2020 Election Thoughts

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, Danny Dravot said:

I sympathize with the kids with crappy parents who grew up in crappy environments and never had the chance that I had, and I want to help them (again, to a reasonable extent).

But if someone grew up in a privileged environment and still ended up chronically unemployed and working poor, then I'm really not that sympathetic. Life takes a little bit of toughness. Sorry.

What I'm saying is that there's too much competition for decent jobs. 

I've seen it way too much with my peers. They went to college, got an in-demand degree and then 2008-09 happened. The economy took a shit and companies made a deliberate choice to shut out college grads. 

[Jack Parkman]

6 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

The emphasis there is on "idealistic". I understand that we're never going to get to a point where that system can vanish. However, welfare systems and social services should combine to help people who are down on their luck and work them through whatever issues they have while also pushing them off of it eventually. The idea that we should sustain people until we have decent jobs for everyone is nutty.

The cost of living is way too high in most places that there really is no choice. It's either a decent job or prop people up. I think people would be much more willing to do any job whatsoever as long as it paid a living wage. 

In a perfect world, people would get off eventually. 

Nobody talks about how housing isn't affordable these days either. 

Jobs that used to result in a LMC lifestyle are now working poor because of the lack of affordable housing and healthcare. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Danny Dravot]

3 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

I don't even want to help these people man.  Are you kidding me lmaoooo.  I could be wrong in this belief but it seems like you assume all of these people fall into this category and if that was the case, we would agree 1000%.

No, I don't think this is the case at all. Parkman seems to think this is a substantial segment of the needy in this country and I think that's absurd.

My parents ended up well off, we lived in a big house in a nice neighborhood, I went to a good school, they were home in the evenings to make sure I studied, they pretty much mandated I attend college, and then they helped me foot the bill. If I had ended up working a minimum wage job because I picked a silly major and didn't have the best GPA, you'd be under no obligation to help me.

I've advocated a limited welfare state for those who actually need it everywhere in this thread. But there are obvious limits to that.

[Danny Dravot]

4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

The cost of living is way too high in most places that there really is no choice. It's either a decent job or prop people up. I think people would be much more willing to do any job whatsoever as long as it paid a living wage. 

In a perfect world, people would get off eventually. 

Nobody talks about how housing isn't affordable these days either. 

Jobs that used to result in a LMC lifestyle are now working poor because of the lack of affordable housing and healthcare. 

COL comes down to supply and demand. Why is everything, including housing, so damn expensive in San Francisco? Limited space, lots of people, attractive topography and cityscape bringing even more people, etc. How do you propose to control that?

If you want to live in SF but can't afford it, that doesn't mean it's our responsibility to help you. You're not actually needy. I couldn't afford a one bedroom apartment in that city, so I live a very nice life somewhere else.

[Danny Dravot]

19 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

We have to have a system where upward mobility is not only possible, but probable. 

No. We need a system that alleviates suffering, starvation, and unnecessary death. Upward mobility and luxury is YOUR responsibility.

[Jack Parkman]

2 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

COL comes down to supply and demand. Why is everything, including housing, so damn expensive in San Francisco? Limited space, lots of people, attractive topography and cityscape bringing even more people, etc. How do you propose to control that?

If you want to live in SF but can't afford it, that doesn't mean it's our responsibility to help you. You're not actually needy. I couldn't afford a one bedroom apartment in that city, so I live a very nice life somewhere else.

Not if you can't find a job elsewhere. 

[Jack Parkman]

9 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

No. We need a system that alleviates suffering, starvation, and unnecessary death. Upward mobility and luxury is YOUR responsibility.

I agree, but most people work hard and play by the rules, and not enough of them are getting ahead. 

My parents came from a poor family and one was a 1st gen immigrant. I've seen what happens with my extended family and there were only a few who fell through the cracks. The overwhelming majority on the poor side played by the rules and still didn't get ahead. 

Basically if you follow the rules, you should be able to be better off than your parents at least. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Danny Dravot]

11 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

not enough of them are getting ahead. 

I'll make this post my last, because we can agree to disagree, but this particular thing is not AT ALL the government's responsibility.

"You're alive? Your kid's asthma attacks are under control because you can afford an inhaler? You can afford ramen noodles and vegetables from Aldi's? You've stopped buying meth and are going to start working as an office assistant next week? All because we stepped in and helped you? Our work is done here- big success!"

Edited November 14, 2020 by Danny Dravot

[Jack Parkman]

21 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

I'll make this post my last, because we can agree to disagree, but this particular thing is not AT ALL the government's responsibility.

