|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 02 2017 08:25 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 07:06 Plansix wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2017 07:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On August 02 2017 04:35 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 02 2017 04:29 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2017 04:23 Wegandi wrote:On August 02 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote:
People can be racist against blacks without treating a given white person like a king. Do you see why people might think that "white privilege" is stupid? The only "privilege" in this country is if you're connected to the Government, either directly or indirectly. There's no get out of jail card otherwise. No, I don't see why they might think it's stupid. If they think it's stupid the only possible explanations that seem possible to me are a failure to understand what white privilege means or extreme idiocy. I'll go ahead and presume the former on your part. White privilege does not mean that white people don't have problems. It means that there are social advantages to being white that black people don't benefit from. Which is such a broad and obvious statement that it is absolutely baffling to me that someone would question it. There is also black privilege too, for what it's worth. Being black isn't all bad. But black privilege is certainly a worse deal that white privilege. Imagine this were a role play game. If you rolled white as your starting race then you get some fun modifiers like +2 to charisma rolls with law enforcement. It doesn't mean you always win every encounter, if you roll five die and they're all 1s you're still fucked. But it is a race advantage versus had you rolled black as your starting race. White players can still roll all 1s and black players can still roll 6s but if you take the entire group average you'll find the +2 modifier is statistically significant over time. I would never suggest that the concept of white privilege is stupid. I would, however, say that the current obsession with it is very stupid and most of all very counter productive. If you go around insulting/insinuating extremely negative things about the vast majority of the population sooner or later they will get sick of it and then BOOM! Trump. I think there could be a lot more focus from political leaders on finding a common ground between various ethnicities with regards to police brutality, economic inequality, and so on. But people in the US are kept apart by rather meaningless (for their interests) party philosophies such as liberalism and conservatism. The poor people on both of these sides will be stuck in their own little ghettos till they start to work together against this machine of evil that continues to suppress them. Fat chance of that happening though. The three highest income ethnic groups in the US are East Asians (broadly grouped), Hindus, and Jews iirc. I'm not sure if that fits into your implied narrative about the WASP conspiracy that's purposely oppressing all the other races. Racism exists and it's unfair and should be fixed where possible. But in socioeconomic terms, it certainly appears that the market cares more about skills and education more than it does oppressing non-WASPs. Also, let's dust off this chart: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/64a7C9q.jpg) A paper suggested by a liberal poster here claimed rank-rank correlation of US income mobility was 0.6 (the number was corroborated by other authors). This is what that looks like. This is within-generation mobility by the way (correlation between you now and you in 15 years). Which is already heavily biased downward because the most common method of family income mobility is between-generation (i.e. through getting a better education than your parents). Yes, the system isn't fair because not everyone gets a level playing field to start. While there's steps that can and should be taken to try to ameliorate that, it's more or less impossible to completely fix as parents who are successful in their career are always going to impart genes and parenting lessons/practices that generally lead to their kids' career success. Conversely, parents who haven't had successful careers tend to lack the knowledge of what it takes to have a successful career, making it hard to pass it down to their kids. Additionally, families tend to move near other families with similar socioeconomic status, which reinforces this effect both directions. This is also hard to fix, short of government mandating where people live. No, the system isn't what's stopping you from living at least a comfortable upper-middle class life though (in the vast majority of cases). That's fully achievable by working hard and following common sense advise that's told to everyone (i.e. "try hard in school", "play nice with others", "try to excel at your career", etc.). Democrats love to tell their voters that the system is at fault for their problems because it's human nature to blame things other than yourself for your mistakes (ever play a MOBA?). Especially when it's socially acceptable to do so because half of the country is telling you that it's the case. It's a brilliant political strategy. And, as an added bonus, Democrats can then morally justifiably push for redistribution (i.e. taxing to give money disproportionately to their voters), and create an enemy (Wall Street and/or "the 1%"). to energize their base. The whole narrative is like a politician's wet dream, and consequently it's perpetuated; but that doesn't mean it's accurate, nor unfortunately that their solutions fix the portion of the alleged problem that does exist. Democrats support social safety nets that benefit all Americans. Its been a while since I seen the Romney line of "they give gifts out to get people to vote for them". ??? What does the first sentence have to do with my point? Republicans (that aren't foaming at the mouth over the latest Fox News conspiracy) generally support a safety net strong enough to return people to work if they lose their job (i.e. the part that actually benefits all Americans). There's a hundred other voter grab redistribution schemes that Democrats have come up with. The second sentence only died because Trump realized it was better politics to just throw mud and court part of the Democratic base that would be offended by it. It was true then and it's true now.
