge as limited.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, Tryhard said:

According to both of you if you feel Sanders view of it is so different from what you believe the reality of socialism to be. Remember, the more accurate term for Sanders is a social democrat.

Bernie Sanders has cited himself as a socialist multiple times without the word "democracy" in sight.  He then goes and praises Denmark which is exactly why people question whether he has a clue what he's talking about.  

But very well.  Socialism is a form of government.  IDEALLY, America could never become socialist because that would require a new form of gov't.  A social democracy and democratic socialism are the acceptance of socialistic ideals within a democracy when it comes to certain policies.   So for example social democracies promote social justice in capitalism while democratic socialists promote gov't run social services in capitalism (which kind of negates parts of capitalism).  I would argue that Bernie has values on both of these.

It's important to note that I said bernie sanders promotes socialism.  I did not say Bernie was a full blown socialist.  Polls estimate that 56% of youth in America have a favorable view of socialism.  I think Bernie was one of the largest causes of this because, like Bernie Sanders himself, his supporters don't have a clue.

@Lord RavenDo not treat me as a child.  The only one who repeatedly attacks me personally instead of my arguments is you.  Everyone else has been willing to engage in back and forth discussions.  No one told me to "learn about .. ", but a large group of people continually disagree with me.  That is not unsurprising.  I am a conservative among generally/stereotypically young multicultural anime fans so it should be expected that my views are against most people on this forum.  I'm sure there are plenty of liberal support groups you can join, but to my knowledge this is not one of them and I am free to discuss my opinion on various topics even if it means the majority of people will disagree with me.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

I've already engaged in back and forths with you. If I felt like it I would keep going. Instead I'm realizing that you hate facts and you have a very limited perspective, and your view of what everyone in politics does is patently false as has been explained to you repeatedly, so I'm getting to the core which is likely that you've probably never met a poor person and you've literally never been poor.

The way you mischaracterize everything in a way reminiscent of far-right wing outlets makes it a chore to debate with you. I'm not the only one either. tl;dr you know I have rebuttals I just work 60 hours a week, have an MS in physics, and I'm childless at almost 25 but I also make little money so I'm apparently failing to follow your three step plan somewhere. Your viewpoints are literally viewpoints I had as a 13 year old, and my parents didn't tell me how much our situation sucked, so don't be surprised if it's labeled childish.

At any rate I edited my post earlier. Don't pretend I haven't tried to argue with you, I just think it's not worth my time when someone is reading a bunch of alt-right tabloids and saying the Washington post and NYT are shitty news sources, or your anecdotal evidence of conservatives not using phones. And don't forget how you contradict yourself often in the same post, and you're currently showing how blissfully unaware you are of actual political platforms held by elected officials. oh yeah and you don't respond to the majority of the shit I type to begin with unless you somehow think it's easy to contradict (which you often fail at).

What news sources do you even read? I have no idea how you can be saying the same thing over and over again every time you post when people take effort to correct you. THE DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING BERNIE SANDERS, ARE PRO FREE MARKET WHILE UNDERSTANDING THAT CAPITALISM IS FLAWED, SO THEIR GOAL IS TO ENACT LEGISLATION TO PATCH OUT THOSE FLAWS. They are not left leaning as a whole and they are not socialists.

EDIT: how are you requesting I stop treating you like a child when you didn't answer Tryhards question? You said socialism is a form of government, mentioned democratic socialism and social democracy (sanders is the latter, and the latter is pretty much what European centrists follow) and still failed to define socialism. As in, you literally did not define it.

FYI - Social Democrats are free markets with corrective regulation and welfare for its people if necessary. Basically, Western Europe; the US has little social welfare, which makes Sanders plea to shift more funding to welfare seem leftist when in reality it is centrist, which is fundamentally how democracy succeeds.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I've already engaged in back and forths with you. If I felt like it I would keep going. Instead I'm realizing that you hate facts and you have a very limited perspective, and your view of what everyone in politics does is patently false as has been explained to you repeatedly, so I'm getting to the core which is likely that you've probably never met a poor person and you've literally never been poor.

The way you mischaracterize everything in a way reminiscent of far-right wing outlets makes it a chore to debate with you. I'm not the only one either. tl;dr you know I have rebuttals I just work 60 hours a week, have an MS in physics, and I'm childless at almost 25 but I also make little money so I'm apparently failing to follow your three step plan somewhere.

At any rate I edited my post earlier. Don't pretend I haven't tried.

Yea...You edited your post to further explain why my economic situation discredits me and my opinions.  You then went on to say that I lived in a self absorbed bubble and didn't understand what reality was like.  So in other words, your edit further re-emphasized my exact point.

