Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[tcr]

The government is not the workers. People want to keep their individual wealth without it being taxed to living shit on subsidized and inefficient programs. Marxism has failed in every single country its been tried, because it turns into a new government centralizing control over people and everyone under it going into poverty. Few conservatives agree with a centralized government, they believe in as little government as possible in a majority of cases.

You're also one to tout about the "bad" state of the economy when the unemployment rate is at its lowest across the board, and the economy is doing so good even Taco Bell is paying managers six figure salaries. You can only go so far about how people are paycheck to paycheck, yes there are jobs with minimal requirements that don't pay a lot (that's why they're called entry level), how about the amount of people lifted out of poverty? Ever consider that?

you keep spouting this line like its an endall be all. the point of a job is to have an income. Yes unemployment rates are the lowest theyve been but this is because companies are cutting back on full time positions leaving most workers stranded, and most workers at the bottom sector end up having to work multiple jobs anyway just to make ends meet. Tell me why the income level when met with inflation is below where we were two decades ago, why wage growth is stagnant? Tell me again how “entry level” these jobs are. My job requires a bachelors degree, I work in therapy with children pursuing my field of study. I required three reference letters, my academic transcript, a very lengthy interview process, and I make 14/hr unable to make ends meet because my employer cuts my hours. Once my employer noticed I was going over 40hr a week I got Thursdays cut, now for pursuing school I get Tuesdays cut as well so I’m not working from 7-8pm managing four classes. How is this entry level? It shouldn’t even matter some manner of “entry level.” Are you telling me there are jobs out there that should be below a living wage, that people should be required to work multiple jobs (a task already insurmountable with food service industries) just so they can make a rent or mortgage payment? Surely “entry level” in your eyes would be the absolute minimum to sustain yourself at the poverty line? So tell me why one in eight americans are living in poverty.

The bottom line is most americans, myself included, have very little forseeable future. They are one car accident, hospital visit, etc away from being broke. Their savings are less than 1000$ because they can only afford to put away maybe 50-100$ per paycheck.

It actually pisses me the fuck off this rhetoric. I could care less if I have a job if I am unable to make ends meet with the job I have then whats the point? “just work more, find a new job”, ok bitch where?

employers are employing historic amounts rn because they can get away with not matching to a livable wage and with hiring most people as parttime, which screws over the common person who cannot make ends meet with what they got. Its all good for a company like Fedex to pay out at 11.25/hr but if they intentionally cut your hours so you cap at 20/week then why bother with shit like that

 

[Dece1t]

you keep spouting this line like its an endall be all. the point of a job is to have an income. Yes unemployment rates are the lowest theyve been but this is because companies are cutting back on full time positions leaving most workers stranded, and most workers at the bottom sector end up having to work multiple jobs anyway just to make ends meet. Tell me why the income level when met with inflation is below where we were two decades ago, why wage growth is stagnant? Tell me again how “entry level” these jobs are. My job requires a bachelors degree, I work in therapy with children pursuing my field of study. I required three reference letters, my academic transcript, a very lengthy interview process, and I make 14/hr unable to make ends meet because my employer cuts my hours. Once my employer noticed I was going over 40hr a week I got Thursdays cut, now for pursuing school I get Tuesdays cut as well so I’m not working from 7-8pm managing four classes. How is this entry level? It shouldn’t even matter some manner of “entry level.” Are you telling me there are jobs out there that should be below a living wage, that people should be required to work multiple jobs (a task already insurmountable with food service industries) just so they can make a rent or mortgage payment? Surely “entry level” in your eyes would be the absolute minimum to sustain yourself at the poverty line? So tell me why one in eight americans are living in poverty.

The bottom line is most americans, myself included, have very little forseeable future. They are one car accident, hospital visit, etc away from being broke. Their savings are less than 1000$ because they can only afford to put away maybe 50-100$ per paycheck.

It actually pisses me the fuck off this rhetoric. I could care less if I have a job if I am unable to make ends meet with the job I have then whats the point? “just work more, find a new job”, ok bitch where?

employers are employing historic amounts rn because they can get away with not matching to a livable wage and with hiring most people as parttime, which screws over the common person who cannot make ends meet with what they got. Its all good for a company like Fedex to pay out at 11.25/hr but if they intentionally cut your hours so you cap at 20/week then why bother with shit like that

Look man my heart does go out to you, I'm going into the teaching profession myself, and I know it likely won't make me a lot of money. I'm doing it for the heart of it because I know what I can try to do to make kids lives a little better. That aside though, I have serious issues with your arguments.

