• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wealth distribution in America

You are a master of straw man creation, cp.

I have never suggested in any way...the things you are charging me with here.

YOU were the one who charged ME with not giving a crap about anyone else.

Frank Apisa said:
I think he understands it...he just does not care.

He is a poster boy for the "hooray for me; screw you" way of thinking.

I don't accuse you of not caring about the poor. I accuse you of wanting to tear down the rich.




Now.

1. I went back and re-read. I was over the top in mocking your position, and while I think it is disconnected and unrealistic, that was still rude. I apologize for my abusive behavior, and hope that you will forgive me for it.

2. You say that the disparity in wealth is an abomination. But you don't say that in the context of how little the poor have. The only thing that seems to be upsetting you is how much the rich have.

3. You do not back up your argument for why a disparity in wealth is an abomination, and as soon as a RW example is given to you, you agree that the example is ridiculous.

I think that Point #2 should cause you to reconsider what you are actually focusing on v what you claim to be focusing on, and Point #3 should cause you to reconsider why you think it, if your rule does not play out in a way that you recognize in real life.​

4. The French and Russian Revolutions were not revolutions by deprived peasants angry at the rich, they were revolutions by rising urban lower-middle classes whose rising expectations were unmet and who then struck a catalyst. It was the Vanguard of the Masses, in both instances, who often had to Revolutionize the Peasants (who were actually poor) against their will. The actual deprived peasantry in both nations remained staunchly Reactionary for some time.

Meanwhile, strong wealth-disparity has hallmarked just about every single empire in Human History prior to 1600, including many of the most stable ones that lasted for centuries or millennia. The argument the wealthy having a lot is inherently destabilizing does not hold up against historical examples.​

5. Furthermore, those examples were all ones in which concentration of wealth was the result of state division of it, rather than free trade. The former is more politically destabilizing than the latter, because the latter A) throws down the rich as rapidly as it raises them up and B) means that the rich become rich by benefitting others. George RR Martin has not reduced my life, he has enriched my life. And yes, he should write the damn book already. I understand that HBO has already told him that if he doesn't meet their deadlines, they will just move on through the timeline without him. Hopefully that is a good incentive for him.
 
Last edited:
Whoever said we should be?

I say that:

1. People do need to take charge of their own lives - that is the only way they will actually get ahead and succeed. Life, unlike kiddie sports, doesn't actually hand out trophies and prizes just for showing up.

2. We should reform our social safety net so as to not punish them when they make good decisions (as we currently do), but while also pulling them out of poverty so that they have resources to invest in themselves. See Here.

3. The vast majority of Americans today can be fiscally responsible, and choose not to be. This is backed up by our explosive use of consumer debt, housing debt, student debt, and everything else that we want but can't afford but also aren't willing to delay or reduce gratification on. The Boomers didn't save, and while I think we should fix public policy to make it easier and automatic for people to save that was still their decision, not anyone else's.



You are right - it would be ridiculously false - if that was what I was arguing.



:roll: you haven't laid out squat. Mostly you have laid out strawmen and personal snidery.



Like that.

Then why don't you work on consumerism and the regulation of advertising?

Not sure if you realize this or not but some people get rich by abusing poor people. You may have heard of slavery, payday loans, usury, nodoc subprime mortgages, etc.

This isn't rocket science. Psychology has known for decades that people are largely a function of their environment. Any policy change to help the poor is progressive by definition.

Arguing that poor people aren't in charge of their life is exactly true- they don't have any money and money is power. They need money, they don't need your well wishes and advice. That's just stupid, the internet is flush with free information.

I agree that we shouldn't punish them for success. The problem there is that republicans are allergic to wealth redistribution of any form, but that's plainly what we need. Take from everyone who earns, give to everyone no strings attached. But, you know, go ahead and try to act like this is your personal idea lol...
 
YOU were the one who charged ME with not giving a crap about anyone else.



I don't accuse you of not caring about the poor. I accuse you of wanting to tear down the rich.




Now.

1. I went back and re-read. I was over the top in mocking your position, and while I think it is disconnected and unrealistic, that was still rude. I apologize for my abusive behavior, and hope that you will forgive me for it.

2. You say that the disparity in wealth is an abomination. But you don't say that in the context of how little the poor have. The only thing that seems to be upsetting you is how much the rich have.

