The Republican Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, it's not like the ultra-wealthy systematically exploit social safety nets to keep wages low and profits high!

 

But keep continuing to ignore the gigantic wealth gap. Ignore 400 people controlling close to half the wealth in the country. Ignore stagnant wages for decades for most Americans and sky-rocketing executive pay. Those aren't the real problems. The real problems are poor people on food stamps! They're enslaved somehow!

 

But see, this is the attitude which kills any real reform in this area. It's not a one side fix. It's not just saying the rich have exploited the system to be more rich. Sure, that's a huge problem, but at the same time we've basically accepted the fact that a large portion of the country is completely dependent on the rest of us to live. They have no driving force to better their lives. They have no qualms with accepting public money. In fact, they want more. And because the system is set up for the rich, the middle class ends up getting double screwed because they're forced to foot the bill without getting much of the benefit.

 

Maybe if we reformed the advantages in the system for the rich, while at the same time maybe demanding a little bit from people that receive public assistance, the country (and government budgets) would be in even better shape.

[Balta1701]

But see, this is the attitude which kills any real reform in this area. It's not a one side fix. It's not just saying the rich have exploited the system to be more rich. Sure, that's a huge problem, but at the same time we've basically accepted the fact that a large portion of the country is completely dependent on the rest of us to live. They have no driving force to better their lives. They have no qualms with accepting public money. In fact, they want more. And because the system is set up for the rich, the middle class ends up getting double screwed because they're forced to foot the bill without getting much of the benefit.

 

Maybe if we reformed the advantages in the system for the rich, while at the same time maybe demanding a little bit from people that receive public assistance, the country (and government budgets) would be in even better shape.

You can say EXACTLY the same thing about the top of the top of the top.

 

Except when their fortunes are on the line, everyone in government picks up the phone. They get bailed out and lose nothing. They have probably even fewer qualms with asking the government to make sure the deck is stacked in their favor. They have absolutely no qualms accepting public money, public favors, things that can be turned into money, etc.

[StrangeSox]

But see, this is the attitude which kills any real reform in this area. It's not a one side fix. It's not just saying the rich have exploited the system to be more rich.

 

Sure it is. There's more than enough wealth, hell, there's more than enough idle wealth and productive people right now to provide food, shelter, clothing, education etc. if we wanted a full-blown socialist state.

 

You can't fix a system that overwhelming favors the wealthy on the backs of the poor. Hell, just look at some of the articles I've posted in the Financial thread in the last couple of days--employers are lamenting labor laws that don't allow them to "hire" desperate people for zero pay so that they can add to their resume while employers add to their profits.

 

Sure, that's a huge problem, but at the same time we've basically accepted the fact that a large portion of the country is completely dependent on the rest of us to live. They have no driving force to better their lives. They have no qualms with accepting public money. In fact, they want more.

 

See, this I find incredibly insulting. The idea that the working poor don't bust their asses just to survive, that they don't work just as hard or harder and that they just want to sit around and accept public money is just absurd. People simply can't better themselves when more and more jobs are shipped overseas or simply downsized, placing a larger burden on the remaining employees. They can't better themselves and climb up the grand meritocracy ladder when wages have been stagnant for their entire adult lives while the cost of living sure as hell hasn't.

 

And because the system is set up for the rich, the middle class ends up getting double screwed because they're forced to foot the bill without getting much of the benefit.

 

The middle class is disappearing into the lower classes.

 

Maybe if we reformed the advantages in the system for the rich, while at the same time maybe demanding a little bit from people that receive public assistance, the country (and government budgets) would be in even better shape.

 

I would not be opposed to large-scale government works programs at times like these to utilize idle labor and materials to build things we need anyway like infrastructure, not just digging and filling holes. That's basic Keynesian economics. I would be in favor of a stronger social safety net that required some minimum input from all citizens who would utilize it that would enable workers to have some semblance of power, an ability to leave a job if conditions became intolerable without facing destitution/foreclosure/etc.

 

But since our government is a bought-and-paid-for plutarchy, that's probably not going to happen.

 

[StrangeSox]

You can say EXACTLY the same thing about the top of the top of the top.