Firstly, you believe the government is going to make that situation better? I don't think putting a gun to employer's throats and tell them to pay their employees this much and work them this often is going to help. They have to make their money in order to give additional benefits to employees, and that happens when the company on the whole is doing well. There's an interesting effect going on with the minimum wage laws passing in states, for example Target, even though it is paying more, is now working many of their employees, even long time ones less, as a means to offset the costs. It's having negative effects. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...y-proves-the-case-against-the-15-minimum-wage Where opposed to Taco Bell, as I mentioned, many of the new and incredible benefits its passing to its employees are from the fact that Taco Bell as a business is incredibly successful right now. This is all without the policies y'all have been proposing in this thread, and Taco Bell employees are getting those benefits y'all have been pushing for the government to force, including sick days.

Not to mention, how good is all that going to be when y'all are pushing for the government to hike taxes for universal healthcare? How about the fact that the government is bankrupting Social Security, already considering you can make way more money putting that cash away into bonds for example for them to accrue interest as opposed to the government forcefully taking it? https://fee.org/articles/social-sec...SesdabSNHX-jsbjjhYKyiN8VSygRS0NFpbRLhh3mHelbY You're just asking the government to take more of your money that you worked hard for. It doesn't help either that the reason cost of living is so high is because of many of these programs. Ya'lls solutions are contributing to the problem you're screaming about, too high of a cost of living. That's why it's way more expensive to live in New York than say North Carolina. You're hypocrites in all sincerity.

Additionally, yes, you can move to find better work. You asked where. How about the now revived Manufacturing industry in the North East and in the Great Lakes? How about the Military? What about the shit ton of blue collar jobs that have been neglected that make just as much more as other jobs that require 4-year degrees if not more? The jobs report has been exceeding expectations just about every quarter right now, I see nothing wrong with relocating as a means to provide. The government can't magically make you get up and get a good job. That's on the individual. As a guy I follow named Larry Elder says, you cannot control the outcome, but you certainly can control the effort you put in to it. However sometimes, you just can't fix stupid (and before you virtuously yell at me that I'm calling all poor people stupid, I'm not at all. There are people that are genuinely unlucky, and my heart goes out to them and I hope they can get what they need through charities, family, religious circles, new jobs, what have you and pick themselves back up. Some people are born into and that ain't their fault either, and I am not calling that lot such. I will however point out that many people are poor are because they were godawful with their money, that is a real consideration to bear in mind as an objective thinker https://www.thebalance.com/habits-of-perpetually-broke-people-4066985)

As for your last paragraphs, I'm truly sorry if you don't like my rhetoric, but it's fair to mention that these solutions to the problems you're yelling at me about are awful solutions (and telling me the problems without providing solutions period doesn't make your case any more virtuous either), and have been doing much more harm than good. It's naive and that sadly isn't how the world works. My heart goes out to those that have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, my family also practically lives paycheck to paycheck, that's why I have a savings account set up and I'll be making some investments so I can end up more financially independent for my future. That includes wanting to keep as much of my hard-earned money as possible.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Look man my heart does go out to you, I'm going into the teaching profession myself, and I know it likely won't make me a lot of money. I'm doing it for the heart of it because I know what I can try to do to make kids lives a little better. That aside though, I have serious issues with your arguments.

Firstly, you believe the government is going to make that situation better? I don't think putting a gun to employer's throats and tell them to pay their employees this much and work them this often is going to help. They have to make their money in order to give additional benefits to employees, and that happens when the company on the whole is doing well. There's an interesting effect going on with the minimum wage laws passing in states, for example Target, even though it is paying more, is now working many of their employees, even long time ones less, as a means to offset the costs. It's having negative effects. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...y-proves-the-case-against-the-15-minimum-wage Where opposed to Taco Bell, as I mentioned, many of the new and incredible benefits its passing to its employees are from the fact that Taco Bell as a business is incredibly successful right now. This is all without the policies y'all have been proposing in this thread, and Taco Bell employees are getting those benefits y'all have been pushing for the government to force, including sick days.