3. You do not back up your argument for why a disparity in wealth is an abomination, and as soon as a RW example is given to you, you agree that the example is ridiculous.

I think that Point #2 should cause you to reconsider what you are actually focusing on v what you claim to be focusing on, and Point #3 should cause you to reconsider why you think it, if your rule does not play out in a way that you recognize in real life.​

4. The French and Russian Revolutions were not revolutions by deprived peasants angry at the rich, they were revolutions by rising urban lower-middle classes whose rising expectations were unmet and who then struck a catalyst. It was the Vanguard of the Masses, in both instances, who often had to Revolutionize the Peasants (who were actually poor) against their will. The actual deprived peasantry in both nations remained staunchly Reactionary for some time.

Meanwhile, strong wealth-disparity has hallmarked just about every single empire in Human History prior to 1600, including many of the most stable ones that lasted for centuries or millennia. The argument the wealthy having a lot is inherently destabilizing does not hold up against historical examples.​

5. Furthermore, those examples were all ones in which concentration of wealth was the result of state division of it, rather than free trade. The former is more politically destabilizing than the latter, because the latter A) throws down the rich as rapidly as it raises them up and B) means that the rich become rich by benefitting others. George RR Martin has not reduced my life, he has enriched my life. And yes, he should write the damn book already. I understand that HBO has already told him that if he doesn't meet their deadlines, they will just move on through the timeline without him. Hopefully that is a good incentive for him.

Wanting to tear down the rich?

Do you even hear yourself? This is so ridiculous...
 
Then why don't you work on consumerism and the regulation of advertising?

Because that stuff in the Bill of Rights? I actually believe that stuff.

Not sure if you realize this or not but some people get rich by abusing poor people. You may have heard of slavery, payday loans, usury, nodoc subprime mortgages, etc.

Oh sure, I'll agree that there are rich people who get wealthy by abusing the poor. Slavery, absolutely. Theft is another example. I would put drug-crime in there as well, as it typically involves violence, intimidation, repression, abuse, and the like. Forced prostitution. Those who become wealthy through these things I would give no protection to (in fact, I would be more likely to favor the death penalty for many of them, especially slavers).

Payday loans? The people who run them are scum, but the poor choose to go there. Same-same with subprime mortgages and liars loans. Get rid of payday loans without changing the willingness of the poor to take on psychotically high interest rates for short-term loans because they didn't budget out the month, and all you will do is push them to a loan shark. The problem with sub-prime loans is that opposing them is easily demagogued:

"You want to put a restriction that anyone who takes out a mortgage has to put down a 10% downpayment? Why - do you hate poor people or something. The poor can't do that, they can't, they're poor, they can't, they can't make responsible decisions over time, they're poor, they're too helpless and pathetic and weak and stupid and pathetic and helpless and that's why they need Good Wise Liberals Like Us To Take Care Of Them, and why do you look down on them so?!?"

etc.

This isn't rocket science. Psychology has known for decades that people are largely a function of their environment. Any policy change to help the poor is progressive by definition.

....no. Progressivism entails state direction, steering, control, and distribution. Transferring moneys from state control and ownership to individual control and ownership is a non-progressive move.

Arguing that poor people aren't in charge of their life is exactly true- they don't have any money and money is power.

Money can be used for power, but power is not money. Power is that which you have to influence the world around you, and poor people can have plenty of that without much money. I didn't have much money when I decided to change jobs into a better career field, work a second job to earn extra cash, or go to school at night while working full time to improve my future employment opportunities - what I had was the willingness to work now to benefit later. Poor people are indeed in charge of their own lives. No one forces them to do any particular job, live in any particular place, spend any particular amount of money on any particular thing.

...Do you know any poor people? Like, are there any in your family?

They need money, they don't need your well wishes and advice. That's just stupid, the internet is flush with free information.

That they tend not to leverage, which is part of the reason why they tend to stay poor. I will agree that they are strongly shaped (as you point out) by the environment that they are raised in. We have created not just a system where a class of people live in poverty, but a culture of poverty that teaches things that will cause people to remain in poverty. That is the cycle that has to be broken.

I agree that we shouldn't punish them for success. The problem there is that republicans are allergic to wealth redistribution of any form, but that's plainly what we need

See, this is where you would be benefited by actually bothering to interact with and listen to Republicans, rather than believing two-dimensional stereotypes of them. The The EITC, for example, was signed into law by Ford, and expanded by Reagan.