"You're alive? Your kid's asthma attacks are under control because you can afford an inhaler? You can afford ramen noodles and vegetables from Aldi's? You've stopped buying meth and are going to start working as an office assistant next week? All because we stepped in and helped you? Our work is done here- big success!"

I'll agree it's not the welfare program's responsibility, but it absolutely is the government's responsibility. 

With a larger percentage of people who grew up middle class that are ending up working poor as adults, it is destroying the fabric of a heterogenous society like the USA. There always has to be enough to go around. The way the government does this isn't by the welfare system, but by setting the rules for business. Namely a higher corporate tax rate, higher wages, making it easier to create and join a union if you want to, making companies that gut businesses and sell assets illegal, enforcing the Sherman Antitrust act, etc. 

I'm a proponent of the stuff that Robert Reich puts out there about how the rules of the market don't just exist, they're created by public policy. You put policies in place that encourage a large middle class. Obviously, there's always going to be some that get left behind, some that don't play by the rules, and other things. But those people are few and far between. This has all been done before, it's not that hard. The bottom line is that there shouldn't be people who want to work that are completely shut out from the labor force. 

Too much of American industry has become mafia-like cartels similar to the 5 families in NYC. They all get together in their business organizations (like the American Petroleum Institute)  and divvy up who gets what market share, and where, similar to what the Commission did in the NYC Mafia. 

 

The economic terrorism I speak of is not only about the minimization of the welfare state, but also direct rules of business changes that makes it hard for the average person to gain access to a middle class lifestyle. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Jerksticks]

And the one constant remains Jack:  you have to learn to be good at something.  If you do that you should have no problem.  If you go around just having “jobs” you shouldn’t expect much.  
 

I’m not sure if that’s fair or not but it seems to be the case. 

[Danny Dravot]

58 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I'll agree it's not the welfare program's responsibility, but it absolutely is the government's responsibility. 

With a larger percentage of people who grew up middle class that are ending up working poor as adults, it is destroying the fabric of a heterogenous society like the USA. There always has to be enough to go around. The way the government does this isn't by the welfare system, but by setting the rules for business. Namely a higher corporate tax rate, higher wages, making it easier to create and join a union if you want to, making companies that gut businesses and sell assets illegal, enforcing the Sherman Antitrust act, etc. 

I'm a proponent of the stuff that Robert Reich puts out there about how the rules of the market don't just exist, they're created by public policy. You put policies in place that encourage a large middle class. Obviously, there's always going to be some that get left behind, some that don't play by the rules, and other things. But those people are few and far between. This has all been done before, it's not that hard. The bottom line is that there shouldn't be people who want to work that are completely shut out from the labor force. 

Too much of American industry has become mafia-like cartels similar to the 5 families in NYC. They all get together in their business organizations (like the American Petroleum Institute)  and divvy up who gets what market share, and where, similar to what the Commission did in the NYC Mafia. 

 

The economic terrorism I speak of is not only about the minimization of the welfare state, but also direct rules of business changes that makes it hard for the average person to gain access to a middle class lifestyle. 

Do you think something like the American Petroleum Institute matters to the average American? Who are these mysterious hordes who are shut out from the labor force?

Being middle class, ESPECIALLY if you come from a privileged background (i.e. mom and dad are reasonably present and pay close enough attention that you don't totally beclown yourself in school and your living situation is relatively stable), isn't hard. If you graduate from college and perform decently well in a useful major and don't have some expectation that you get to immediately live in the hippest neighborhood in the coolest city (again, my COL is low but I still live in a very nice area- such places do exist), you'll be middle class and pretty secure. It won't be glamorous but you won't need a welfare system to even get by.

[Jack Parkman]

10 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

Do you think something like the American Petroleum Institute matters to the average American? Who are these mysterious hordes who are shut out from the labor force?

Being middle class, ESPECIALLY if you come from a privileged background (i.e. mom and dad are reasonably present and pay close enough attention that you don't totally beclown yourself in school and your living situation is relatively stable), isn't hard. If you graduate from college and perform decently well in a useful major and don't have some expectation that you get to immediately live in the hippest neighborhood in the coolest city (again, my COL is low but I still live in a very nice area- such places do exist), you'll be middle class and pretty secure. It won't be glamorous but you won't need a welfare system to even get by.

You must be a bit divorced from the reality of what's happening to Gen Y and Z. That's definitely NOT happening anymore. That's how it used to be, but 2008 and 2020 changed things. It's a complete coinflip now to remain in the middle class if you were born into it. It's pretty much become nepotism. If your folks know someone that can get your foot in the door to a decent job, you get in. If not, back to the working poor you go. 