Republicans just made a healthy swipe at turning Medicaid into a block grant. Any claim that they support social safety nets does not line up with reality or the last 16 years.
|
On August 02 2017 08:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 08:25 mozoku wrote:On August 02 2017 07:06 Plansix wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2017 07:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On August 02 2017 04:35 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 02 2017 04:29 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2017 04:23 Wegandi wrote:On August 02 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote:
People can be racist against blacks without treating a given white person like a king. Do you see why people might think that "white privilege" is stupid? The only "privilege" in this country is if you're connected to the Government, either directly or indirectly. There's no get out of jail card otherwise. No, I don't see why they might think it's stupid. If they think it's stupid the only possible explanations that seem possible to me are a failure to understand what white privilege means or extreme idiocy. I'll go ahead and presume the former on your part. White privilege does not mean that white people don't have problems. It means that there are social advantages to being white that black people don't benefit from. Which is such a broad and obvious statement that it is absolutely baffling to me that someone would question it. There is also black privilege too, for what it's worth. Being black isn't all bad. But black privilege is certainly a worse deal that white privilege. Imagine this were a role play game. If you rolled white as your starting race then you get some fun modifiers like +2 to charisma rolls with law enforcement. It doesn't mean you always win every encounter, if you roll five die and they're all 1s you're still fucked. But it is a race advantage versus had you rolled black as your starting race. White players can still roll all 1s and black players can still roll 6s but if you take the entire group average you'll find the +2 modifier is statistically significant over time. I would never suggest that the concept of white privilege is stupid. I would, however, say that the current obsession with it is very stupid and most of all very counter productive. If you go around insulting/insinuating extremely negative things about the vast majority of the population sooner or later they will get sick of it and then BOOM! Trump. I think there could be a lot more focus from political leaders on finding a common ground between various ethnicities with regards to police brutality, economic inequality, and so on. But people in the US are kept apart by rather meaningless (for their interests) party philosophies such as liberalism and conservatism. The poor people on both of these sides will be stuck in their own little ghettos till they start to work together against this machine of evil that continues to suppress them. Fat chance of that happening though. The three highest income ethnic groups in the US are East Asians (broadly grouped), Hindus, and Jews iirc. I'm not sure if that fits into your implied narrative about the WASP conspiracy that's purposely oppressing all the other races. Racism exists and it's unfair and should be fixed where possible. But in socioeconomic terms, it certainly appears that the market cares more about skills and education more than it does oppressing non-WASPs. Also, let's dust off this chart: A paper suggested by a liberal poster here claimed rank-rank correlation of US income mobility was 0.6 (the number was corroborated by other authors). This is what that looks like. This is within-generation mobility by the way (correlation between you now and you in 15 years). Which is already heavily biased downward because the most common method of family income mobility is between-generation (i.e. through getting a better education than your parents). Yes, the system isn't fair because not everyone gets a level playing field to start. While there's steps that can and should be taken to try to ameliorate that, it's more or less impossible to completely fix as parents who are successful in their career are always going to impart genes and parenting lessons/practices that generally lead to their kids' career success. Conversely, parents who haven't had successful careers tend to lack the knowledge of what it takes to have a successful career, making it hard to pass it down to their kids. Additionally, families tend to move near other families with similar socioeconomic status, which reinforces this effect both directions. This is also hard to fix, short of government mandating where people live. No, the system isn't what's stopping you from living at least a comfortable upper-middle class life though (in the vast majority of cases). That's fully achievable by working hard and following common sense advise that's told to everyone (i.e. "try hard in school", "play nice with others", "try to excel at your career", etc.). Democrats love to tell their voters that the system is at fault for their problems because it's human nature to blame things other than yourself for your mistakes (ever play a MOBA?). Especially when it's socially acceptable to do so because half of the country is telling you that it's the case. It's a brilliant political strategy. And, as an added bonus, Democrats can then morally justifiably push for redistribution (i.e. taxing to give money disproportionately to their voters), and create an enemy (Wall Street and/or "the 1%"). to energize their base. The whole narrative is like a politician's wet dream, and consequently it's perpetuated; but that doesn't mean it's accurate, nor unfortunately that their solutions fix the portion of the alleged problem that does exist. Democrats support social safety nets that benefit all Americans. Its been a while since I seen the Romney line of "they give gifts out to get people to vote for them". ??? What does the first sentence have to do with my point? Republicans (that aren't foaming at the mouth over the latest Fox News conspiracy) generally support a safety net strong enough to return people to work if they lose their job (i.e. the part that actually benefits all Americans). There's a hundred other voter grab redistribution schemes that Democrats have come up with. The second sentence only died because Trump realized it was better politics to just throw mud and court part of the Democratic base that would be offended by it. It was true then and it's true now. Republicans made a healthy swipe at turning Medicaid into a block grant. Any claim that they support social safety nets does not line up with reality.
But did you hear about Bannon's leaked trial balloon about raising rates on certain unpopular wealthy people? You know the one the papers spread in return for him continuing to provide confidential leaks about White House palace intrigue?