 

Except when their fortunes are on the line, everyone in government picks up the phone. They get bailed out and lose nothing. They have probably even fewer qualms with asking the government to make sure the deck is stacked in their favor. They have absolutely no qualms accepting public money, public favors, things that can be turned into money, etc.

 

IMO that's why it's important to point out that "CLASS WARFARE!" and redistribution of wealth doesn't only mean taking from the rich to give to the poor.

[Jenksismyhero]

You can say EXACTLY the same thing about the top of the top of the top.

 

Except when their fortunes are on the line, everyone in government picks up the phone. They get bailed out and lose nothing. They have probably even fewer qualms with asking the government to make sure the deck is stacked in their favor. They have absolutely no qualms accepting public money, public favors, things that can be turned into money, etc.

 

I agree there, I thought all the bailouts were bulls***. And we still haven't really protected ourselves from the Wall Street screwing us all again.

[StrangeSox]

I agree there, I thought all the bailouts were bulls***. And we still haven't really protected ourselves from the Wall Street screwing us all again.

 

since our government is a bought-and-paid-for plutarchy, that's probably not going to happen.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

See, this I find incredibly insulting. The idea that the working poor don't bust their asses just to survive, that they don't work just as hard or harder and that they just want to sit around and accept public money is just absurd. People simply can't better themselves when more and more jobs are shipped overseas or simply downsized, placing a larger burden on the remaining employees. They can't better themselves and climb up the grand meritocracy ladder when wages have been stagnant for their entire adult lives while the cost of living sure as hell hasn't.

 

Eh, we've had this argument before. From my personal experience looking at the Chicago public welfare scene, it is like that. There are certainly people out there who work their asses off and still have problems getting ahead. But they're a minority. And really, those people don't even get much public aid, which is part of the problem with the system. Those people, who do work their ass off and have jobs and have kids and still have trouble don't get the assistance they need. But there's a very large number of people out there who do just accept their check, take it, and stick their hand out again. I met/learned about countless numbers of them at various public housing projects in the city.

 

And it's a BS point that people can't better their lives. People do that every single day. But it's the American problem - you actually have to work for it to get there. Who wants to do that when I can just point at someone else and scream "not fair!"

 

The middle class is disappearing into the lower classes.

 

I agree with this. But it's being taken just as much from the rich as it is from having to pay for the increased costs of society.

 

I would not be opposed to large-scale government works programs at times like these to utilize idle labor and materials to build things we need anyway like infrastructure, not just digging and filling holes. That's basic Keynesian economics. I would be in favor of a stronger social safety net that required some minimum input from all citizens who would utilize it that would enable workers to have some semblance of power, an ability to leave a job if conditions became intolerable without facing destitution/foreclosure/etc.

 

But since our government is a bought-and-paid-for plutarchy, that's probably not going to happen.

 

I've advocated large worker programs before. I'd be all about people who receive government aid must not only pass a drug test, but must also volunteer and/or actually work to better their community. And I think we have that system you're looking for. But the problem is that system isn't designed for a large number of people, which we have.

 

[StrangeSox]

Eh, we've had this argument before. From my personal experience looking at the Chicago public welfare scene, it is like that. There are certainly people out there who work their asses off and still have problems getting ahead. But they're a minority. And really, those people don't even get much public aid, which is part of the problem with the system. Those people, who do work their ass off and have jobs and have kids and still have trouble don't get the assistance they need. But there's a very large number of people out there who do just accept their check, take it, and stick their hand out again. I met/learned about countless numbers of them at various public housing projects in the city.

 

Yeah but nation-wide statistics don't support extrapolating your personal experiences to the entire system. The whole "welfare queen" meme just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Most people on public assistance of some variety work.

 

And it's a BS point that people can't better their lives. People do that every single day. But it's the American problem - you actually have to work for it to get there. Who wants to do that when I can just point at someone else and scream "not fair!"

 

People can better their lives, sure. That doesn't address massive inherited privilege disparities and how much harder millions of Americans have to work. It is also simply not true that hard work and elbow grease can and will get you ahead--like I said, millions of working poor bust their asses day-in, day-out (because they're likely working more than one job) without hitting the capitalism lottery. And looking at the statistics, hundreds of millions of Americans have worked hard over the last several decades to see no net gain. Meritocracy does not really exist in this country.