No one is forcing you to engage in back and forths with me.  You don't have to, much like I don't as soon as your posts turn away from my argument and towards me as they always do.  But if you have something personal to say to me you can PM me.  My personal background is not a political topic.

 

As for the three steps, the 3 steps were not 100%.  They were, IIRC 90-something% chance to not be poor and 75% chance to join the middle class.  If you're not below the poverty line, than the statistics held true.   If you are, it's important to note that being 25 and poor isn't exactly uncommon or tragic.  I'm guessing you're working 60 hour weeks to pay off student loans which includes continued education after receiving your BS degree.  If the MS does not end up helping with job potential, it can be expected to be a bit of a deterrent from economic potential until it can be paid off.  This is not unlike when people take out massive bank loans to fund a startup company and the company fails.  The three steps also suggested that you will eventually leave the poor class, not that you will never enter it.  I think most people are considered 'poor' at one point in their lives. IIRC I was technically poor last year and in all my college years.  Thankfully in college, we don't really care if we live in a dump...  Nevertheless, college education should not be expected to hold you down after you finance off student loans which is why the three steps I mentioned earlier suggest that you will eventually leave the poor class, not teleport out of it.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Lushen

[SullyMcGully]

39 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

The democratic platform is "teach a man to fish, and make rods affordable." Republican philosophy is "throw him into the water, tell him to catch some fish, then blame him when he can't do it."

So how exactly are the Democrats planned on getting the poor out of poverty? Giving them more money? Money doesn't equal success if you don't know what to do with it. I have never actually heard a Democrat explain how they plan on getting poor people "unpoor". I've only ever heard them explain how they can give poor people the same things other Americans because they have a "right". Right to not die of starvation? Sure, but the food bank in my town seems to be doing fine, since they have enough perfectly fine excess food for them to send a few trailer loads to my pigs every week. Right to healthcare? Questionable. The Catholic hospital in my town can save you a ton of money in medical bills if you are poor enough, and the wealthy people who go to church and give their 10 percent seem to be completely capable of keeping that program running. Right to cell phone? Gimme a break. Aren't there better things to do with that money?

A better metaphor is one where poverty is a pit. Republicans want to put sharp spikes at the bottom of the pit, so that all who fall down there are intensely motivated to either find a way out or live in misery. Democrats want to put a soft mattress at the bottom of the pit, so that those at the bottom can still enjoy life while they contemplate maybe getting out one day. Neither position is perfect. Ideally, you would put a trampoline in the bottom of the pit so that your stay is as brief as possible. But if partisan economists with big degrees can't figure out how to do that and each political party can't stop blaming the other every time their stupid plan fails, then I doubt that there's anything an ordinary guy like me can do.

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

A better metaphor is one where poverty is a pit. Republicans want to put sharp spikes at the bottom of the pit, so that all who fall down there are intensely motivated to either find a way out or live in misery. Democrats want to put a soft mattress at the bottom of the pit, so that those at the bottom can still enjoy life while they contemplate maybe getting out one day. Neither position is perfect. Ideally, you would put a trampoline in the bottom of the pit so that your stay is as brief as possible. But if partisan economists with big degrees can't figure out how to do that and each political party can't stop blaming the other every time their stupid plan fails, then I doubt that there's anything an ordinary guy like me can do.

Well said.  I have the exact same viewpoint when it comes to the poor between Republicans and Democrats.  Though I truly believe that very few politicians in the US give a shit about the poor whether they're on the Republican side or the Democrat side.  Both sides just want the poor to vote for them.

 

Also in other news, I highly suggest everyone take this Political Typology Test.  It goes back to what I was saying earlier about how Republicans and Democrats are divided (though I grouped them in only two categories whereas this groups them each in four).  I am a core conservative.  No surprise there.
^It's only 17 questions, it will take like 3 minutes!

Where I differed from core conservatives is also interesting to note.

(-) I answered that the best way to ensure peace is through diplomacy not military
(-) I answered that the US should take part in global affairs
(-) Immigrants are advantageous to society.  I answered this because I assumed it meant legal immigrants, who I think are more effective than US born individuals.  I do think illegal immigrants are disadvantageous to society and those who did not go through the ropes should not be allowed to stay. So not sure if I answered that the way I was supposed to or not.

Homosexuality should be accepted in society is only held by 50% of core conservatives, which is sad to see.  Most other conservatives have moved past this, but my broken down political affiliation is lagging behind I think.  To be fair, I am also fairly libertarian and think if someone wants to consider homosexuality a sin, they are free to do that.  They'll just receive a gentle scold from me.  I also think transgenders should be discouraged from society, but for moral reasons not hate reasons.  So I guess I have some core conservative values on the subject.   EDIT:  Actually - country first conservatives are the problem here.  Only 13% of them say that homosexuality should be accepted in society... One of the liberal parties has the same ~50% as core conservatives so I guess it's not that bad.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Lushen

[Dark Holy Elf]

5 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

So how exactly are the Democrats planned on getting the poor out of poverty?