Not to mention, how good is all that going to be when y'all are pushing for the government to hike taxes for universal healthcare? How about the fact that the government is bankrupting Social Security, already considering you can make way more money putting that cash away into bonds for example for them to accrue interest as opposed to the government forcefully taking it? https://fee.org/articles/social-sec...SesdabSNHX-jsbjjhYKyiN8VSygRS0NFpbRLhh3mHelbY You're just asking the government to take more of your money that you worked hard for. It doesn't help either that the reason cost of living is so high is because of many of these programs. Ya'lls solutions are contributing to the problem you're screaming about, too high of a cost of living. That's why it's way more expensive to live in New York than say North Carolina. You're hypocrites in all sincerity.

Additionally, yes, you can move to find better work. You asked where. How about the now revived Manufacturing industry in the North East and in the Great Lakes? How about the Military? What about the shit ton of blue collar jobs that have been neglected that make just as much more as other jobs that require 4-year degrees if not more? The jobs report has been exceeding expectations just about every quarter right now, I see nothing wrong with relocating as a means to provide. The government can't magically make you get up and get a good job. That's on the individual. As a guy I follow named Larry Elder says, you cannot control the outcome, but you certainly can control the effort you put in to it.

As for your last paragraphs, I'm truly sorry if you don't like my rhetoric, but it's fair to mention that these solutions to the problems you're yelling at me about are awful solutions (and telling me the problems without providing solutions period doesn't make your case any more virtuous either), and have been doing much more harm than good. It's naive and that sadly isn't how the world works. My heart goes out to those that have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, my family also practically lives paycheck to paycheck, that's why I have a savings account set up and I'll be making some investments so I can end up more financially independent for my future. That includes wanting to keep as much of my hard-earned money as possible.

Employers are making their money and then some. People have shown clear and convincing evidence contradicting your worldview and you’ve done nothing but use the laughing reaction. When we have stagnant wages due to corporations doing stock buybacks rather than paying their workers a living wage, of fucking course the economy ends up not working for a lot of people. Also, since you brought up the cost of living in New York, how about all of the NIMBY homeowners doing everything in their power to block any housing developments that could bring desperately needed affordable housing because they don’t want their property values to go down? It’s cheaper to rent in Berlin and Malmo than it is to rent in fucking Bakersfield and those cities are far from conservative havens.

 

[Dece1t]

Employers are making their money and then some. People have shown clear and convincing evidence contradicting your worldview and you’ve done nothing but use the laughing reaction. When we have stagnant wages due to corporations doing stock buybacks rather than paying their workers a living wage, of fucking course the economy ends up not working for a lot of people. Also, since you brought up the cost of living in New York, how about all of the NIMBY homeowners doing everything in their power to block any housing developments that could bring desperately needed affordable housing because they don’t want their property values to go down? It’s cheaper to rent in Berlin and Malmo than it is to rent in fucking Bakersfield and those cities are far from conservative havens.

I'm sorry but there's no surefire way to get every single possible person out of poverty. The world is not perfect, and I highly doubt it ever will be. That's reality mate. However, Capitalism has gotten way more people out of poverty than the socialists pricks y'all are backing. If you wanna look at how "sticking it to the corporations" has gone? You can look at China and Venezuela to start. If not that, how about Communist Russia? Marxism and Socialism do not work. It has been tried countlessly, and it's only destroyed more than it has created any wealth or prosperity. There's no "trying it right," it's been done as intended until some crazy wacko takes all of the power. That's also why I'm against most centralized government policies, or anything that makes the government more powerful than it actually is. I'm for the free market through competition doing the work.

Edit: and with your line of thinking, I suppose the economy will never work for anyone no matter what because, in the end, there will sadly always be poor people for various reasons, whether it'd be the back luck of the world or bad decision making. Even though the unemployment rate across the board for all Americans from many walks of life/race/ethnicity. 3.1% is amazing, but we know it'll likely never be a perfect 0%. Not without drastic consequences.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

I'm sorry but there's no surefire way to get every single possible person out of poverty. The world is not perfect, and I highly doubt it ever will be. That's reality mate. However, Capitalism has gotten way more people out of poverty than the socialists pricks y'all are backing. If you wanna look at how "sticking it to the corporations" has gone, you can look at China and Venezuela to start. If not that, how about Communist Russia? Marxism and Socialism do not work. It has been tried countlessly, and it's only destroyed more than it has created any wealth or prosperity. There's no "trying it right," it's been done as intended until some crazy wacko takes all of the power. That's also why I'm against most centralized government policies, or anything that makes the government more powerful than it actually is.