 

 

 

I agree with this. But it's being taken just as much from the rich as it is from having to pay for the increased costs of society.

 

The giant wealth gap and low tax rates don't seem to support that.

 

 

 

I've advocated large worker programs before.

 

Haven't you also railed against stimulus spending and budget deficits?

 

I'd be all about people who receive government aid must not only pass a drug test, but must also volunteer and/or actually work to better their community.

 

Not sure why a drug test is necessary. It's not like their cheap or that a huge number of people on public assistance are drug addicts. I believe studies have shown that it'd be a net economic loser, aside from being unconstitutional and unnecessary.

 

And I think we have that system you're looking for. But the problem is that system isn't designed for a large number of people, which we have.

 

Well, if the system currently in place (?) isn't designed to handle the problem, then we don't really have the system I'm looking for. I'd also guess that we'd be pretty far apart on what that system should be.

Edited March 31, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, it's not like the ultra-wealthy systematically exploit social safety nets to keep wages low and profits high!

 

But keep continuing to ignore the gigantic wealth gap. Ignore 400 people controlling close to half the wealth in the country. Ignore stagnant wages for decades for most Americans and sky-rocketing executive pay. Those aren't the real problems. The real problems are poor people on food stamps! They're enslaved somehow!

 

And yet this is the product of 80 years of social welfare. That alone should be telling.

[StrangeSox]

And yet this is the product of 80 years of social welfare. That alone should be telling.

 

Your post was early, today is April 1st!

 

eta seriously though, that's an interesting interpretation. I'd say that it's the product of 30 years of supply-side economics failure for everyone but the uber-wealthy, since that correlates much better with wage stagnation and the funneling of wealth to the tippy top. But I guess somehow assistance for the poor makes the uber-wealthy keep all of the economic gains of the last several decades?

Edited April 1, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

People can better their lives, sure. That doesn't address massive inherited privilege disparities and how much harder millions of Americans have to work. It is also simply not true that hard work and elbow grease can and will get you ahead--like I said, millions of working poor bust their asses day-in, day-out (because they're likely working more than one job) without hitting the capitalism lottery. And looking at the statistics, hundreds of millions of Americans have worked hard over the last several decades to see no net gain. Meritocracy does not really exist in this country.

 

IMO all that is talking about extremes. Can you go from really poor to really rich without any help. Maybe not. But that ignores the reality that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet had help, but some of that may have been of their own doing. But either way, people can improve their lot in life from having nothing or having to work two jobs and barely scraping by to getting themselves more educated and qualified and getting a solid career. They may never be rich, but they can be comfortable in life. The problem is most people make huge mistakes in life that they then have to pay for. Having kids too early, being caught up in crime which screws up future employment, choosing not to finish school, etc. Well, yeah, that sucks for them, but it's not like the system kept them from living a comfortable life. No one is saying it's easy. You gotta work for it, but I can't agree that it's not possible.

 

Haven't you also railed against stimulus spending and budget deficits?

 

I have. But since public aid isn't going away and the stimulus has already been signed, we might as well get some public benefit from it.

 

Not sure why a drug test is necessary. It's not like their cheap or that a huge number of people on public assistance are drug addicts. I believe studies have shown that it'd be a net economic loser, aside from being unconstitutional and unnecessary.

 

If it's a small number then it wouldn't be a big deal. And on what basis would that be unconstitutional?

 

 

Well, if the system currently in place (?) isn't designed to handle the problem, then we don't really have the system I'm looking for. I'd also guess that we'd be pretty far apart on what that system should be.

 

We probably are, but I'm just saying we already have the safety net system in place. If you lose your job you can receive unemployment until you get back on your feet. The government will help with your bills. Your kids. Your house. It's not like if you're an average American and life really screws you that you're left on the street to die. What more can you really expect?

Edited April 1, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

If it's a small number then it wouldn't be a big deal. And on what basis would that be unconstitutional?