Not sure if this is the Democratic plan specifically, but generally I'd suggest some combination of the following:

1. Economy: grow the economy and there will be jobs. Both parties agree with this one (though sometimes disagree on how to do it), but it should be said.

2. Education. It's a great equalizer and greatly increases the chances children of poor parents have to succeed. You said it yourself, part of the plan is "teach a man to fish".

3. Temporary relief in case of job loss (unemployment insurance) so that poor people have a means to "climb out of the pit". Public health care also helps, since it means people won't be ruined by accidental injury etc., and despite Republican fears has worked extremely well in the rest of the developed world.

4. Ensure your criminal justice system focuses on rehabilitation so that when criminals re-enter society, they have the training and means to get to a better place. I wouldn't even mention this one, but the US has some crazy percentage of its male population in prison, so it ends up statistically relevant as a way to combat poverty.

Neither party's perfect but I think the Democrats are closer to this plan than the Republicans are.

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

3. Temporary relief in case of job loss (unemployment insurance) so that poor people have a means to "climb out of the pit". Public health care also helps, since it means people won't be ruined by accidental injury etc., and despite Republican fears has worked extremely well in the rest of the developed world.

On this one, I would like to note that this should, in my opinion, be separate from general relief from people who are in bad economic situations.  I know someone who co-found an advertising business and it flopped.  He suffered greatly but of course eventually overcame his losses.   However, if the government gave him his money back every time this happens, people would take more risks - it'd be like gambling without being able to lose.  Not saying you were implying that it should, but I wanted to mention it.

I also think that unemployment is already ridiculous in some situations.  I know someone else who worked a management position while attending high school.  Then he was fired for doing something stupid and went to college collecting unemployment.  For an entire year, he collected more income than my roommate who had a separate job...Not saying this always happens or even happens often, but I think point #3 has gone too far generally speaking already.

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Lushen

[Dark Holy Elf]

I'm all for conversations to reform the rules to prevent abuses while maximising the good parts. And I'm not saying there aren't abuses either; I've seen them firsthand and certainly disapprove (though I'd rather not go into detail anywhere remotely public). At the same time, we should acknowledge that in any system like this, abuses will happen and while we should try to minimize them, that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater and scrap the program entirely, because it can do a lot of good.

[Res]

That list is a good start. Universal healthcare is essential, I feel; a sick society is unproductive and it's one of the biggest financial concerns for my age group. And yes, I believe people have a right to healthcare.

Going too far is kind of laughable - I've seen medical debt alone crippling friends who earn firmly middle-class salaries.

Technically you can't collect unemployment if you're fired due to your own incompetency. So either a) the company failed to fire your friend following the proper procedure, and lost their claim or b) he wasn't actually fired for incompetency. I've definitely seen a) happen, but in those cases it was the company's fault and not that of the unemployment system.

Honestly nine years of working in corporate U.S. culture has revealed just how very, very many stupid people are the managers and board members of companies here. It's hard to praise the merit of hard work or education when  familial connections and confidence (which is often a learned trait with a wealthy unbringing) win out.

Also, as a last note, the poor often need cellphones the most! A phone number is essential for a lot of jobs and a cellphone can double up as a computer and calendar and all for a single monthly payment. My dad did veterinary work in Nepal a couple of years ago and he stayed in a village with no running water and where most of the villagers didn't even own shoes, yet the the village had a cell tower and they all had cellphones and that enabled them to both have contact with the outside world and to work jobs online; it was most people's number one priority. 

There's this strong cultural myth about the 'undeserving poor' - that poor people must be at least modest about their predicament; they must justify where every penny goes, and aren't entitled to luxuries. This despite the fact that most poor people do work; that people 'scamming' welfare are in the extreme minority. Do rich people work several hundred times harder than the poor? Of course they don't - it's impossible to - but their salaries and spending habits generally aren't questioned.

I'm not fond of charities and charity work because while they're generally touted as this great thing, they're often rife with corruption and many times the work they do comes with stipulations; I'd rather pay into a system that everyone could draw from and benefit from were they in need.

This excerpt from a book on how the smallest thing can have devastating effects if you're poor is a pretty good read.

[Lord Raven]

4 hours ago, Lushen said:

Yea...You edited your post to further explain why my economic situation discredits me and my opinions.  You then went on to say that I lived in a self absorbed bubble and didn't understand what reality was like.  So in other words, your edit further re-emphasized my exact point.

No one is forcing you to engage in back and forths with me.  You don't have to, much like I don't as soon as your posts turn away from my argument and towards me as they always do.  But if you have something personal to say to me you can PM me.  My personal background is not a political topic.