Republicans are not "allergic to wealth redistribution in any form", we are against doing it badly, and we think that we should do it only as much as is necessary in order to avoid perverse incentives for upper individuals, and crippling low-income individuals.

Take from everyone who earns, give to everyone no strings attached. But, you know, go ahead and try to act like this is your personal idea lol...

The Negative Income Tax? :) Actually it's not. I got it from Milton Friedman, though I don't think it should be no-strings-attached; I think that if you can be working, you should be doing something, even if it is volunteer work or school. Charles Murray (you've heard of him?) has another idea out where we should transform most of our social safety net into a Universal Income, which would indeed be no-strings attached.
 
YOU were the one who charged ME with not giving a crap about anyone else.



I don't accuse you of not caring about the poor. I accuse you of wanting to tear down the rich.

You are wrong when saying that I want to tear down the rich.

Everything I have proposed can be instituted without harm to the rich people...and they can still have lots more than the people who are not rich.

I see problems with great wealth disparity...but I can handle great disparity when everyone has sufficient.




Now.

1. I went back and re-read. I was over the top in mocking your position, and while I think it is disconnected and unrealistic, that was still rude. I apologize for my abusive behavior, and hope that you will forgive me for it.

We all do that. I accept your apology...and offer an apology for the times I have been over the top with you.


2. You say that the disparity in wealth is an abomination. But you don't say that in the context of how little the poor have. The only thing that seems to be upsetting you is how much the rich have.

Screw how much the rich have. I am interested primarily in how little the poor have...and I want America to wipe out poverty once and for all. I want to see every person having sufficient.

How you see my arguments focusing on the rich rather than the poor is beyond me....when the thrust of my argument has been, "We should wipe out poverty"...and "Everyone should have sufficient."


3. You do not back up your argument for why a disparity in wealth is an abomination, and as soon as a RW example is given to you, you agree that the example is ridiculous.

I will comment on that when I comment on your comments below.

I think that Point #2 should cause you to reconsider what you are actually focusing on v what you claim to be focusing on, and Point #3 should cause you to reconsider why you think it, if your rule does not play out in a way that you recognize in real life.​

Whew. That sounds like a variant on "When did you stop beating your wife?"


4. The French and Russian Revolutions were not revolutions by deprived peasants angry at the rich, they were revolutions by rising urban lower-middle classes whose rising expectations were unmet and who then struck a catalyst. It was the Vanguard of the Masses, in both instances, who often had to Revolutionize the Peasants (who were actually poor) against their will. The actual deprived peasantry in both nations remained staunchly Reactionary for some time.

And you honestly think that is not in play right now here in America???

C'mon.

Meanwhile, strong wealth-disparity has hallmarked just about every single empire in Human History prior to 1600, including many of the most stable ones that lasted for centuries or millennia. The argument the wealthy having a lot is inherently destabilizing does not hold up against historical examples.​

If you want America to be like everyone else...that is your right. I want us to be greater.

5. Furthermore, those examples were all ones in which concentration of wealth was the result of state division of it, rather than free trade. The former is more politically destabilizing than the latter, because the latter A) throws down the rich as rapidly as it raises them up and B) means that the rich become rich by benefitting others. George RR Martin has not reduced my life, he has enriched my life. And yes, he should write the damn book already. I understand that HBO has already told him that if he doesn't meet their deadlines, they will just move on through the timeline without him. Hopefully that is a good incentive for him.

Baloney.

The French and Russian revolutions are lessons of history...and you seem disposed to ignore them and argue that we should repeat them.

I disagree.

Gotta go...will be back.
 
You are wrong when saying that I want to tear down the rich....... How you see my arguments focusing on the rich rather than the poor is beyond me....

Because your argument has not consisted of "the poor cannot sustain themselves and need assistance". Your argument has consisted of "there is too much wealth disparity and the reason for that is that the rich have too much.

Everything I have proposed can be instituted without harm to the rich people..

Actually I don't recall your policy proposal - could you give me the quickie version?

I see problems with great wealth disparity...but I can handle great disparity when everyone has sufficient.

Then we are already there. Current social spending is stupidly structured, sclerotic, overly complicated, needlessly destructive, and does harm to the poor, but it does keep them alive, housed, and fed.

We all do that. I accept your apology...and offer an apology for the times I have been over the top with you.