 

For some statistics on drug usage rates between welfare and non-welfare (statistically insignificant):

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-t...ion-eligibility

 

It's also been ruled unconstitutional in at least one Federal court. Basically, it's an unnecessary invasion of privacy that doesn't really serve any public interest.

Marchwinski v. Howard, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1134 - Dist. Court, ED Michigan 2000

 

Besides, I thought you were more liberal on this issue and favored decriminalization or legalization?

[Jenksismyhero]

For some statistics on drug usage rates between welfare and non-welfare (statistically insignificant):

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-t...ion-eligibility

 

It's also been ruled unconstitutional in at least one Federal court. Basically, it's an unnecessary invasion of privacy that doesn't really serve any public interest.

Marchwinski v. Howard, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1134 - Dist. Court, ED Michigan 2000

 

Besides, I thought you were more liberal on this issue and favored decriminalization or legalization?

 

Drugs like pot sure, but not the heavies like crack or heroin or meth. The bigger problem IMO is that those people eventually get caught. They'll have a record and will never get a job and will always be on government assistance. So why not just make it a requirement that they can't? Our liberal government is all about telling people what's good/bad for you, so let's apply that to this situation.

 

And that's a pretty stupid decision. How is indirectly enforcing criminal law not in the public interest?

[StrangeSox]

IMO all that is talking about extremes. Can you go from really poor to really rich without any help. Maybe not. But that ignores the reality that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet had help, but some of that may have been of their own doing. But either way, people can improve their lot in life from having nothing or having to work two jobs and barely scraping by to getting themselves more educated and qualified and getting a solid career. They may never be rich, but they can be comfortable in life. The problem is most people make huge mistakes in life that they then have to pay for. Having kids too early, being caught up in crime which screws up future employment, choosing not to finish school, etc. Well, yeah, that sucks for them, but it's not like the system kept them from living a comfortable life. No one is saying it's easy. You gotta work for it, but I can't agree that it's not possible.

 

The idea that anyone makes it entirely on their own is part of the myth. Anyone who is successful has some help at some point. From friends, family, society, even government. There is nothing wrong with that; we are social animals and our brains have developed to work together. It also doesn't imply that no one succeeds based on merit, that it's all luck and chance. I'll pull the quote from one of Google's founders:

Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don't have a fraction of what I have. I realize that I don't have my wealth because I'm so brilliant.

 

And, of course, I vehemently disagree with the idea that anyone who fails to succeed fails because of "huge mistakes" in life. Unless being born into a poor neighborhood with crap schools and crap prospects is a huge mistake, while being born to wealthy parents that can send you to a school New Trier or Neuqua Valley and then on to the Ivy Leagues is the result of your own hard work and determination and lack of mistakes. The point is that normal, hard-working people that come from crap backgrounds with crap support can work hard, finish school, and "do the right things" while still losing at capitalism lottery, while others can be born into wealth, skate through life, produce nothing of value and b**** about high taxes.

 

Our economy isn't some great sorting system of pure personal merit (nor should it be, but that's a different argument!), and blaming the poor for being poor is simply another form of blaming the victim. When the greatest predictor of your socioeconomic class is the one you were born into, it says something about how much merit really gets rewarded. It's also worth noting that money isn't the only privilege you can inherit--strong family support, social status and access, legal, community support and endorsement of education.

 

These are all generalities, of course. We can all point to someone who started out with the odds stacked against them and ended up very successful. We can all point to someone who's poor and lazy. We can all find stories of welfare fraud, and we can all find stories of people who were born into wealthy families and still worked hard and provided a lot of value to society.

 

 

I'll pull a quote from a Washington Post article addressing some of the arguments against inheritance tax:

Perusing the Forbes 400 list of America's richest people, it's striking how few of them made the list by building the proverbial better mousetrap. The most common route to gargantuan wealth, like the route to smaller piles, remains inheritance. The ability to pass money along to your kids may motivate many a successful executive or investor to work harder, but it can't possibly motivate those kids to inherit harder in order to pass it along once again.