It's amazing you fail to understand how your background shapes your political beliefs. Your background has definitively shaped your political beliefs; you argue from anecdote constantly. This is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

This is why I am trying to understand. I've asked questions. You presumed my intention, which means I may have struck a nerve which means that it may be true. It's alright to be privileged, it's alright to admit you're privileged, it's alright to admit that you're biased towards the Republican Party because you're privileged.

What's not okay is to assume these are universal facts, as you do. What is not okay is actively denying or twisting facts.

I too have my political beliefs influenced by my background. I consider myself a democratic socialist because I don't believe in capitalism. I firmly believe that a Social Democrat is what this country needs, however, and what I look for when I vote is vastly different from my own political beliefs; if I had to choose between Barack Obama and Jeremy Corbin I would go with Barack Obama.

If you're curious about more insight, then feel free to ask in here, because I can contextualize my politics around my personal life. But I'm far more pragmatic with my voting, preferring to vote centrist rather than fully progressive, despite being progressive myself.

Quote

As for the three steps, the 3 steps were not 100%.  They were, IIRC 90-something% chance to not be poor and 75% chance to join the middle class. 

And what are the numbers that back these up?

Quote

If you're not below the poverty line, than the statistics held true.

Oh, but I am below the poverty line. As were my parents until recently... now they're just poor.

Quote

If you are, it's important to note that being 25 and poor isn't exactly uncommon or tragic.  I'm guessing you're working 60 hour weeks to pay off student loans which includes continued education after receiving your BS degree. If the MS does not end up helping with job potential, it can be expected to be a bit of a deterrent from economic potential until it can be paid off. This is not unlike when people take out massive bank loans to fund a startup company and the company fails.  The three steps also suggested that you will eventually leave the poor class, not that you will never enter it.  I think most people are considered 'poor' at one point in their lives. IIRC I was technically poor last year and in all my college years.  Thankfully in college, we don't really care if we live in a dump...  Nevertheless, college education should not be expected to hold you down after you finance off student loans which is why the three steps I mentioned earlier suggest that you will eventually leave the poor class, not teleport out of it.

No student loans; got paid to go to college in fact, due to merit scholarship (15k/year) and because my parents were also below the poverty line I got government assistance for the gap (around 7k/year). I am privileged in a bunch of ways as a result, but still had zero help from my parents (as much as they REALLY wanted to help me, my preference was and will always be to not burden them any more than I already do). Still making 18k/year. This wasn't in your requirements; you're adding requirements.

I do pay rent and I'm making car payments. I'm still below the poverty line.

Therefore, your three step plan is wrong, since it is not universal. You're shifting your own goalposts now that I have an anecdote to contradict you -- and I can list multiple anecdotes.

At any rate, if you do not have enough respect to acknowledge my points -- like a child would, since you habitually sidestep and do not answer questions -- then you should not be insulted if I treat you like a child.

3 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

So how exactly are the Democrats planned on getting the poor out of poverty? Giving them more money? Money doesn't equal success if you don't know what to do with it. I have never actually heard a Democrat explain how they plan on getting poor people "unpoor". I've only ever heard them explain how they can give poor people the same things other Americans because they have a "right". Right to not die of starvation? Sure, but the food bank in my town seems to be doing fine, since they have enough perfectly fine excess food for them to send a few trailer loads to my pigs every week. Right to healthcare? Questionable. The Catholic hospital in my town can save you a ton of money in medical bills if you are poor enough, and the wealthy people who go to church and give their 10 percent seem to be completely capable of keeping that program running. Right to cell phone? Gimme a break. Aren't there better things to do with that money?

Dark Holy Elf covered this, but 

- Cutting the cost of health insurance, while still ensuring that people have insurance and keeping the costs down

- Increasing funding towards education and placing more of the military budget in scholarships and schooling (and no, these are not mutually exclusive; my scholarships have been paid for indirectly by the defense budget)

- Increasing the number of jobs via public works projects

- Providing negative tax brackets and increasing taxes on the wealthy to insure the above occurs. Keeping in mind that the fraud rate is a fraction of a fraction of a percent. This is "giving" money to the poor, but it keeps them from living paycheck to paycheck

- Placing legislative pressure on corporations to increase wages. Wages have overall decreased since 40 years ago, and the costs of everything have risen.

- Placing legislative pressure to lowering housing costs, including reducing foreign investment into our housing. Gen X and the Millennial generation are two generations that are objectively worse off than their parents due to housing costs relatively skyrocketing, as well as decreased wages/increased costs everywhere. College was far more affordable back then due to less investment into everything. This is also where the wealth disparity in the US comes in.