There are more people moving DOWN in the younger generations than there are maintaining. If you were born in the early 80s you're ok. Once you get to 1985 or later(people who graduated from college in 2007-08 or later things change. 

This is why the country is falling apart a bit. There's not enough opportunity for those who want it. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Danny Dravot]

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

You must be a bit divorced from the reality of what's happening to Gen Y and Z. That's definitely NOT happening anymore. That's how it used to be, but 2008 and 2020 changed things. It's a complete coinflip now to remain in the middle class if you were born into it. It's pretty much become nepotism. If your folks know someone that can get your foot in the door to a decent job, you get in. If not, back to the working poor you go. 

Goodness man, what happened in your life to make you that pessimistic? You really think the only way to get a good job is by knowing someone?

[Jack Parkman]

8 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

Goodness man, what happened in your life to make you that pessimistic? You really think the only way to get a good job is by knowing someone?

Idk who you are, but I don't want to re-hash stuff that I've been over before. If you want to know, feel free to PM me. 

I know people who got a DUI in college, were very average and got jobs because daddy knew someone. 

I also know a few people who didn't and are struggling to get out of entry-level work. And by entry level, I mean retail and stuff like that. 

Those that did get out had to go into the trades. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Danny Dravot]

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

Idk who you are, but I don't want to re-hash stuff that I've been over. 

I know people who got a DUI in college, were very average and got jobs because daddy knew someone. 

I also know a few people who didn't and are struggling to get out of entry-level work. And by entry level, I mean retail and stuff like that. 

That's fine.

Yes, some people live fluffy lives because their parents have connections and/or money. Eric Trump is a thing, unfortunately.

Don't get too caught up on that. I work two jobs and am fairly certain that the vast majority of my hundreds of coworkers are where they are because they were the best candidate. In both of my jobs, that was the case for me.

I'm guessing your friends who struggle to move up have some issues, whether they've shared them with you or not.

[pcq]

3 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

2 people died from Ebola, the right said Obama should resign.

4 died in Benghazi, Hillary had to testify for 11 hours, they had 33 hearings in a multi year probe.

250k died because Trump decided Coronavirus was over, so they cheer him on and play along with him about maybe he didn’t lose an election.

Sounds fair to everybody. Many people said Trump did all he could do. 

[greg775]

5 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:

No, I don't think this is the case at all. Parkman seems to think this is a substantial segment of the needy in this country and I think that's absurd.

My parents ended up well off, we lived in a big house in a nice neighborhood, I went to a good school, they were home in the evenings to make sure I studied, they pretty much mandated I attend college, and then they helped me foot the bill. If I had ended up working a minimum wage job because I picked a silly major and didn't have the best GPA, you'd be under no obligation to help me.

I've advocated a limited welfare state for those who actually need it everywhere in this thread. But there are obvious limits to that.

I don't know about Jack's situation but I will tell you this: Anybody who wants all-out socialism (not talking about Jack specifically) is misguided and even potentially dangerous. Bigger government is NOT a good thing. Capitalism is the only way to go. And Communism? Holy cow you don't want Communism. Politics is out of control right now and if the Senate goes Democrat and the radical left gets its way ... well, it's going to be interesting to say the least.

I could say more but I better stifle.

[Middle Buffalo]

I’m not sure “capitalism“ actually exists. Walmart, Amazon, etc. often get huge land discounts and tax advantages because they “create jobs.” Corporate farmers, oil companies, etc. get subsidies. Airlines, car manufacturers, banks, etc. get bailouts. Real estate tycoons are able to offset their “losses” and end up paying little to no taxes.

In a true capitalist society, the strong survive.

Why is it ok for the government to assist these people but not the poor and disadvantaged? Why do Fortune 500 companies receive government assistance that isn’t available to small businesses owners, small time landlords, and single family farms?

Edited November 15, 2020 by Middle Buffalo

[Danny Dravot]

1 hour ago, greg775 said:

I don't know about Jack's situation but I will tell you this: Anybody who wants all-out socialism (not talking about Jack specifically) is misguided and even potentially dangerous. Bigger government is NOT a good thing. Capitalism is the only way to go. And Communism? Holy cow you don't want Communism. Politics is out of control right now and if the Senate goes Democrat and the radical left gets its way ... well, it's going to be interesting to say the least.

I could say more but I better stifle.

Yes, Greg, I know communism is bad.

I mainly focus on foreign policy and my two favorite presidents are Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. I find The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf to be equally heinous. Even in hindsight, I approve of the Vietnam War. My anti communist bonafides are in order.