:) Fair Enough - thank you kindly for that.

Screw how much the rich have. I am interested primarily in how little the poor have...and I want America to wipe out poverty once and for all. I want to see every person having sufficient.

:) Now you are singing my song. cpwill's simple plan to pull every one willing to put forth a modicum of effort along with those unable to do so out of poverty.

Whew. That sounds like a variant on "When did you stop beating your wife?"

No, it is me pointing out to you how your arguments sound, which you claim is not your intent.

And you honestly think that is not in play right now here in America?

That our rural peasants are reactionary? .....No. You could argue that since the left is primarily (in this area) interested in defending the current status (or expanding it) of the social welfare state, that they are reactionary in that sense. But in terms of retaining a personal sense of loyalty to the ruling family?

Well, I guess we'll see come 2016 when Herself is on the ticket, eh? :D


No. America is not in a pre-revolutionary state. And if there was a revolution, the people with the guns and the experience in using them to kill people and other animals, who are generally conservative, would win. If anything, we are in a pre-ennui state.

If you want America to be like everyone else...that is your right. I want us to be greater.

:shrug: I don't really see how "at least our wealthy aren't too rich!" as a measure of "greatness". You are always going to have those with little, and those who are just starting out.

The French and Russian revolutions are lessons of history...and you seem disposed to ignore them and argue that we should repeat them.

I disagree.

Well, I got my undergrad degree in history and my masters degree in political science. So you are free to disagree, but you are wrong. ;-) French Peasants weren't running around reading Rousseau and shouting "LIBERTE!", just as Russian Serfs weren't the ones demanding Bolshevism.

Gotta go...will be back.

Peace :)
 
Because your argument has not consisted of "the poor cannot sustain themselves and need assistance". Your argument has consisted of "there is too much wealth disparity and the reason for that is that the rich have too much.



Actually I don't recall your policy proposal - could you give me the quickie version?



Then we are already there. Current social spending is stupidly structured, sclerotic, overly complicated, needlessly destructive, and does harm to the poor, but it does keep them alive, housed, and fed.



:) Fair Enough - thank you kindly for that.



:) Now you are singing my song. cpwill's simple plan to pull every one willing to put forth a modicum of effort along with those unable to do so out of poverty.



No, it is me pointing out to you how your arguments sound, which you claim is not your intent.



That our rural peasants are reactionary? .....No. You could argue that since the left is primarily (in this area) interested in defending the current status (or expanding it) of the social welfare state, that they are reactionary in that sense. But in terms of retaining a personal sense of loyalty to the ruling family?

Well, I guess we'll see come 2016 when Herself is on the ticket, eh? :D


No. America is not in a pre-revolutionary state. And if there was a revolution, the people with the guns and the experience in using them to kill people and other animals, who are generally conservative, would win. If anything, we are in a pre-ennui state.



:shrug: I don't really see how "at least our wealthy aren't too rich!" as a measure of "greatness". You are always going to have those with little, and those who are just starting out.



Well, I got my undergrad degree in history and my masters degree in political science. So you are free to disagree, but you are wrong. ;-) French Peasants weren't running around reading Rousseau and shouting "LIBERTE!", just as Russian Serfs weren't the ones demanding Bolshevism.



Peace :)

I'm back.

This discussion is out of hand, cp. You are so wrong in so many areas...it is tough to keep up. And dealing with many divergent issues all at one time is confusing. So...I will deal with one item...and when we get that resolved, we will move on to another (you can choose which we move on to.) We will, I promise, get to every item that concerns you.

You wrote:


I don't accuse you of not caring about the poor. I accuse you of wanting to tear down the rich.


cp...at NO POINT have I EVER suggested or intimated "tearing down the rich." In fact, I have suggested that "everyone having sufficient" can be accomplished without taking anything from anyone. I have stated repeatedly that I think it can be accomplished within the capitalistic system...and WITHOUT taking anything away from anyone.

At EVERY POINT...I have suggested that my focus is on eliminating poverty...and seeing that everyone has sufficient for a reasonable life. It is the FOCUS of everything I have written on the issue.

And your charge that I want to "tear down the rich" to accomplish this is an absurdity, because AT NO POINT have I ever suggested that. I DO NOT THINK IT IS NECESSARY TO TEAR DOWN THE RICH IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT EVERYONE HAS SUFFICIENT...so there is no way I would even think about suggesting it.