Edit: and with your line of thinking, I suppose the economy will never work for anyone no matter what because, in the end, there will sadly always be poor people for various reasons, whether it'd be the back luck of the world or bad decision making.

Care to explain why European countries like France and Germany have just 0.2 percent of people living on less than $5.50 per day - a tenth of the US rate - in a way that’s consistent with conservative theory? I assume you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

I’m saying this as a former right libertarian. I realized not too long ago that right libertarian theory just isn’t consistent with how the world really works.

EDIT: Also, stop using countries like China and Venezuela as counterarguments against socialism. These countries are economic disasters because of authoritarianism and general autocracy.

 

[Myzozoa]

well im learning a lot, i never knew federal programs were the cause of high rents in cities. Nor did I have the insight to realize that taxing rich ppl to pay for social programs was going to affect the taxes of anyone clocking less than 400k a year. i personally am not doing that well yet, but I am sure to be a rich person soon when I get that taco bell manager corporate subsidy. and since all the impoverished plebes are overworked at their 4 20 hour a week jobs w no benefits and no time to cook their own dinner, the economic future is bright for fast food managers. praise be.

 

[Asek]

Look man my heart does go out to you, I'm going into the teaching profession myself, and I know it likely won't make me a lot of money. I'm doing it for the heart of it because I know what I can try to do to make kids lives a little better. That aside though, I have serious issues with your arguments.

There's an interesting effect going on with the minimum wage laws passing in states, for example Target, even though it is paying more, is now working many of their employees, even long time ones less, as a means to offset the costs. It's having negative effects. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...y-proves-the-case-against-the-15-minimum-wage

this washington examiner piece heavily mischaracterises the cnn article it piggybacks from. min waging is bad because muh big gubberment but... an employer raising their min wage without government prompting is bad because also government? i would daresay the cnn headline it borrows from is also misleading. the wording of the cnn piece seems to imply the sample size they interviewed for their article only comes from one store in one city, which is hardly reflective of the state of all target stores across amrica. not only this but cnn does nothing to connect the wage increase to the drop in hours in a way that proves causation. they even give other reasons why the hours mightve dropped, such as modernisation and recruiting more staff than there are hours to provide full time positions for....and go on to add that the state of employees receiving less hours than what they wish to receive is common throughout the retail industry, not just target. did these other stores have similar increases in minimum wages which we can blame their employees for being underemployed for? i genuinely dont know the answer, but the article doesnt supply one either and if it did i have an inkling that it wouldve been brought up. this doesnt provide any evidence for your claims in the paragraph

Not to mention, how good is all that going to be when y'all are pushing for the government to hike taxes for universal healthcare? How about the fact that the government is bankrupting Social Security, already considering you can make way more money putting that cash away into bonds for example for them to accrue interest as opposed to the government forcefully taking it? https://fee.org/articles/social-sec...SesdabSNHX-jsbjjhYKyiN8VSygRS0NFpbRLhh3mHelbY You're just asking the government to take more of your money that you worked hard for. It doesn't help either that the reason cost of living is so high is because of many of these programs. Ya'lls solutions are contributing to the problem you're screaming about, too high of a cost of living. That's why it's way more expensive to live in New York than say North Carolina. You're hypocrites in all sincerity.

i dont know how this guy makes his projections, but doesnt it kind of strike you as weird that everything goes to shit when historical data ends - aka it looks grim when hes at best making vague predictions based off rough data and trends (economists are notoriously terrible at this)? i dont disagree with his general idea that the burden on social security will increase in the future (ageing populations and all that), but ive no idea how hes projecting these apocalyptic scenarios he does in his graphs - but for some reason he hand waves increasing taxes or providing any other solution to the problem in favour of shifting to private retirement funds... i guess australias system is pretty good but he doesnt provide any kind of 'real' solution other than pointing to other countries he finds to be better. how does this article do anything to prove a causative link between government programs like these and cost of living increases though? its tangential at best to the point you're making. perhaps the reason why cost of living in new york is higher than north carolina is because of factors other than the gov like oh i dont know, living in new york being far more in demand than north carolina?