The problem with your argument is that neither Joe Biden nor the Democratic Party are communist. The antifa black bloc doofuses you worry about so much will have less of an impact on Joe Biden’s thinking (read- none) than QAnon types had on Trump’s (read- a lot). If you’d step back and analyze his actual policies and choices (like his front runner for SecDef saying we need to be able to credibly threaten to sink all of China’s warships, subs, and merchant marine vessels in the South China Sea), you’d realize that he’s gonna piss off the serious leftists here much more than he will you.

[southsider2k5]

Not admitting defeat has made the President more money in the last month than most people who voted for him will in their lifetimes. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/08/25/trump-has-now-moved-23-million-of-campaign-donor-money-into-his-private-business/?fbclid=IwAR2pOCSNWGZmJ9bKLWnoBpW7HbXYdn3RLpsd389j999qR_PUFVvrds_-v-k&sh=54b352bb773c

[greg775]

1 hour ago, Danny Dravot said:

Yes, Greg, I know communism is bad.

I mainly focus on foreign policy and my two favorite presidents are Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. I find The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf to be equally heinous. Even in hindsight, I approve of the Vietnam War. My anti communist bonafides are in order.

The problem with your argument is that neither Joe Biden nor the Democratic Party are communist. The antifa black bloc doofuses you worry about so much will have less of an impact on Joe Biden’s thinking (read- none) than QAnon types had on Trump’s (read- a lot). If you’d step back and analyze his actual policies and choices (like his front runner for SecDef saying we need to be able to credibly threaten to sink all of China’s warships, subs, and merchant marine vessels in the South China Sea), you’d realize that he’s gonna piss off the serious leftists here much more than he will you.

You understand me decently Danny regarding Antifa. Check youtube highlights from them beating up elderly people today mostly with sneak attack punches in DC. Then tonight, boom, they commit a felony (no arrests) by shooting firebombs at outdoor diners. That's cool u have recognized my worry about them. That's why I talk about Tex recommending the right brand of firearm for me if needed. p.s. didn't mean to imply you liked communism; you seem OK to me. Sorry.

p.s. I disagree Joe and Kamala will be angering leftists much. Remember the concern of some of us is Joe following pretty much everything Kamala and the Squad want. Just telling you how some in America feel, not trying to stir anything up.

Edited November 15, 2020 by greg775

[greg775]

2 hours ago, Middle Buffalo said:

I’m not sure “capitalism“ actually exists. Walmart, Amazon, etc. often get huge land discounts and tax advantages because they “create jobs.” Corporate farmers, oil companies, etc. get subsidies. Airlines, car manufacturers, banks, etc. get bailouts. Real estate tycoons are able to offset their “losses” and end up paying little to no taxes.

In a true capitalist society, the strong survive.

Why is it ok for the government to assist these people but not the poor and disadvantaged? Why do Fortune 500 companies receive government assistance that isn’t available to small businesses owners, small time landlords, and single family farms?

Why are reparations currently on the backburner? Remember I months ago read something like 9 trillion was BLM's request plan for reparations. It meant something like 450,000 per Black or Black family, I forget which. That would vault a lot of people into the upper middle class. Kind of waiting for it to resurface. That money would satisfy your question in your third paragraph. 450,000 dollars should switch a lot of people's economic status. I would think that would be classified as a socialist move, however, in free money.

Edited November 15, 2020 by greg775

[Danny Dravot]

5 minutes ago, greg775 said:

You understand me decently Danny regarding Antifa. Check youtube highlights from them beating up elderly people today mostly with sneak attack punches in DC. Then tonight, boom, they commit a felony (no arrests) by shooting firebombs at outdoor diners. That's cool u have recognized my worry about them. That's why I talk about Tex recommending the right brand of firearm for me if needed. p.s. didn't mean to imply you liked communism; you seem OK to me. Sorry.

You missed the point of my comment.

[greg775]

2 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

You missed the point of my comment.

Sorry. I never claimed to be the brightest tool in the shed.

[Danny Dravot]

24 minutes ago, greg775 said:

You understand me decently Danny regarding Antifa. Check youtube highlights from them beating up elderly people today mostly with sneak attack punches in DC. Then tonight, boom, they commit a felony (no arrests) by shooting firebombs at outdoor diners. That's cool u have recognized my worry about them. That's why I talk about Tex recommending the right brand of firearm for me if needed. p.s. didn't mean to imply you liked communism; you seem OK to me. Sorry.

p.s. I disagree Joe and Kamala will be angering leftists much. Remember the concern of some of us is Joe following pretty much everything Kamala and the Squad want. Just telling you how some in America feel, not trying to stir anything up.

I don’t care how people feel. Joe follows the squad? Kamala was a very successful prosecutor, and Michele Flournoy would have been seen as a hawkish figure even in the GWB administration. Look at the facts, man.