 

Dozens of Forbes 400 fortunes derive from the rising value of land or other natural resources. These businesses are fundamentally different from mousetrap building. Land does not need to become "better" to increase in value, and that value increase doesn't produce more land. Yet other fortunes depend directly on the government. The large fortunes based on health care and pharmaceuticals would not exist if not for Medicare and Medicaid. The government hands out large fortunes even more directly in forms as varied as cable-TV franchises; cellphone licenses; drilling, mining and mineral rights; minority small-business loans; and other special treatment.

 

Most important, every American selling anything benefits from doing so in the world's richest market. An American doctor earns many times what the same doctor would earn in, say, India. This is not because he or she works many times harder. It's not even primarily because our government doles out hundreds of billions for health care each year. It's because we are a richer society, for reasons the American doctor had nothing to do with.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Drugs like pot sure, but not the heavies like crack or heroin or meth. The bigger problem IMO is that those people eventually get caught. They'll have a record and will never get a job and will always be on government assistance. So why not just make it a requirement that they can't? Our liberal government is all about telling people what's good/bad for you, so let's apply that to this situation.

 

I'd be in favor of decriminalizing all of it. The War on Drugs hurts users, costs billions and helps suppliers. But it goes back to the point that it's the same proportion of people on public assistance and not that use drugs, both hard and soft. It's just that poorer people tend to use crack and wealthier people tend to use coke. Throwing users in jail doesn't help users, doesn't get them clean and doesn't help society.

 

Besides, what does cutting off their public assistance do? What greater good to society would that lead to? How do their children get fed and clothed? And it comes at the costs of invading the privacy of the 90% of people on public assistance that aren't users, and it comes at substantial financial costs. It'd be an economic and civil rights loser.

 

 

And that's a pretty stupid decision. How is indirectly enforcing criminal law not in the public interest?

 

It's not the job of public assistance programs to enforce law. Unreasonable searches are not in the public interest.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The idea that anyone makes it entirely on their own is part of the myth. Anyone who is successful has some help at some point. From friends, family, society, even government. There is nothing wrong with that; we are social animals and our brains have developed to work together. It also doesn't imply that no one succeeds based on merit, that it's all luck and chance. I'll pull the quote from one of Google's founders:

 

 

And, of course, I vehemently disagree with the idea that anyone who fails to succeed fails because of "huge mistakes" in life. Unless being born into a poor neighborhood with crap schools and crap prospects is a huge mistake, while being born to wealthy parents that can send you to a school New Trier or Neuqua Valley and then on to the Ivy Leagues is the result of your own hard work and determination and lack of mistakes. The point is that normal, hard-working people that come from crap backgrounds with crap support can work hard, finish school, and "do the right things" while still losing at capitalism lottery, while others can be born into wealth, skate through life, produce nothing of value and b**** about high taxes.

 

Our economy isn't some great sorting system of pure personal merit (nor should it be, but that's a different argument!), and blaming the poor for being poor is simply another form of blaming the victim. When the greatest predictor of your socioeconomic class is the one you were born into, it says something about how much merit really gets rewarded. It's also worth noting that money isn't the only privilege you can inherit--strong family support, social status and access, legal, community support and endorsement of education.

 

These are all generalities, of course. We can all point to someone who started out with the odds stacked against them and ended up very successful. We can all point to someone who's poor and lazy. We can all find stories of welfare fraud, and we can all find stories of people who were born into wealthy families and still worked hard and provided a lot of value to society.

 

 

I'll pull a quote from a Washington Post article addressing some of the arguments against inheritance tax:

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying, other than the part about the "capitalism lottery." I don't think it's as harsh as you say it is. We're still talking about a minor chunk of societal pie here. My point is that if you make the right choices in life (abide by the law, obtain an education, work hard, etc) the odds are extremely stacked in your favor to come out with a successful life, regardless of how s***ty your home/family life is. Are there a ton of people who grow up in really s***ty situations? Absolutely. But governments role in that person's life is to (a) prevent that s***ty situation from happening as much as possible (safer streets, better schools, etc), and (B) assisting those that try but still fail.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I'd be in favor of decriminalizing all of it. The War on Drugs hurts users, costs billions and helps suppliers. But it goes back to the point that it's the same proportion of people on public assistance and not that use drugs, both hard and soft. It's just that poorer people tend to use crack and wealthier people tend to use coke. Throwing users in jail doesn't help users, doesn't get them clean and doesn't help society.