- The criminal justice system has created a cycle of poverty in inner cities, and it has disproportionately targeted blacks. This has lead to many black kids growing up with an absent parent. The recidivism rate is a result of our criminal justice system focusing more on private prison profits rather than bringing people back to contribute to society.

- This opioid epidemic we are freaking out about was extremely prevalent in majority black cities and areas, and suddenly when white people are feeling the burn we're expected to feel sorry for them, as opposed to before when the issues were ignored. Ensuring that issues are tackled based on severity and they don't crop up when it happens to one race long after it's happened to another.

There are more solutions that the Democrats have come up with, mentioned during Hillary Clinton's campaign, and these are some of them which are backed up by evidence. Do you disagree with any of these? Are these still contradictory to a free market? Hint: they're not, western europe has free markets, and they have many of these concepts and 1.5-2 times the economic migration that the US does.

The Catholic hospital in your town is anecdotal. You have to provide proof that these hospitals are commonplace and also an option for the vast majority of people. You also assume goodwill from the wealthy; also not a necessarily true, and a drop in the bucket in comparison to what we need.

Quote

A better metaphor is one where poverty is a pit. Republicans want to put sharp spikes at the bottom of the pit, so that all who fall down there are intensely motivated to either find a way out or live in misery. Democrats want to put a soft mattress at the bottom of the pit, so that those at the bottom can still enjoy life while they contemplate maybe getting out one day. Neither position is perfect. Ideally, you would put a trampoline in the bottom of the pit so that your stay is as brief as possible. But if partisan economists with big degrees can't figure out how to do that and each political party can't stop blaming the other every time their stupid plan fails, then I doubt that there's anything an ordinary guy like me can do.

Okay.

Republicans want to put sharp spikes at the bottom of the pit. Then, they want to dump oil on the walls.

Democrats will throw a rope at least. You gotta climb, but they're doing something to help you out.

FYI economists have brought up solutions -- and the rest of the western world has solutions. America is not adopting many of them suddenly, for many reasons. First of all, universal healthcare in the US is a major undertaking regardless of how easy we all think it is. We basically have to switch from our private insurance system -- which is bloated as is -- to a public system. The ACA is a good bridge that can be expanded upon.

What is also hilarious is that the ACA was a compromise. The Republicans wanted the ACA and even McCain campaigned on the ACA. But they called it Obamacare, it ended up being the bill they wanted, and they shit on it for 8 years due to partisan hackery. I can agree the Democrats are not effective, but I cannot agree that they're as bad as the Republicans. Many people do have evidence based policy, and Hillary Clinton's policies were lauded by all sorts of economists.

So in a lot of ways, it has been figured out, and that's part of the reason why people are not doing the right thing and making things worse. Because private interests and holding power is more important than the public, no matter what party the person is, but it just so happens that one party is a little bit better about it. And somehow, it's not the party of Lincoln.

3 hours ago, Lushen said:

Also in other news, I highly suggest everyone take this Political Typology Test.  It goes back to what I was saying earlier about how Republicans and Democrats are divided (though I grouped them in only two categories whereas this groups them each in four).  I am a core conservative.  No surprise there.
^It's only 17 questions, it will take like 3 minutes!

This is really poor because it's oversimplifying and dichotomous. I personally don't care about if my views align with a politician's; I look at their character (flaws and good parts) and on top of that their actual viewpoints and their ability to execute. You're not supposed to agree with the "core," but they're supposed to appeal to a wider base than just you. Compromise is a cornerstone of democracy that our Republican Party has constantly been unable to want to do, whether it be completing shutting out the Democrats during legislation or still voting against bills where the Democrats actively attempted to reach out to their Republican coworkers.

I would rather not vote for the Democratic Party, but they've shown that they are willing to cross barriers and work together with Republicans, the Republican Party has been the petulant bunch, convincing people like you that all Democrats want is a welfare state and not welfare to back up the free markets.

And no, welfare is not "if a business fails, you get all of your money back." It's "if a business fails, we'll help you put you back up on your feet, but you have to work for it." The former is nothing close to what the Democrats want, nor what anyone else wants, because I don't want to keep allowing the government to bail out scumbags like Donald Trump or the wall street executives of 2008. (FYI -- the bailout happened because our economy would get fucked up otherwise, it is not as simple as what you're stating, because it was housing fuckery to an astronomical scale caused by either Republican policies or neglect, which may as well be indistinguishable).

Edited October 27, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Time the Crestfallen]

11 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

A better metaphor is one where poverty is a pit. Republicans want to put sharp spikes at the bottom of the pit, so that all who fall down there are intensely motivated to either find a way out or live in misery.

Even if I take this metaphor at face value, what good does creating a motivation to find a way out when you've already suffered several crippling injuries via impalement?