Surely that outweighs years of legislative efforts with actual bills that included substantial medicaid, social security, medicare, TANF, and Food Stamps cuts? Couldn't you even say that Bannon's self puffing trial balloons are practically an alternative strain of Conservative Thought that is surely equal to legislative efforts by elected Republicans?
https://www.budget.senate.gov/bettercare
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/02/paul-ryan-isnt-ruling-out-medicare-privatization-but-some-republicans-are-already-wary/?utm_term=.08ad6d834af6
https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-2005-social-security-initiative-failed-and-what-it-means-for-the-future/
|
The want to cut food stamps. Food stamps. Do you know how poor you need to be to qualify for food stamps?
|
On August 02 2017 08:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 08:25 mozoku wrote:On August 02 2017 07:06 Plansix wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2017 07:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On August 02 2017 04:35 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 02 2017 04:29 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2017 04:23 Wegandi wrote:On August 02 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote:
People can be racist against blacks without treating a given white person like a king. Do you see why people might think that "white privilege" is stupid? The only "privilege" in this country is if you're connected to the Government, either directly or indirectly. There's no get out of jail card otherwise. No, I don't see why they might think it's stupid. If they think it's stupid the only possible explanations that seem possible to me are a failure to understand what white privilege means or extreme idiocy. I'll go ahead and presume the former on your part. White privilege does not mean that white people don't have problems. It means that there are social advantages to being white that black people don't benefit from. Which is such a broad and obvious statement that it is absolutely baffling to me that someone would question it. There is also black privilege too, for what it's worth. Being black isn't all bad. But black privilege is certainly a worse deal that white privilege. Imagine this were a role play game. If you rolled white as your starting race then you get some fun modifiers like +2 to charisma rolls with law enforcement. It doesn't mean you always win every encounter, if you roll five die and they're all 1s you're still fucked. But it is a race advantage versus had you rolled black as your starting race. White players can still roll all 1s and black players can still roll 6s but if you take the entire group average you'll find the +2 modifier is statistically significant over time. I would never suggest that the concept of white privilege is stupid. I would, however, say that the current obsession with it is very stupid and most of all very counter productive. If you go around insulting/insinuating extremely negative things about the vast majority of the population sooner or later they will get sick of it and then BOOM! Trump. I think there could be a lot more focus from political leaders on finding a common ground between various ethnicities with regards to police brutality, economic inequality, and so on. But people in the US are kept apart by rather meaningless (for their interests) party philosophies such as liberalism and conservatism. The poor people on both of these sides will be stuck in their own little ghettos till they start to work together against this machine of evil that continues to suppress them. Fat chance of that happening though. The three highest income ethnic groups in the US are East Asians (broadly grouped), Hindus, and Jews iirc. I'm not sure if that fits into your implied narrative about the WASP conspiracy that's purposely oppressing all the other races. Racism exists and it's unfair and should be fixed where possible. But in socioeconomic terms, it certainly appears that the market cares more about skills and education more than it does oppressing non-WASPs. Also, let's dust off this chart: A paper suggested by a liberal poster here claimed rank-rank correlation of US income mobility was 0.6 (the number was corroborated by other authors). This is what that looks like. This is within-generation mobility by the way (correlation between you now and you in 15 years). Which is already heavily biased downward because the most common method of family income mobility is between-generation (i.e. through getting a better education than your parents). Yes, the system isn't fair because not everyone gets a level playing field to start. While there's steps that can and should be taken to try to ameliorate that, it's more or less impossible to completely fix as parents who are successful in their career are always going to impart genes and parenting lessons/practices that generally lead to their kids' career success. Conversely, parents who haven't had successful careers tend to lack the knowledge of what it takes to have a successful career, making it hard to pass it down to their kids. Additionally, families tend to move near other families with similar socioeconomic status, which reinforces this effect both directions. This is also hard to fix, short of government mandating where people live. No, the system isn't what's stopping you from living at least a comfortable upper-middle class life though (in the vast majority of cases). That's fully achievable by working hard and following common sense advise that's told to everyone (i.e. "try hard in school", "play nice with others", "try to excel at your career", etc.). Democrats love to tell their voters that the system is at fault for their problems because it's human nature to blame things other than yourself for your mistakes (ever play a MOBA?). Especially when it's socially acceptable to do so because half of the country is telling you that it's the case. It's a brilliant political strategy. And, as an added bonus, Democrats can then morally justifiably push for redistribution (i.e. taxing to give money disproportionately to their voters), and create an enemy (Wall Street and/or "the 1%"). to energize their base. The whole narrative is like a politician's wet dream, and consequently it's perpetuated; but that doesn't mean it's accurate, nor unfortunately that their solutions fix the portion of the alleged problem that does exist. Democrats support social safety nets that benefit all Americans. Its been a while since I seen the Romney line of "they give gifts out to get people to vote for them". ??? What does the first sentence have to do with my point? Republicans (that aren't foaming at the mouth over the latest Fox News conspiracy) generally support a safety net strong enough to return people to work if they lose their job (i.e. the part that actually benefits all Americans). There's a hundred other voter grab redistribution schemes that Democrats have come up with. The second sentence only died because Trump realized it was better politics to just throw mud and court part of the Democratic base that would be offended by it. It was true then and it's true now. Republicans just made a healthy swipe at turning Medicaid into a block grant. Any claim that they support social safety nets does not line up with reality or the last 16 years.
Correction: "Any claim that they don't support Plansix's idea of a social safety net does not line up with reality or the last 16 years."
There's already a social safety net in place. Consequently, opposing expansion of it is not the same as not supporting the existence of it in any form. I can't believe I have to post this.
The want to cut food stamps. Food stamps. Do you know how poor you need to be to qualify for food stamps?
