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.
Upgrading infrastructure should include planning for mass transit and mass storage.
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.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".
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.
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.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.
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?
Solving simple poverty could mean Congress could raise more tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.
Both promote and provide are terms expressed regarding the general welfare not the common defense.I’m always astonished by people who manage to reach adulthood and think the US government is about “solving poverty”.
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.
How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts)
Measuring poverty properly, as is only now being done, reveals that it has fallen pretty dramatically since the mid-nineteen-sixties.www.newyorker.com
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.
I know. This cat food shortage is the last straw. Damn you Biden!
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.
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.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.
Solving simple poverty could mean Congress could raise more tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.
It could. That is why it is a good option since it is already an automatic stabilizer.Poverty is not a thing that routinely afflicts those in the US that earn wages.
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.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?
That's not what I've read.Poverty is not a thing that routinely afflicts those in the US that earn wages.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?