I'm not going to deny that success stories exist, but those play into it to. If the GOP had their way, there would be no safety net whatsoever and no methods of getting yourself off the ground to even begin to try and dig your way out of poverty. It's a system in which 99% of people are destined to fail and where the 1% of success stories are reliant less on their own efforts and more so on having multiple lucky breaks at just the right times. Any system that fails 99% of the people that go through it anywhere else in the developed  world would be considered a complete failure, but the GOP takes the 1% of people who overcome the odds purely by being in the right place at the right time and use them to say 'see, they turned out fine. It's clearly your fault that your're suffering, the system is working as intended', which is especially the case now that stagnant wages and the rising cost of living has made it so that just barely scrapping by, let alone escaping poverty, is harder than ever.

Not to mention the fact that the GOP way completely fails people born into poverty, which completely undercuts their 'personal responsibility' bullshit. How do you justify a system that throws people into the pit of spikes right out of the womb and then blames them for not being able to escape, even though you've been impaled and having to deal with the crippling injuries that arise as a consequence since you were born?

[SullyMcGully]

Can I just say that the poverty line is a bit of a joke? My family lives under the poverty line. But we own our house. We have plenty to eat. We stay warm in the winter. We have a nice TV. I have a cell phone. We run a small farm. Yet we could get thousands of dollars in government assistance if we wanted to. We don't, because it would be kinda immoral to take money meant to help people who can't survive on what they have and use it for ourselves. But we could. 

Welfare reform is a real need. The moment someone (usually a Republican) says that, they immediately get people screaming "but what about the hungry people on the streets? You want them to starve?" But welfare reform (done right) would actually be better for those people, because people like me wouldn't be getting aid that they didn't need. 

[Shoblongoo]

Don’t get too excited over tax reform. It just passed the House.

They still have to draft a version that passes the Senate. Then send the House version and the Senate version to joint committee. Then come up with a compromise bill that can both pass the House without losing too many votes to pass the Senate, and pass the Senate without losing too many votes to pass the House.

And do it all with no guiding points of policy or intraparty coalition-building coming out of a dysfunctional White House. Over the handicap of Trump perpetually kneecapping their efforts with a steady stream of feuds and scandals and misstatements that constantly need to be corrected by everyone around him, before anything else can get done.

With all the infighting and incompetence and failure to put forth substantive policy they couldn’t even pass Obamacare repeal; the one thing that in the past 7 years has united all Republicans as the objective-to-be-achieved upon taking control of the presidency.

Tax reform is going to be more complicated than Obamacare repeal; presenting more contested choices of policy, more disagreement between disparate factions as to which policies to pursue, and a greater need for compromise and unity and cooperation between the president and lawmakers.   

 There's a very good chance that this goes nowhere.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Lushen]

18 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

No student loans; got paid to go to college in fact, due to merit scholarship (15k/year) and because my parents were also below the poverty line I got government assistance for the gap (around 7k/year). I am privileged in a bunch of ways as a result, but still had zero help from my parents (as much as they REALLY wanted to help me, my preference was and will always be to not burden them any more than I already do). Still making 18k/year. This wasn't in your requirements; you're adding requirements..

So you can complain about how privileged I am meanwhile you had a larger advantage over me.  My school was paid entirely by my parents, it's true.  But you also got a MS degree which requires a lot more time, effort, and money and it was paid for by taxpayers (including my parents).  How can you believe in the liberal ideology that giving free education to people makes them successful?  That happened to you and now you're complaining about your situation.  You are literally living evidence of why conservatism represents the real world.  

18 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

It's amazing you fail to understand how your background shapes your political beliefs. Your background has definitively shaped your political beliefs; you argue from anecdote constantly. This is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

This is why I am trying to understand. I've asked questions. You presumed my intention, which means I may have struck a nerve which means that it may be true. It's alright to be privileged, it's alright to admit you're privileged, it's alright to admit that you're biased towards the Republican Party because you're privileged.

What's not okay is to assume these are universal facts, as you do. What is not okay is actively denying or twisting facts.

You think I don't understand that?  But let me tell you something, my background doesn't make me any more naive of the real world than yours does.  You can say that because I was born in a rich family, I don't understand what it's like to be poor.  The thing is, I've been saying, identically, that the poor don't know how to be rich.  I've been saying that the best way to get them out of their situation is to teach them how to be successful.  I have a friend who grew up in your situation.  He graduated as a Mechanical Engineer and is making 80k/yr as a first time job.  He graduated with no help from the gov't at all. He paid for his degree through part time work, work as a technician before college, internships, and a co-op.  He worked his ass off not just in school but in his free time and I have a tremendous level of respect for him, more than I do in myself.  In one year, he now has more money than his mom has ever had before.  Liberal ideologies gave you college.  Conservative ideologies gave him college.  Look at the results. 