You need to have an annual gross income of $15,600 for a single individual. Which was my income ($15,000) as a TA in grad school, so I know exactly how poor you have to be. I lived without food stamps, loans, and managed to build myself a $1k gaming computer and pay $2k out-of-pocket for my wisdom teeth surgery within a year and a half of savings at that income.
Food stamps are hardly the shining beacon of buying votes either. Try something like student loan forgiveness for Millennials, or the Left's latest anti-tax rhetoric that talks about nothing but the evils of "tax cuts for the rich." As if it was impossible for "the rich" to be overtaxed at any point. Or any analysis of how "tax cuts for the rich" affects the economy for everyone.
|
On August 02 2017 08:41 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 08:28 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 08:25 mozoku wrote:On August 02 2017 07:06 Plansix wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2017 07:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On August 02 2017 04:35 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 02 2017 04:29 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2017 04:23 Wegandi wrote:On August 02 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote:
People can be racist against blacks without treating a given white person like a king. Do you see why people might think that "white privilege" is stupid? The only "privilege" in this country is if you're connected to the Government, either directly or indirectly. There's no get out of jail card otherwise. No, I don't see why they might think it's stupid. If they think it's stupid the only possible explanations that seem possible to me are a failure to understand what white privilege means or extreme idiocy. I'll go ahead and presume the former on your part. White privilege does not mean that white people don't have problems. It means that there are social advantages to being white that black people don't benefit from. Which is such a broad and obvious statement that it is absolutely baffling to me that someone would question it. There is also black privilege too, for what it's worth. Being black isn't all bad. But black privilege is certainly a worse deal that white privilege. Imagine this were a role play game. If you rolled white as your starting race then you get some fun modifiers like +2 to charisma rolls with law enforcement. It doesn't mean you always win every encounter, if you roll five die and they're all 1s you're still fucked. But it is a race advantage versus had you rolled black as your starting race. White players can still roll all 1s and black players can still roll 6s but if you take the entire group average you'll find the +2 modifier is statistically significant over time. I would never suggest that the concept of white privilege is stupid. I would, however, say that the current obsession with it is very stupid and most of all very counter productive. If you go around insulting/insinuating extremely negative things about the vast majority of the population sooner or later they will get sick of it and then BOOM! Trump. I think there could be a lot more focus from political leaders on finding a common ground between various ethnicities with regards to police brutality, economic inequality, and so on. But people in the US are kept apart by rather meaningless (for their interests) party philosophies such as liberalism and conservatism. The poor people on both of these sides will be stuck in their own little ghettos till they start to work together against this machine of evil that continues to suppress them. Fat chance of that happening though. The three highest income ethnic groups in the US are East Asians (broadly grouped), Hindus, and Jews iirc. I'm not sure if that fits into your implied narrative about the WASP conspiracy that's purposely oppressing all the other races. Racism exists and it's unfair and should be fixed where possible. But in socioeconomic terms, it certainly appears that the market cares more about skills and education more than it does oppressing non-WASPs. Also, let's dust off this chart: A paper suggested by a liberal poster here claimed rank-rank correlation of US income mobility was 0.6 (the number was corroborated by other authors). This is what that looks like. This is within-generation mobility by the way (correlation between you now and you in 15 years). Which is already heavily biased downward because the most common method of family income mobility is between-generation (i.e. through getting a better education than your parents). Yes, the system isn't fair because not everyone gets a level playing field to start. While there's steps that can and should be taken to try to ameliorate that, it's more or less impossible to completely fix as parents who are successful in their career are always going to impart genes and parenting lessons/practices that generally lead to their kids' career success. Conversely, parents who haven't had successful careers tend to lack the knowledge of what it takes to have a successful career, making it hard to pass it down to their kids. Additionally, families tend to move near other families with similar socioeconomic status, which reinforces this effect both directions. This is also hard to fix, short of government mandating where people live. No, the system isn't what's stopping you from living at least a comfortable upper-middle class life though (in the vast majority of cases). That's fully achievable by working hard and following common sense advise that's told to everyone (i.e. "try hard in school", "play nice with others", "try to excel at your career", etc.). Democrats love to tell their voters that the system is at fault for their problems because it's human nature to blame things other than yourself for your mistakes (ever play a MOBA?). Especially when it's socially acceptable to do so because half of the country is telling you that it's the case. It's a brilliant political strategy. And, as an added bonus, Democrats can then morally justifiably push for redistribution (i.e. taxing to give money disproportionately to their voters), and create an enemy (Wall Street and/or "the 1%"). to energize their base. The whole narrative is like a politician's wet dream, and consequently it's perpetuated; but that doesn't mean it's accurate, nor unfortunately that their solutions fix the portion of the alleged problem that does exist. Democrats support social safety nets that benefit all Americans. Its been a while since I seen the Romney line of "they give gifts out to get people to vote for them". ??? What does the first sentence have to do with my point? Republicans (that aren't foaming at the mouth over the latest Fox News conspiracy) generally support a safety net strong enough to return people to work if they lose their job (i.e. the part that actually benefits all Americans). There's a hundred other voter grab redistribution schemes that Democrats have come up with. The second sentence only died because Trump realized it was better politics to just throw mud and court part of the Democratic base that would be offended by it. It was true then and it's true now. Republicans just made a healthy swipe at turning Medicaid into a block grant. Any claim that they support social safety nets does not line up with reality or the last 16 years. Correction: "Any claim that they don't support Plansix's idea of a social safety net does not line up with reality or the last 16 years." There's already a social safety net in place. Consequently, opposing expansion of it is not the same as not supporting the existence of it in any form. I can't believe I have to post this.