 

Besides, what does cutting off their public assistance do? What greater good to society would that lead to? How do their children get fed and clothed? And it comes at the costs of invading the privacy of the 90% of people on public assistance that aren't users, and it comes at substantial financial costs. It'd be an economic and civil rights loser.

 

 

 

 

It's not the job of public assistance programs to enforce law. Unreasonable searches are not in the public interest.

 

I guess I just don't see a problem with it. You're requesting the government to assist you, the least you can do is be a law abiding person. Regardless of the numbers, it's at least forcing those people not to screw up their chances at a real job later. Public aid already has all sorts of requirements, I don't think being drug free is such a bad one.

[StrangeSox]

My point is that if you make the right choices in life (abide by the law, obtain an education, work hard, etc) the odds are extremely stacked in your favor to come out with a successful life,

 

Would be nice, were it true.

 

eta Productivity, Profits Up, Wages Down

 

"Doing the right thing" is no guarantee of success.

Edited April 2, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Out of the ones who are reporting fundraising numbers and close to declaring, Bachmann may have won the money race in Q1.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) raised $2.2 million in the first quarter of 2011, even more than Mitt Romney who raised $1.9 million over the same period, Fox News reports.

 

"Bachmann's political action committee, MichelePAC, raised $1.7 million while her Congressional reelection fund took in $500,000. The funds raised for her Congressional reelection could be transferred to any federal campaign, including one for president."

[HuskyCaucasian]

Out of the ones who are reporting fundraising numbers and close to declaring, Bachmann may have won the money race in Q1.

Oh please be the Rep nominee. She's as bad as Palin is, well you could argue WORSE since she's actually been in national politics longer.

[Jenksismyhero]

Would be nice, were it true.

 

eta Productivity, Profits Up, Wages Down

 

"Doing the right thing" is no guarantee of success.

 

That doesn't apply to what I'm saying at all. We work harder for less money than our counterparts in the 40's. That sucks, but that's not an argument against the fact that if you get an education and have a crime-free record then your "success rate" in life is exponentially better.

 

[StrangeSox]

How does that factor in stats like college-educated blacks having twice as high unemployment as college-educated whites?

 

Equal merit, equal work does not result in equal outcomes.

[Jenksismyhero]

How does that factor in stats like college-educated blacks having twice as high unemployment as college-educated whites?

 

Equal merit, equal work does not result in equal outcomes.

 

It doesn't, but so what? That's life. So long as everyone has an equal opportunity that's all that society can (and should) provide. I'm not suggesting the system is perfect. But I think that if you're a law abiding person that works hard and strives for a better life you can do what you want.

[Balta1701]

Several of Mike Huckabee's former top campaign assistants have now signed on with other candidates. This could be a sign that the former governor will forego the 2012 race.

Another member of the Iowa team that propelled former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee ® to victory in the 2008 caucuses is signing on with somebody else, the latest sign that Huckabee isn't likely to run for president.

 

Wes Enos, who served as Iowa political director to Huckabee in 2008, has signed on as a consultant to Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-Minn.) PAC, Minnesota Public Radio reports. Eric Woolson, another key Huckabee 2008 Iowa staffer, previously committed to working for former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty ®.

 

And Huckabee's campaign manager in 2008, Chip Saltsman, is working as a chief of staff for freshman Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.).

[StrangeSox]

It doesn't, but so what? That's life. So long as everyone has an equal opportunity that's all that society can (and should) provide. I'm not suggesting the system is perfect. But I think that if you're a law abiding person that works hard and strives for a better life you can do what you want.

 

LOL, that's the whole point! There isn't equal opportunity and meritocracy is a myth. "working hard" and "pulling yourself up by your boostraps" isn't guaranteed to get a decent living. What you think doesn't really match with reality for many people.

 

It also implicitly states, again, that anyone who isn't successful (eg median wage or better) doesn't work hard, made huge mistakes, isn't law-abiding or doesn't strive for a better life.

Edited April 4, 2011 by StrangeSox