18 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I too have my political beliefs influenced by my background. I consider myself a democratic socialist because I don't believe in capitalism.

Remember "Ask not what your country can do for you; but what you can do for your country".  The government exists to serve it's people.  People don't exist to serve government.  Not believing in capitalism means not believing in american ideals.   If you don't believe in capitalism, you are against american ideals.  That's fine, you have a right to do that, but that is not what America is or has ever been.  There are plenty of socialistic countries that believe in this form of gov't, you can go to if you think it will be more fair to you, but might I suggest the reason you don't is because they all suck?

18 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

anecdote anecdote anecdote

There's nothing wrong with anecdotes.  Feel free to share them.  The danger occurs when the anecdote is not specific.  But if it can be shown that the anecdote works in the general sense, then it is no different than a scientific experiment (which are all anecdotes).

 

@ShoblongooI agree tax reform is not a done deal.  I do disagree with it being more complex than healthcare.  While tax reform is a lot 'bigger', it is a lot less complex in the eyes of conservatives.  Most of the people who voted 'No' voted 'No' because of SALT.  Besides, those 20 republicans are comprised mostly of republicans who manage democratic states (I'll never understand why this keeps happening).  I think the senate is a lot more reasonable/professional than most of the members of the house.  I think in the end it will go through, but it might get cut down a bit.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Lushen

[Res]

1 hour ago, SullyMcGully said:

Can I just say that the poverty line is a bit of a joke? My family lives under the poverty line. But we own our house. We have plenty to eat. We stay warm in the winter. We have a nice TV. I have a cell phone. We run a small farm. Yet we could get thousands of dollars in government assistance if we wanted to. We don't, because it would be kinda immoral to take money meant to help people who can't survive on what they have and use it for ourselves. But we could. 

Welfare reform is a real need. The moment someone (usually a Republican) says that, they immediately get people screaming "but what about the hungry people on the streets? You want them to starve?" But welfare reform (done right) would actually be better for those people, because people like me wouldn't be getting aid that they didn't need. 

I'd wager you're an unusual case, though. Certainly most people under the poverty line aren't going to be owning a home (and renting is usually more expensive than a mortgage for a comparative place). Additionally cost of living varies wildly; despite minimum wage being higher than the national average in my city, it's still not enough to rent a studio, where assisted living rent prices begin at $1,100.

12 minutes ago, Lushen said:

So you can complain about how privileged I am meanwhile you had a larger advantage over me.  My school was paid entirely by my parents, it's true.  But you also got a MS degree which requires a lot more time, effort, and money and it was paid for by taxpayers (including my parents).  How can you believe in the liberal ideology that giving free education to people makes them successful?  That happened to you and now you're complaining about your situation.  You are literally living evidence of why conservatism represents the real world.  

You think I don't understand that?  But let me tell you something, my background doesn't make me any more naive of the real world than yours does.  You can say that because I was born in a rich family, I don't understand what it's like to be poor.  The thing is, I've been saying, identically, that the poor don't know how to be rich.  I've been saying that the best way to get them out of their situation is to teach them how to be successful.  I have a friend who grew up in your situation.  He graduated as a Mechanical Engineer and is making 80k/yr as a first time job.  He graduated with no help from the gov't at all. He paid for his degree through part time work, work as a technician before college, internships, and a co-op.  He worked his ass off not just in school but in his free time and I have a tremendous level of respect for him, more than I do in myself.  In one year, he now has more money than his mom has ever had before.  Liberal ideologies gave you college.  Conservative ideologies gave him college.  Look at the results. 

Remember "Ask not what your country can do for you; but what you can do for your country".  The government exists to serve it's people.  People don't exist to serve government.  Not believing in capitalism means not believing in american ideals.   If you don't believe in capitalism, you are against american ideals.  That's fine, you have a right to do that, but that is not what America is or has ever been.  There are plenty of socialistic countries that believe in this form of gov't, you can go to if you think it will be more fair to you, but might I suggest the reason you don't is because they all suck?

There's nothing wrong with anecdotes.  Feel free to share them.  The danger occurs when the anecdote is not specific.  But if it can be shown that the anecdote works in the general sense, then it is no different than a scientific experiment (which are all anecdotes).

It's a little bit rich for you to talk about the value of anecdotes when your own posts have been full of vague anecdotes...

Most people are not going to be able to fund their college through part-time work. A lot of full-time jobs will barely pay for college in the U.S.

Here're some facts: For our parents' generation, college was far more affordable. For my parents' generation in the U.K., it was virtually free - people received grants from the government instead of loans, which meant they had no debt to repay at the end of college. The education requirements were stricter and fewer people overall went to college (which I am in favor of, providing that jobs don't demand college degrees - which many do, now). 