They want to cut them. What world are you living in? Do you know what a block grant is?
|
|
|
United States42009 Posts
|
On August 02 2017 08:41 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 08:28 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 08:25 mozoku wrote:On August 02 2017 07:06 Plansix wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2017 07:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On August 02 2017 04:35 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 02 2017 04:29 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2017 04:23 Wegandi wrote:On August 02 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote:
People can be racist against blacks without treating a given white person like a king. Do you see why people might think that "white privilege" is stupid? The only "privilege" in this country is if you're connected to the Government, either directly or indirectly. There's no get out of jail card otherwise. No, I don't see why they might think it's stupid. If they think it's stupid the only possible explanations that seem possible to me are a failure to understand what white privilege means or extreme idiocy. I'll go ahead and presume the former on your part. White privilege does not mean that white people don't have problems. It means that there are social advantages to being white that black people don't benefit from. Which is such a broad and obvious statement that it is absolutely baffling to me that someone would question it. There is also black privilege too, for what it's worth. Being black isn't all bad. But black privilege is certainly a worse deal that white privilege. Imagine this were a role play game. If you rolled white as your starting race then you get some fun modifiers like +2 to charisma rolls with law enforcement. It doesn't mean you always win every encounter, if you roll five die and they're all 1s you're still fucked. But it is a race advantage versus had you rolled black as your starting race. White players can still roll all 1s and black players can still roll 6s but if you take the entire group average you'll find the +2 modifier is statistically significant over time. I would never suggest that the concept of white privilege is stupid. I would, however, say that the current obsession with it is very stupid and most of all very counter productive. If you go around insulting/insinuating extremely negative things about the vast majority of the population sooner or later they will get sick of it and then BOOM! Trump. I think there could be a lot more focus from political leaders on finding a common ground between various ethnicities with regards to police brutality, economic inequality, and so on. But people in the US are kept apart by rather meaningless (for their interests) party philosophies such as liberalism and conservatism. The poor people on both of these sides will be stuck in their own little ghettos till they start to work together against this machine of evil that continues to suppress them. Fat chance of that happening though. The three highest income ethnic groups in the US are East Asians (broadly grouped), Hindus, and Jews iirc. I'm not sure if that fits into your implied narrative about the WASP conspiracy that's purposely oppressing all the other races. Racism exists and it's unfair and should be fixed where possible. But in socioeconomic terms, it certainly appears that the market cares more about skills and education more than it does oppressing non-WASPs. Also, let's dust off this chart: A paper suggested by a liberal poster here claimed rank-rank correlation of US income mobility was 0.6 (the number was corroborated by other authors). This is what that looks like. This is within-generation mobility by the way (correlation between you now and you in 15 years). Which is already heavily biased downward because the most common method of family income mobility is between-generation (i.e. through getting a better education than your parents). Yes, the system isn't fair because not everyone gets a level playing field to start. While there's steps that can and should be taken to try to ameliorate that, it's more or less impossible to completely fix as parents who are successful in their career are always going to impart genes and parenting lessons/practices that generally lead to their kids' career success. Conversely, parents who haven't had successful careers tend to lack the knowledge of what it takes to have a successful career, making it hard to pass it down to their kids. Additionally, families tend to move near other families with similar socioeconomic status, which reinforces this effect both directions. This is also hard to fix, short of government mandating where people live. No, the system isn't what's stopping you from living at least a comfortable upper-middle class life though (in the vast majority of cases). That's fully achievable by working hard and following common sense advise that's told to everyone (i.e. "try hard in school", "play nice with others", "try to excel at your career", etc.). Democrats love to tell their voters that the system is at fault for their problems because it's human nature to blame things other than yourself for your mistakes (ever play a MOBA?). Especially when it's socially acceptable to do so because half of the country is telling you that it's the case. It's a brilliant political strategy. And, as an added bonus, Democrats can then morally justifiably push for redistribution (i.e. taxing to give money disproportionately to their voters), and create an enemy (Wall Street and/or "the 1%"). to energize their base. The whole narrative is like a politician's wet dream, and consequently it's perpetuated; but that doesn't mean it's accurate, nor unfortunately that their solutions fix the portion of the alleged problem that does exist. Democrats support social safety nets that benefit all Americans. Its been a while since I seen the Romney line of "they give gifts out to get people to vote for them". ??? What does the first sentence have to do with my point? Republicans (that aren't foaming at the mouth over the latest Fox News conspiracy) generally support a safety net strong enough to return people to work if they lose their job (i.e. the part that actually benefits all Americans). There's a hundred other voter grab redistribution schemes that Democrats have come up with. The second sentence only died because Trump realized it was better politics to just throw mud and court part of the Democratic base that would be offended by it. It was true then and it's true now. Republicans just made a healthy swipe at turning Medicaid into a block grant. Any claim that they support social safety nets does not line up with reality or the last 16 years. Correction: "Any claim that they don't support Plansix's idea of a social safety net does not line up with reality or the last 16 years." There's already a social safety net in place. Consequently, opposing expansion of it is not the same as not supporting the existence of it in any form. I can't believe I have to post this.