Let us deal with this until we reach agreement on whether this statement of yours is factual or way, way off base.

I am suggesting...respectfully, of course...that the statement is completely, utterly mistaken and wrong-headed as it can possibly be.

You're up!
 
I'm back.

This discussion is out of hand, cp. You are so wrong in so many areas...it is tough to keep up. And dealing with many divergent issues all at one time is confusing. So...I will deal with one item...and when we get that resolved, we will move on to another (you can choose which we move on to.) We will, I promise, get to every item that concerns you.

You wrote:





cp...at NO POINT have I EVER suggested or intimated "tearing down the rich." In fact, I have suggested that "everyone having sufficient" can be accomplished without taking anything from anyone. I have stated repeatedly that I think it can be accomplished within the capitalistic system...and WITHOUT taking anything away from anyone.

At EVERY POINT...I have suggested that my focus is on eliminating poverty...and seeing that everyone has sufficient for a reasonable life. It is the FOCUS of everything I have written on the issue.

And your charge that I want to "tear down the rich" to accomplish this is an absurdity, because AT NO POINT have I ever suggested that. I DO NOT THINK IT IS NECESSARY TO TEAR DOWN THE RICH IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT EVERYONE HAS SUFFICIENT...so there is no way I would even think about suggesting it.

Let us deal with this until we reach agreement on whether this statement of yours is factual or way, way off base.

I am suggesting...respectfully, of course...that the statement is completely, utterly mistaken and wrong-headed as it can possibly be.

You're up!
Fair enough

[emoji4]

What is your policy proposal?
 
Because that stuff in the Bill of Rights? I actually believe that stuff.

Oh sure, I'll agree that there are rich people who get wealthy by abusing the poor. Slavery, absolutely. Theft is another example. I would put drug-crime in there as well, as it typically involves violence, intimidation, repression, abuse, and the like. Forced prostitution. Those who become wealthy through these things I would give no protection to (in fact, I would be more likely to favor the death penalty for many of them, especially slavers).

Payday loans? The people who run them are scum, but the poor choose to go there. Same-same with subprime mortgages and liars loans. Get rid of payday loans without changing the willingness of the poor to take on psychotically high interest rates for short-term loans because they didn't budget out the month, and all you will do is push them to a loan shark. The problem with sub-prime loans is that opposing them is easily demagogued:

"You want to put a restriction that anyone who takes out a mortgage has to put down a 10% downpayment? Why - do you hate poor people or something. The poor can't do that, they can't, they're poor, they can't, they can't make responsible decisions over time, they're poor, they're too helpless and pathetic and weak and stupid and pathetic and helpless and that's why they need Good Wise Liberals Like Us To Take Care Of Them, and why do you look down on them so?!?"

....no. Progressivism entails state direction, steering, control, and distribution. Transferring moneys from state control and ownership to individual control and ownership is a non-progressive move.

Money can be used for power, but power is not money. Power is that which you have to influence the world around you, and poor people can have plenty of that without much money. I didn't have much money when I decided to change jobs into a better career field, work a second job to earn extra cash, or go to school at night while working full time to improve my future employment opportunities - what I had was the willingness to work now to benefit later. Poor people are indeed in charge of their own lives. No one forces them to do any particular job, live in any particular place, spend any particular amount of money on any particular thing.

...Do you know any poor people? Like, are there any in your family?

That they tend not to leverage, which is part of the reason why they tend to stay poor. I will agree that they are strongly shaped (as you point out) by the environment that they are raised in. We have created not just a system where a class of people live in poverty, but a culture of poverty that teaches things that will cause people to remain in poverty. That is the cycle that has to be broken.

See, this is where you would be benefited by actually bothering to interact with and listen to Republicans, rather than believing two-dimensional stereotypes of them. The The EITC, for example, was signed into law by Ford, and expanded by Reagan.

Republicans are not "allergic to wealth redistribution in any form", we are against doing it badly, and we think that we should do it only as much as is necessary in order to avoid perverse incentives for upper individuals, and crippling low-income individuals.

The Negative Income Tax? :) Actually it's not. I got it from Milton Friedman, though I don't think it should be no-strings-attached; I think that if you can be working, you should be doing something, even if it is volunteer work or school. Charles Murray (you've heard of him?) has another idea out where we should transform most of our social safety net into a Universal Income, which would indeed be no-strings attached.