I will however point out that many people are poor are because they were godawful with their money, that is a real consideration to bear in mind as an objective thinker https://www.thebalance.com/habits-of-perpetually-broke-people-4066985)

this doesnt provide any statistics to show that poor people engage in these behaviours. its a self help website. for all i know, it could be trying to address people who earn 6 figures and still struggle with their finances, not the people who earn fuck all that have been the focus of discussion the last few pages. once again, does not prove what youre saying.


you shouldnt use sources - you consistently embarass urself when u do. pretty terrifying to think u will be teaching the children of tomorrow.

 

[Dece1t]

Care to explain why European countries like France and Germany have just 0.2 percent of people living on less than $5.50 per day - a tenth of the US rate - in a way that’s consistent with conservative theory? I assume you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

I’m saying this as a former right libertarian. I realized not too long ago that right libertarian theory just isn’t consistent with how the world really works.

EDIT: Also, stop using countries like China and Venezuela as counterarguments against socialism. These countries are economic disasters because of authoritarianism and general autocracy.

Socialism is authoritarianism. Centralizing the government to do whatevever the hell you want is authoritarianism. So no, I'm not gonna stop using them. How about do me a solid and name one Capitalist republic that isn't bringing people out of poverty then it otherwise wouldn't have had it not been Capitalist Oh wait...

Also, to answer your question, I assume this (https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/p...y-half-the-world-lives-on-less-than-550-a-day) is where you're getting that statistic from? I'd like to say poverty on the whole is the bigger issue, where https://www.thelocal.fr/20160907/over-14-percent-of-the-french-live-below-poverty-line 14% of French live below the poverty line on the whole, whereas the US is at 12.3%. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states Pretty similar. So your answer is, your question is misleading.

well im learning a lot, i never knew federal programs were the cause of high rents in cities. Nor did I have the insight to realize that taxing rich ppl to pay for social programs was going to affect the taxes of anyone clocking less than 400k a year. i personally am not doing that well yet, but I am sure to be a rich person soon when I get that taco bell manager corporate subsidy. and since all the impoverished plebes are overworked at their 4 20 hour a week jobs w no benefits and no time to cook their own dinner, the economic future is bright for fast food managers. praise be.

You're doing a great job being useless and stawmanning my arguments more than contributing anything else to this lol

 

[vonFiedler]

"name one capitalist republic that isn't bringing people out of poverty"

their whole fucking argument is that this capitalist republic isn't bringing people out of poverty

 

[Dece1t]

this washington examiner piece heavily mischaracterises the cnn article it piggybacks from. min waging is bad because muh big gubberment but... an employer raising their min wage without government prompting is bad because also government? i would daresay the cnn headline it borrows from is also misleading. the wording of the cnn piece seems to imply the sample size they interviewed for their article only comes from one store in one city, which is hardly reflective of the state of all target stores across amrica. not only this but cnn does nothing to connect the wage increase to the drop in hours in a way that proves causation. they even give other reasons why the hours mightve dropped, such as modernisation and recruiting more staff than there are hours to provide full time positions for....and go on to add that the state of employees receiving less hours than what they wish to receive is common throughout the retail industry, not just target. did these other stores have similar increases in minimum wages which we can blame their employees for being underemployed for? i genuinely dont know the answer, but the article doesnt supply one either and if it did i have an inkling that it wouldve been brought up. this doesnt provide any evidence for your claims in the paragraph

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/8/20686392/federal-15-minimum-wage-raise-the-wage-act
It's to show they got what they wanted, the minimum wage for that Target rose, but there were less jobs and less hours because of it. And that's what happening in states that are enacting this shit. I posted the previous article as a sign of what could come if we're not careful, you took me out of context in the bold. If you don't like that, here's on from Vox since we're source crazy all the sudden (even though I don't see Adamant Zoroark post anything).

perhaps the reason why cost of living in new york is higher than north carolina is because of factors other than the gov like oh i dont know, living in new york being far more in demand than north carolina?

I'll concede there, it can definitely be both, but explain that about Texas, because you lost me there.

this doesnt provide any statistics to show that poor people engage in these behaviours. its a self help website. for all i know, it could be trying to address people who earn 6 figures and still struggle with their finances, not the people who earn fuck all that have been the focus of discussion the last few pages. once again, does not prove what youre saying.

I posted a different one before, but y'all shouted me down essentially saying "that's dumb," or "it's not that simple." How about statistically, yea it is. I'll post that source again for your convenience.