How do you keep reality from intruding on your biases? You claim it isn't a cut. But even the simplest of google searches shows endless hits from this year about Republican plans to cut food stamps. There are varieties of plans and all kinds of different quantities and schemes to reduce the program. EDIT: opposing expansion? That isn't even one of the plans here. They are all affirmative cuts. Maybe you hide behind some trial balloon somewhere and close your eyes to all the other plans, but man that is some serious dishonesty about objective reality.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/14/republicans-cuts-programs-food-stamps-welfare-veterans-238314
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-trumps-food-stamp-proposal-builds-on-previous-gop-efforts-2017-5
http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/gop-budget-plan-cut-23-billion-food-stamps
|
What are the odds that someone on his staff calls him pretending to be all these people to verbally blow him? Like his John Baron thing.
|
I bet it's Kushner and that's why he so rarely gives public sound bites.
|
On August 02 2017 08:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 08:41 mozoku wrote:On August 02 2017 08:28 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 08:25 mozoku wrote:On August 02 2017 07:06 Plansix wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2017 07:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On August 02 2017 04:35 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 02 2017 04:29 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2017 04:23 Wegandi wrote:On August 02 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote:
People can be racist against blacks without treating a given white person like a king. Do you see why people might think that "white privilege" is stupid? The only "privilege" in this country is if you're connected to the Government, either directly or indirectly. There's no get out of jail card otherwise. No, I don't see why they might think it's stupid. If they think it's stupid the only possible explanations that seem possible to me are a failure to understand what white privilege means or extreme idiocy. I'll go ahead and presume the former on your part. White privilege does not mean that white people don't have problems. It means that there are social advantages to being white that black people don't benefit from. Which is such a broad and obvious statement that it is absolutely baffling to me that someone would question it. There is also black privilege too, for what it's worth. Being black isn't all bad. But black privilege is certainly a worse deal that white privilege. Imagine this were a role play game. If you rolled white as your starting race then you get some fun modifiers like +2 to charisma rolls with law enforcement. It doesn't mean you always win every encounter, if you roll five die and they're all 1s you're still fucked. But it is a race advantage versus had you rolled black as your starting race. White players can still roll all 1s and black players can still roll 6s but if you take the entire group average you'll find the +2 modifier is statistically significant over time. I would never suggest that the concept of white privilege is stupid. I would, however, say that the current obsession with it is very stupid and most of all very counter productive. If you go around insulting/insinuating extremely negative things about the vast majority of the population sooner or later they will get sick of it and then BOOM! Trump. I think there could be a lot more focus from political leaders on finding a common ground between various ethnicities with regards to police brutality, economic inequality, and so on. But people in the US are kept apart by rather meaningless (for their interests) party philosophies such as liberalism and conservatism. The poor people on both of these sides will be stuck in their own little ghettos till they start to work together against this machine of evil that continues to suppress them. Fat chance of that happening though. The three highest income ethnic groups in the US are East Asians (broadly grouped), Hindus, and Jews iirc. I'm not sure if that fits into your implied narrative about the WASP conspiracy that's purposely oppressing all the other races. Racism exists and it's unfair and should be fixed where possible. But in socioeconomic terms, it certainly appears that the market cares more about skills and education more than it does oppressing non-WASPs. Also, let's dust off this chart: A paper suggested by a liberal poster here claimed rank-rank correlation of US income mobility was 0.6 (the number was corroborated by other authors). This is what that looks like. This is within-generation mobility by the way (correlation between you now and you in 15 years). Which is already heavily biased downward because the most common method of family income mobility is between-generation (i.e. through getting a better education than your parents). Yes, the system isn't fair because not everyone gets a level playing field to start. While there's steps that can and should be taken to try to ameliorate that, it's more or less impossible to completely fix as parents who are successful in their career are always going to impart genes and parenting lessons/practices that generally lead to their kids' career success. Conversely, parents who haven't had successful careers tend to lack the knowledge of what it takes to have a successful career, making it hard to pass it down to their kids. Additionally, families tend to move near other families with similar socioeconomic status, which reinforces this effect both directions. This is also hard to fix, short of government mandating where people live. No, the system isn't what's stopping you from living at least a comfortable upper-middle class life though (in the vast majority of cases). That's fully achievable by working hard and following common sense advise that's told to everyone (i.e. "try hard in school", "play nice with others", "try to excel at your career", etc.). Democrats love to tell their voters that the system is at fault for their problems because it's human nature to blame things other than yourself for your mistakes (ever play a MOBA?). Especially when it's socially acceptable to do so because half of the country is telling you that it's the case. It's a brilliant political strategy. And, as an added bonus, Democrats can then morally justifiably push for redistribution (i.e. taxing to give money disproportionately to their voters), and create an enemy (Wall Street and/or "the 1%"). to energize their base. The whole narrative is like a politician's wet dream, and consequently it's perpetuated; but that doesn't mean it's accurate, nor unfortunately that their solutions fix the portion of the alleged problem that does exist. Democrats support social safety nets that benefit all Americans. Its been a while since I seen the Romney line of "they give gifts out to get people to vote for them". ??? What does the first sentence have to do with my point? Republicans (that aren't foaming at the mouth over the latest Fox News conspiracy) generally support a safety net strong enough to return people to work if they lose their job (i.e. the part that actually benefits all Americans). There's a hundred other voter grab redistribution schemes that Democrats have come up with. The second sentence only died because Trump realized it was better politics to just throw mud and court part of the Democratic base that would be offended by it. It was true then and it's true now. Republicans just made a healthy swipe at turning Medicaid into a block grant. Any claim that they support social safety nets does not line up with reality or the last 16 years. Correction: "Any claim that they don't support Plansix's idea of a social safety net does not line up with reality or the last 16 years." There's already a social safety net in place. Consequently, opposing expansion of it is not the same as not supporting the existence of it in any form. I can't believe I have to post this. They want to cut them. What world are you living in? Do you know what a block grant is?