Success is usually dependent upon hard work, yes, but also opportunities, access and luck. It all goes hand-in-hand (Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers is an excellent study of this). My father worked extremely hard. He worked part-time through college. As a veterinarian and sole proprietor in his 20s and 30s he was on call 24/7 for most of the year. He retired before the age of 60 with a great portfolio. However, he:

- graduated with 0 debt (government grants).
- was given an interest-free loan by his boss to buy his first house.
- was able to sell his first house in the housing boom of the 90s, selling for double what he had paid and enabling him to buy a much bigger house.

These are all opportunities that were specific to his generation.  

Currently, we have tuition fees that have far surpassed inflation. We have a minimum wage however that has not maintained pace with inflation. We have property explosions in many parts of the country that mean housing is overall far more expensive for the current generation. 

Evidence for these countries sucking? All of the non-U.S. people on this forum seem to be pretty content with where they live and are pretty aghast at many aspects of the U.S. Additionally, immigration is expensive and difficult, especially to/from the U.S. People can't just up and leave and move wherever. Besides, why should anyone move away from family and friends? People have a right to want to improve where they live.

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, Res said:

Evidence for these countries sucking? All of the non-U.S. people on this forum seem to be pretty content with where they live and are pretty aghast at many aspects of the U.S. Additionally, immigration is expensive and difficult, especially to/from the U.S. People can't just up and leave and move wherever. Besides, why should anyone move away from family and friends? People have a right to want to improve where they live.

They don't live in America.  There used to be value in American ideals.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should go back to the stone age when it comes to America.  I believe in moving FORWARD with American ideals.  I don't believe in moving diagonal or sideways.  Let me give you an example

Slavery was in America and now it isn't.  This wans't betraying American ideals because we used to have slave.  This was moving FORWARD.  The declaration of independence states "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights"   There really was no need for the 13th amendment.  The declaration of independence already stated that slavery should not be accepted.  We moved FORWARD with our ideals when we ended slavery.

My favorite document is the Bill of Rights.  Most of the far left leaning liberals believe in the destruction or reduction of many of these rights.  We can no longer have freedom of speech because some of it is "Hate Speech".  We can no longer bear arms because "guns kill people, people don't kill people".  They even go against the 5th amendment because they believe the gov't should take capital from private owners who haven't committed a crime (in order to have gov't run production).  And federalization of many different laws goes against the 10th amendment.  The bill of rights has , in my view, become a big joke.

I'm not against the entirety of the left.  But it's been clear to me for a while that the far left has been calling for a complete betrayal of American ideals and American society.  And that matters to people.  You wonder why you got Trump?  People don't think he's a genius. People don't think he has great experience or great ideas.  People think he knows what America is and what America isn't, and people care about that.

[Res]

23 minutes ago, Lushen said:

They don't live in America.  There used to be value in American ideals.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should go back to the stone age when it comes to America.  I believe in moving FORWARD with American ideals.  I don't believe in moving diagonal or sideways.  Let me give you an example

Slavery was in America and now it isn't.  This wans't betraying American ideals because we used to have slave.  This was moving FORWARD.  The declaration of independence states "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights"   There really was no need for the 13th amendment.  The declaration of independence already stated that slavery should not be accepted.  We moved FORWARD with our ideals when we ended slavery.

My favorite document is the Bill of Rights.  Most of the far left leaning liberals believe in the destruction or reduction of many of these rights.  We can no longer have freedom of speech because some of it is "Hate Speech".  We can no longer bear arms because "guns kill people, people don't kill people".  They even go against the 5th amendment because they believe the gov't should take capital from private owners who haven't committed a crime (in order to have gov't run production).  And federalization of many different laws goes against the 10th amendment.  The bill of rights has , in my view, become a big joke.

I'm not against the entirety of the left.  But it's been clear to me for a while that the far left has been calling for a complete betrayal of American ideals and American society.  And that matters to people.  You wonder why you got Trump?  People don't think he's a genius. People don't think he has great experience or great ideas.  People think he knows what America is and what America isn't, and people care about that.

How does the bolded part answer my question about why other countries suck? 

I mean, I have direct experience of living both in the U.K. and U.S., a couple of the other posters here have also either had experience of living in more than one country or have parents who are immigrants, so maintain close ties to other countries. 

And you're simplifying the left's (not far left, which has already been addressed multiple times here) arguments hugely. For example, the argument about guns is not about disarming the entire population but acknowledging that the 2nd amendment was written in a time when firearms operated very differently, and that there should probably be provisions against certain types of firearms, as well as better record-keeping of sales. The rest of what you're saying has been answered by people like @Shoblongoo.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Res