• 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!

Biden's Popularity is Down to 33%: Quinnipiac

Puigb

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
12,329
Reaction score
6,046
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Biden is actually President by himself at the current time. It turns out it’s possible to observe he’s terrible at it without comparing him to anyone at all.

Maybe you are incapable of observing whether someone has good leadership and communication skills, but many people are not. They can tell Biden does not have them.

Still better than anything the GOP has to offer. You lose.
 

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,463
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Upgrading infrastructure should include planning for mass transit and mass storage.

You are probably correct regarding the notion of infrastructure. I don't understand what is meant specifically by either mass transit or by mass storage.

Accepting, though that infrastructure improvement is needed from time to time, then the wherewithal to pay for it comes to the fore.

The argument then evolves to an answer to this question: "Who is going to pay for it and from which budget(s) at which level of government should those funds be drawn".
 

LetsGoBrandon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
33,363
Reaction score
8,532
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think the numbers are actually lower then 33%. Modern opinion polls still weight their polls by 8% in favor of democrats.
 

danielpalos

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
29,135
Reaction score
1,519
Location
US, California - federalist
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You are probably correct regarding the notion of infrastructure. I don't understand what is meant specifically by either mass transit or by mass storage.

Accepting, though that infrastructure improvement is needed from time to time, then the wherewithal to pay for it comes to the fore.

The argument then evolves to an answer to this question: "Who is going to pay for it and from which budget(s) at which level of government should those funds be drawn".
Public sector means of production could pay for it instead of actual taxation, as we currently know it. Socializing costs is what socialism is always good for.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
31,606
Reaction score
12,792
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You are probably correct regarding the notion of infrastructure. I don't understand what is meant specifically by either mass transit or by mass storage.

Accepting, though that infrastructure improvement is needed from time to time, then the wherewithal to pay for it comes to the fore.

The argument then evolves to an answer to this question: "Who is going to pay for it and from which budget(s) at which level of government should those funds be drawn".


This is nothing new or unprecedented. Why are we talking all of a sudden like we have never done this before? How have we always done it?
 

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,463
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Public sector means of production could pay for it instead of actual taxation, as we currently know it. Socializing costs is what socialism is always good for.

Always? hardly.

Here in Indiana, there is a highway that carries traffic across the northern tier of the state. It had fallen into disrepair and was obsolete- unable to carry the increased traffic.

The proposition was to repair it, repair and expand it or let it fall into utter ruin. The cost to repair and expand would have caused the complete stoppage of repairs to all other roads in Indiana.

Enter Mitch Daniels, the Governor of the State of Indiana at the time.

He decided to allow private companies to bid on the right to lease the highway, repair it and expand it and pay both an upfront fee and ongoing fees throughout the life of the lease.

The highway was expanded, the state got more money, the roads everywhere across the state were improved and the taxpayers got a tax cut.

Socializing costs is the path to increasing costs and decreasing quality.
 

danielpalos

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
29,135
Reaction score
1,519
Location
US, California - federalist
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Always? hardly.

Here in Indiana, there is a highway that carries traffic across the northern tier of the state. It had fallen into disrepair and was obsolete- unable to carry the increased traffic.

The proposition was to repair it, repair and expand it or let it fall into utter ruin. The cost to repair and expand would have caused the complete stoppage of repairs to all other roads in Indiana.

Enter Mitch Daniels, the Governor of the State of Indiana at the time.

He decided to allow private companies to bid on the right to lease the highway, repair it and expand it and pay both an upfront fee and ongoing fees throughout the life of the lease.

The highway was expanded, the state got more money, the roads everywhere across the state were improved and the taxpayers got a tax cut.

Socializing costs is the path to increasing costs and decreasing quality.
What is your opinion of a hypothetical public sector means of production and conduit to markets? We need more mass storage and mass transit capability for our modern economy.
 

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,463
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is nothing new or unprecedented. Why are we talking all of a sudden like we have never done this before? How have we always done it?

The debt is now within spitting distance of $30 Trillion. that's an increase from about $5 Trillion since about 1999.

The Federal spending has increased by a factor of about 400 times more than household spending since 1999.

How we have "always done it" is obviously the wrong way to do it.
 

diz

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
707
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Solving simple poverty could mean Congress could raise more tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

I’m always astonished by people who manage to reach adulthood and think the US government is about “solving poverty”.

Roughly how many poor people do you think there are in the US?

Roughly how much does government spend in the US?

How much does that equate to in spending per poor person?
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
31,606
Reaction score
12,792
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I’m always astonished by people who manage to reach adulthood and think the US government is about “solving poverty”.

Roughly how many poor people do you think there are in the US?

From the public school system, to Medicare, to SS, to the ACA, the ACA, etc… government can and has played a critical role in protecting the basic human rights and dignity of its citizens- not just in this country but all around the world.

To constantly look at its shortcomings and its lack of perfection to undermine and gut the whole thing is not a fair judgment on the efforts and dramatic successes made so far.

 

diz

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
707
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From the public school system, to Medicare, to SS, to the ACA, the ACA, etc… government can and has played a critical role in protecting the basic human rights and dignity of its citizens- not just in this country but all around the world.

To constantly look at its shortcomings and its lack of perfection to undermine and gut the whole thing is not a fair judgment on the efforts and dramatic successes made so far.


I asked questions that had specific answers. It’s been a little while since I did the math but generally there are about 35 million people considered “below the poverty line”. How poor these people actually are is a matter of some debate but for this discussion there’s not much point in discussing that. Let’s say on average it would take $10,000 per year per person to get them up to the poverty line. Again, probably somewhat generous but again, it’s not going to matter much so no point arguing about it.