This is the clowniest discussion I've ever participated in. You can reduce a safety net that you feel has been overgrown, without opposing the concept of a safety net. This isn't complicated, and there's no way that you're actually being serious.
EDIT: If you can't understand this, I'm done.
|
On August 02 2017 08:55 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 08:43 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 08:41 mozoku wrote:On August 02 2017 08:28 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 08:25 mozoku wrote:On August 02 2017 07:06 Plansix wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2017 07:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On August 02 2017 04:35 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 02 2017 04:29 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2017 04:23 Wegandi wrote:On August 02 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote:
People can be racist against blacks without treating a given white person like a king. Do you see why people might think that "white privilege" is stupid? The only "privilege" in this country is if you're connected to the Government, either directly or indirectly. There's no get out of jail card otherwise. No, I don't see why they might think it's stupid. If they think it's stupid the only possible explanations that seem possible to me are a failure to understand what white privilege means or extreme idiocy. I'll go ahead and presume the former on your part. White privilege does not mean that white people don't have problems. It means that there are social advantages to being white that black people don't benefit from. Which is such a broad and obvious statement that it is absolutely baffling to me that someone would question it. There is also black privilege too, for what it's worth. Being black isn't all bad. But black privilege is certainly a worse deal that white privilege. Imagine this were a role play game. If you rolled white as your starting race then you get some fun modifiers like +2 to charisma rolls with law enforcement. It doesn't mean you always win every encounter, if you roll five die and they're all 1s you're still fucked. But it is a race advantage versus had you rolled black as your starting race. White players can still roll all 1s and black players can still roll 6s but if you take the entire group average you'll find the +2 modifier is statistically significant over time. I would never suggest that the concept of white privilege is stupid. I would, however, say that the current obsession with it is very stupid and most of all very counter productive. If you go around insulting/insinuating extremely negative things about the vast majority of the population sooner or later they will get sick of it and then BOOM! Trump. I think there could be a lot more focus from political leaders on finding a common ground between various ethnicities with regards to police brutality, economic inequality, and so on. But people in the US are kept apart by rather meaningless (for their interests) party philosophies such as liberalism and conservatism. The poor people on both of these sides will be stuck in their own little ghettos till they start to work together against this machine of evil that continues to suppress them. Fat chance of that happening though. The three highest income ethnic groups in the US are East Asians (broadly grouped), Hindus, and Jews iirc. I'm not sure if that fits into your implied narrative about the WASP conspiracy that's purposely oppressing all the other races. Racism exists and it's unfair and should be fixed where possible. But in socioeconomic terms, it certainly appears that the market cares more about skills and education more than it does oppressing non-WASPs. Also, let's dust off this chart: A paper suggested by a liberal poster here claimed rank-rank correlation of US income mobility was 0.6 (the number was corroborated by other authors). This is what that looks like. This is within-generation mobility by the way (correlation between you now and you in 15 years). Which is already heavily biased downward because the most common method of family income mobility is between-generation (i.e. through getting a better education than your parents). Yes, the system isn't fair because not everyone gets a level playing field to start. While there's steps that can and should be taken to try to ameliorate that, it's more or less impossible to completely fix as parents who are successful in their career are always going to impart genes and parenting lessons/practices that generally lead to their kids' career success. Conversely, parents who haven't had successful careers tend to lack the knowledge of what it takes to have a successful career, making it hard to pass it down to their kids. Additionally, families tend to move near other families with similar socioeconomic status, which reinforces this effect both directions. This is also hard to fix, short of government mandating where people live. No, the system isn't what's stopping you from living at least a comfortable upper-middle class life though (in the vast majority of cases). That's fully achievable by working hard and following common sense advise that's told to everyone (i.e. "try hard in school", "play nice with others", "try to excel at your career", etc.). Democrats love to tell their voters that the system is at fault for their problems because it's human nature to blame things other than yourself for your mistakes (ever play a MOBA?). Especially when it's socially acceptable to do so because half of the country is telling you that it's the case. It's a brilliant political strategy. And, as an added bonus, Democrats can then morally justifiably push for redistribution (i.e. taxing to give money disproportionately to their voters), and create an enemy (Wall Street and/or "the 1%"). to energize their base. The whole narrative is like a politician's wet dream, and consequently it's