You believe in the bill of rights? I believe in those things too, but ask yourself is subliminal advertising a form of self expression? No. What you're endorsing is the enslavement of people to consumerism. The reduction of individual freedom. And you justify it with "belief" in the bill of rights ?

Then you go off on some strange anti-liberal prejudice strawman. Well done. You don't seem to realize- people are governed by human minds which leaves the susceptible to psychological manipulation. When there's a payday loan, and your car breaks down, you need money today or you lose your paycheck this week. People tend to make more short term decisions, even rich people. CEOs often make short term decisions (dividends vs invest in a new product) that are bad in the long term.

Then you don't even realize that your entire solution is quite progressive ? State control? Your argument is every bit as much "state control" for public redistribution of wealth as what Frank and I both heartily endorse. Increase outlays to the American public. That's it.
 
Ugh your quotes are so long i can't respond without hitting the character limit.

Anyway part 2:

Poor people need money to get out of poverty, period. No amount of survivor bias riddled anecdotes change that.

I'm glad we have common ground that there are environmental factors in play.

I like President Reagan. He's no republican by today's standards. President Reagan wanted what's best for America.
 
You believe in the bill of rights? I believe in those things too, but ask yourself is subliminal advertising a form of self expression? No. What you're endorsing is the enslavement of people to consumerism. The reduction of individual freedom. And you justify it with "belief" in the bill of rights ?

Then you go off on some strange anti-liberal prejudice strawman. Well done. You don't seem to realize- people are governed by human minds which leaves the susceptible to psychological manipulation. When there's a payday loan, and your car breaks down, you need money today or you lose your paycheck this week. People tend to make more short term decisions, even rich people. CEOs often make short term decisions (dividends vs invest in a new product) that are bad in the long term.

Then you don't even realize that your entire solution is quite progressive ? State control? Your argument is every bit as much "state control" for public redistribution of wealth as what Frank and I both heartily endorse. Increase outlays to the American public. That's it.
No. Advertising is not enslavement.

And my plan reduces outlays and government control by getting rid of administrative costs and regulatory control.
 
1. People do need to take charge of their own lives - that is the only way they will actually get ahead and succeed. Life, unlike kiddie sports, doesn't actually hand out trophies and prizes just for showing up.

2. We should reform our social safety net so as to not punish them when they make good decisions (as we currently do), but while also pulling them out of poverty so that they have resources to invest in themselves. See Here.

3. The vast majority of Americans today can be fiscally responsible, and choose not to be. This is backed up by our explosive use of consumer debt, housing debt, student debt, and everything else that we want but can't afford but also aren't willing to delay or reduce gratification on. The Boomers didn't save, and while I think we should fix public policy to make it easier and automatic for people to save that was still their decision, not anyone else's.

A lot of debt today is not really discretionary. If a student wants a good job he or she must obtain significant credentials these days. That very often means student loans, and they can be huge. It's not about their choice as much as societal trends that have (rightly or wrongly) taken place. So too with the family man who needs to be in a certain area for work purposes, and needs a home. Often there are simply no rational choices other than buying a house in our society. That means getting on the debt wheel, and in many cases entering a market that can be distorted by speculation and hot money (thanks again laissez faire), practices that again one may not "choose", but must participate in anyway.

Of course people should take charge of their lives to the extent they can, but the point being missed here is that broader social, economic, and political events are most often completely beyond the control of the average citizen. Did you vote for NAFTA or the TPP? Was it you instrumental in developing the internet, or the Google car? Was it your idea to install automated checkout machines? China's currency manipulation, you were present during those policy meetings in Beijing? No to all of course, you are simply another citizen going along for the ride, perhaps having a minuscule say here and there at election times, or in boycotts of businesses etc. But overall, you do not run the show (does anyone?) and so morally should not have to accept complete responsibility for such things. That's why we have government, and progressive social policies, and that is (one of the reasons) why far right/libertarian notions are so completely wrong.
 
Ugh your quotes are so long i can't respond without hitting the character limit.

Anyway part 2:

Poor people need money to get out of poverty, period. No amount of survivor bias riddled anecdotes change that.

I'm glad we have common ground that there are environmental factors in play.