So, with a simple bit of multiplication: 35 million people * $10,000/person = 350,000,000,000 = $350 billion.

Now, how much does the US government spend? A: total federal state and local is estimate at $9.3 trillion. Or 9,300 billion.

In other words: The US government spends more than 26 times what it would take to eliminate poverty. Or, if you prefer, the US government could eliminate poverty with 3.7% of what it spends.

Conclusion: the US government is not about ending poverty.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
31,606
Reaction score
12,792
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I asked questions that had specific answers. It’s been a little while since I did the math but generally there are about 35 million people considered “below the poverty line”. How poor these people actually are is a matter of some debate but for this discussion there’s not much point in discussing that. Let’s say on average it would take $10,000 per year per person to get them up to the poverty line. Again, probably somewhat generous but again, it’s not going to matter much so no point arguing about it.

So, with a simple bit of multiplication: 35 million people * $10,000/person = 350,000,000,000 = $350 billion.

Now, how much does the US government spend? A: total federal state and local is estimate at $9.3 trillion. Or 9,300 billion.

In other words: The US government spends more than 26 times what it would take to eliminate poverty. Or, if you prefer, the US government could eliminate poverty with 3.7% of what it spends.

Conclusion: the US government is not about ending poverty.

So the answer is to gut and undermine even that skimpy little bit they do now?
 

Eatomus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
445
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Grass roots democrat progressive voters are getting more and more involved in getting these supply chain issues straightened out .
Especially where the high end electronic items are concerned .
Your voters are working so hard for you Mr. President !
train loot 3.jpg
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
4,667
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I know. This cat food shortage is the last straw. Damn you Biden!

Well, if you knew my cat you'd be pleading with Biden to find a supply of Friskies. It's the only brand he will eat, wail in forlorn fear of starvation if I serve any other brand (save for one that is 3X more expensive), and chews me out nightly and in the morning when I fail to deliver particular favorites.

He's heartless and only thinks of himself. For many weeks the stores have been out of most selections, and I blame it on Biden (I think he gets his priorities from his dog).

Really, how hard is it to produce scrap food products in a can?
 

diz

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
707
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So the answer is to gut and undermine even that skimpy little bit they do now?

No, the answer is to stop pretending the government is about solving poverty and needs more money to do it. If it was any good at that it would be done already.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
31,606
Reaction score
12,792
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No, the answer is to stop pretending the government is about solving poverty and needs more money to do it. If it was any good at that it would be done already.

But it already has. Extensive experience both in this country and others over many decades has shown it can be a very effective and powerful tool, when used right, in lifting large numbers of people out of poverty, from Japan, S, Korea, China, and India, to developing countries in Africa and S America, to modern Scandinavian countries. That it’s not perfect is no reason to gut the whole thing altogether.



Just ask any Trump supporter on SS and Medicare if they want it taken away from them- even if you pay them back everything they paid into it over the years- with interest. Heck they don’t even want their Obamacare taken away from them now. Just don’t make them say it.

 
Last edited:

danielpalos

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
29,135
Reaction score
1,519
Location
US, California - federalist
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I asked questions that had specific answers. It’s been a little while since I did the math but generally there are about 35 million people considered “below the poverty line”. How poor these people actually are is a matter of some debate but for this discussion there’s not much point in discussing that. Let’s say on average it would take $10,000 per year per person to get them up to the poverty line. Again, probably somewhat generous but again, it’s not going to matter much so no point arguing about it.

So, with a simple bit of multiplication: 35 million people * $10,000/person = 350,000,000,000 = $350 billion.

Now, how much does the US government spend? A: total federal state and local is estimate at $9.3 trillion. Or 9,300 billion.

In other words: The US government spends more than 26 times what it would take to eliminate poverty. Or, if you prefer, the US government could eliminate poverty with 3.7% of what it spends.

Conclusion: the US government is not about ending poverty.
It could be about ending poverty if it could be about equal protection of our own laws. But, it doesn't seem to be about that, either. Is it any wonder right-wingers don't believe Government can do a Good job.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
31,606
Reaction score
12,792
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It could be about ending poverty if it could be about equal protection of our own laws. But, it doesn't seem to be about that, either. Is it any wonder right-wingers don't believe Government can do a Good job.

Yep. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy for them.
 

Crakhobarbie

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2020
Messages
6,132
Reaction score
3,885
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Well, if you knew my cat you'd be pleading with Biden to find a supply of Friskies. It's the only brand he will eat, wail in forlorn fear of starvation if I serve any other brand (save for one that is 3X more expensive), and chews me out nightly and in the morning when I fail to deliver particular favorites.

He's heartless and only thinks of himself. For many weeks the stores have been out of most selections, and I blame it on Biden (I think he gets his priorities from his dog).

Really, how hard is it to produce scrap food products in a can?
I made lite of the situation, but in reality my cat only eats Friskies extra gravy with chunks. Finding it can be a challenge. But no matter how difficult searching some out might be I've never once seriously considered that the POTUS could, in any way, be even remotely responsible for it.
 

Crakhobarbie

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2020
Messages
6,132
Reaction score
3,885
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal

diz

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
707
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It could be about ending poverty if it could be about equal protection of our own laws. But, it doesn't seem to be about that, either. Is it any wonder right-wingers don't believe Government can do a Good job.

Serious question: why would someone believe government can do a good job ending poverty when it spends at least 26 times more than is needed to end poverty every year and doesn’t end poverty?
 
Top Bottom