perpetuated; but that doesn't mean it's accurate, nor unfortunately that their solutions fix the portion of the alleged problem that does exist. Democrats support social safety nets that benefit all Americans. Its been a while since I seen the Romney line of "they give gifts out to get people to vote for them". ??? What does the first sentence have to do with my point? Republicans (that aren't foaming at the mouth over the latest Fox News conspiracy) generally support a safety net strong enough to return people to work if they lose their job (i.e. the part that actually benefits all Americans). There's a hundred other voter grab redistribution schemes that Democrats have come up with. The second sentence only died because Trump realized it was better politics to just throw mud and court part of the Democratic base that would be offended by it. It was true then and it's true now. Republicans just made a healthy swipe at turning Medicaid into a block grant. Any claim that they support social safety nets does not line up with reality or the last 16 years. Correction: "Any claim that they don't support Plansix's idea of a social safety net does not line up with reality or the last 16 years." There's already a social safety net in place. Consequently, opposing expansion of it is not the same as not supporting the existence of it in any form. I can't believe I have to post this. They want to cut them. What world are you living in? Do you know what a block grant is? This is the clowniest discussion I've ever participated in. You can reduce a safety net that you feel has been overgrown, without opposing the concept of a safety net. This isn't complicated, and there's no way that you're actually being serious.
How is that not cutting social safety nets? Reducing the size means it reduces the number of people it helps. A block grant runs out and then no more till next fiscal year. Get cancer in January.
|
Personal tales of bootstrap lace gazing are a pretty blasé way to feign support for food stamps lol, it's like when Bruce Rauner vetoed funding for all of Illinois' public schools today while claiming that he was merely killing a Chicago bailout.
|
On August 02 2017 09:00 farvacola wrote:
Personal tales of bootstrap lace gazing are a pretty blasé way to feign support for food stamps lol, it's like when Bruce Rauner vetoed funding for all of Illinois' public schools today while claiming that he was merely killing a Chicago bailout.
You folks gunna override again? Is this his role now, veto bitch?
|
On August 02 2017 08:41 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +The want to cut food stamps. Food stamps. Do you know how poor you need to be to qualify for food stamps? You need to have an annual gross income of $15,600 for a single individual. Which was my income ($15,000) as a TA in grad school, so I know exactly how poor you have to be. I lived without food stamps, loans, and managed to build myself a $1k gaming computer and pay $2k out-of-pocket for my wisdom teeth surgery within a year and a half of savings at that income.
Mind clarifying what you meant by this bit? Do you think that giving food stamps to people making $15,000 a year or less is an overgrown safety net? Do you think people with that kind of income should be able to survive on ~$13,000 like you did (when subtracting the additional expenses you mentioned)?
If so, it seems like you oughta give a little more detail on why that was possible. What was your housing situation, and what was it costing you? Were you eating nothing but plain rice and water? Were your utilities paid for by some third party? Were you making frequent use of some kind of public resources (e.g. showering at the Y)?
Because I know my city is fairly expensive, but here at least, if you got a 2 bed room in a pretty cheap neighborhood and split the rent between 4 people, you'd still be paying ~$400 a month in rent, which is already more than a third of the $13,000 you want people to live on. Unless you're wanting 3 or 4 people to share a studio or something, I'm not really sure how you want people to swing that.
|
On August 02 2017 09:00 farvacola wrote:
Personal tales of bootstrap lace gazing are a pretty blasé way to feign support for food stamps lol, it's like when Bruce Rauner vetoed funding for all of Illinois' public schools today while claiming that he was merely killing a Chicago bailout.
Well Plansix turned my point from "handouts are an effective political strategy and social mobility is still alive" to "Do you know how much people at that income need food stamps?"
I answered the latter, which is more than he can say about his answer to the former. Which amounted to complete denial that Republicans support any social safety net programs, whatsoever. Which is neither true, nor really related to what I said.
|
And what do you do if you have children? You can't even get housing and food for 15K in my state.
There seems to be this misunderstand that if food stamps will lead to the poor people that use them saving more money. Or spending more efficiently. But that isn't the case, they will just go hungry. The same goes for medicaid. 50% of babies born in the US are paid for by medicaid. Cutting medicaid will not lead to fewer babies, unless we count the ones that die due to inadequate medical care. None of this reduces the number of poor people in the country or creates more income for them. The Republicans continued push to cut these programs despite the evidence that they are needed is one of the reasons they don't support social safety nets.
|
compare this to Harry Truman who matter of factly wrote in his diary that he woke up to find the white house literally collapsing.
|
"I am told that boyscouts, which is a horrible organization with such a bad history of sexual abuse, is seeing enrollment plummet after their unfair attacks. Big mistake!"
|
Didn't they just renovate the WH when Obama was in office?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