I like President Reagan. He's no republican by today's standards. President Reagan wanted what's best for America.
Money is 80- 90% behavior. We give millions to lotto winners and they still end up broke. You can alleviate privation and remove roadblocks, but until you change BEHAVIOR, you aren't pulling them out of need.
 
Fair enough

[emoji4]

What is your policy proposal?

What policy proposal?

Up above, I quoted your first contention with me...and rebutted it.

You're up to rebut my rebuttal.

The I rebut yours...and that keeps up until we agree that a particular side has prevailed.
 
What policy proposal?

Up above, I quoted your first contention with me...and rebutted it.

You're up to rebut my rebuttal.

The I rebut yours...and that keeps up until we agree that a particular side has prevailed.
You said you wanted to focus on One Thing, and that you thought we could reduce wealth disparity without taking from the rich. That was how you claimed I was wrong when I said that your focus was on the rich. Well, I would like you to back that by explaining how you plan to do that
 
You said you wanted to focus on One Thing, and that you thought we could reduce wealth disparity without taking from the rich. That was how you claimed I was wrong when I said that your focus was on the rich. Well, I would like you to back that by explaining how you plan to do that

Forget how I plan to do it. I do not plan to do it. I want to see if it can be done...and I want experts working on the how...people a hell of a lot smarter than I.

In any case...you claimed that I was "...not caring about the poor." And you said, "I accuse you of wanting to tear down the rich."

I have denied both those things.

I have indicated that just about every post of mine has dealt with concern about the poor...and about achieving what no country has ever achieved before...completely eliminating poverty. (I think we can do it...I think we are rich enough and clever enough to do it!)

But AT NO POINT have I ever advocated tearing down the rich. I have never intimated it. IN fact, I have suggested that it can be done without taking from anyone.

Let's deal with that two pronged charge of yours...which I consider to be completely wrong-headed and false...and leave the ways and means for how to eliminate poverty elsewhere.

You're up.
 
You said you wanted to focus on One Thing, and that you thought we could reduce wealth disparity without taking from the rich. That was how you claimed I was wrong when I said that your focus was on the rich. Well, I would like you to back that by explaining how you plan to do that

If one believes in magic, there is someone smart out there that can make it come true. I think the great capitalist Walt Disney would have come up with that had not P. T. Barnum come up with it first.
 
If one believes in magic, there is someone smart out there that can make it come true. I think the great capitalist Walt Disney would have come up with that had not P. T. Barnum come up with it first.

Is it your position, then, that the goal of eliminating poverty in the USA is unattainable?
 
Is it your position, then, that the goal of eliminating poverty in the USA is unattainable?

If someone believes that it can be done, who am I to deny them a magical solution?
 
Why not actually answer his question?

I wouldn't want to ruin the magic you believe in. I'd need something concrete like a definition of poverty as applied to this discussion. You know, smart people stuff.
 
There seems to be a bias in discussing this issue that the only way to get more to the people who need it but don't have it...is to take it away from someone else (the rich!).

Let's look at this in a small setting:

Suppose you have a room of 50 young children...and two of the children have 40 toys apiece...and none of the other 48 have any toys at all.

Do you think the ONLY way to have all of the children have at least one toy...is to take toys away from the two who have an abundance of them?

Can you actually not conceive of another way of getting toys into the hands of those without them...without getting those toys from the two?

C'mon, folks.
 
There seems to be a bias in discussing this issue that the only way to get more to the people who need it but don't have it...is to take it away from someone else (the rich!).

Let's look at this in a small setting:

Suppose you have a room of 50 young children...and two of the children have 40 toys apiece...and none of the other 48 have any toys at all.

Do you think the ONLY way to have all of the children have at least one toy...is to take toys away from the two who have an abundance of them?

Can you actually not conceive of another way of getting toys into the hands of those without them...without getting those toys from the two?

C'mon, folks.

Santa gives a toy to each of the 48. They just have to believe!
 
I wouldn't want to ruin the magic you believe in.

I do not do "believing."

And no magic has to be involved...if you are willing to open your mind.

Are you?



I'd need something concrete like a definition of poverty as applied to this discussion.

Yeah...discussions like this always come down to definitions.

Define poverty as not having sufficient.

Now...you are going to ask me to define "sufficient."

No need to play that game, Ali.


You know, smart people stuff.

You sound like a smart person. How about you tell us how you could conceivably make it happen?

Without magic, of course.
 
Back
Top Bottom