Hide

...All Americans are in a much better position to succeed if they honor certain basic norms: graduate from high school; get a full-time job; don’t have a child before age 21 and get married before childbearing. Among the people who do these things, according to the research of Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution, about 75 percent attain the middle class, broadly defined.

you shouldnt use sources - you consistently embarass urself when u do. pretty terrifying to think u will be teaching the children of tomorrow.

Politics is a bit different from teaching kids. I thought we were done with the insults, but I mean if we're not I'll gladly keep going, because I got a whole arsenal of them.

 

[Dece1t]

"name one capitalist republic that isn't bringing people out of poverty"

their whole fucking argument is that this capitalist republic isn't bringing people out of poverty

Then why are Capitalists countries among the richest in the world and among the least impoverished? I think much more other authoritarian countries have their own, much worse poverty problems, and yet here you and everyone else are bitching about the US.

 

[vonFiedler]

Then why are Capitalists countries among the richest in the world and among the least impoverished?

their whole fucking argument is that this capitalist republic isn't bringing people out of poverty

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Then why are Capitalists countries among the richest in the world and among the least impoverished? I think much more other authoritarian countries have their own, much worse poverty problems, and yet here you and everyone else are bitching about the US.

The US might have the highest GDP in the world and rank in the top 10 for GDP per capita, but that means fuckall to the thousands of homeless people in Skid Row while the richest three Americans have more cumulative wealth than the bottom half of the country. I go to school in Los Angeles county and see this disparity every single time I drive into LA city limits. In the same city with thousands of homeless people on Skid Row and people living in tents just outside Hollywood, the rich people there show off their wealth driving by them in their Ferrari. The fact of the matter is, in terms of income inequality and social mobility, we're ranking worse than our fellow developed countries.

Oh, also, while I'm on the topic of Los Angeles (since I know you're itching to bring up LA's outrageous rents), monthly rent in Berlin is consistently less than half of what it is in LA and both cities have a similar population of roughly four million people. So how is it that Berlin manages to keep their rents low while you need to be making around $80k to be able to comfortably live in Los Angeles? (hint: the answer isn't rent control; Germany has stricter regulations on landlords than California does). Perhaps it's because people's employers also own homes and do everything in their power to quash affordable housing developments in an effort to keep their property values artificially high? Or also the absurd zoning policies in ultra-rich California cities like Los Altos Hills and Beverly Hills, using land deliberately inefficiently to have some of the highest property values in the country? It's almost like rich people want to make everyone else's lives miserable by keeping wages flat and housing costs high *thinking emoji*

 

[Dece1t]

their whole fucking argument is that this capitalist republic isn't bringing people out of poverty

https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty

.

Say that a third time.

 

[KingBrine41]

I don't know some of these names, but I know most. And I want to raise this point: with how Trump has gotten into office in 2016 against a lot of predictions, he will most possibly win again. Imo (and I've discussed this with many Democrats at my school [I happen to be a moderate who leans slightly left]), Bernie Sanders really doesn't have a chance. The "Silent Majority" are really out, pushing for Trump. The Democrats only real hope is having someone who is more moderate, and that's why I believe Biden should be Democratic candidate. There's things I really don't agree with on Sander's platform (ie. the free college thing. It will just raise taxes for everyone), but he's still a great person. For Democrats to have a chance, they will have to go extremely left or try to stay as moderate as possible.

 

[Dece1t]

The US might have the highest GDP in the world and rank in the top 10 for GDP per capita, but that means fuckall to the thousands of homeless people in Skid Row while the richest three Americans have more cumulative wealth than the bottom half of the country. I go to school in Los Angeles county and see this disparity every single time I drive into LA city limits. In the same city with thousands of homeless people on Skid Row and people living in tents just outside Hollywood, the rich people there show off their wealth driving by them in their Ferrari. The fact of the matter is, in terms of income inequality and social mobility, we're ranking worse than our fellow developed countries.

Oh, also, while I'm on the topic of Los Angeles (since I know you're itching to bring up LA's outrageous rents), monthly rent in Berlin is consistently less than half of what it is in LA and both cities have a similar population of roughly four million people. So how is it that Berlin manages to keep their rents low while you need to be making around $80k to be able to comfortably live in Los Angeles? (hint: the answer isn't rent control; Germany has stricter regulations on landlords than California does). Perhaps it's because people's employers also own homes and do everything in their power to quash affordable housing developments in an effort to keep their property values artificially high? Or also the absurd zoning policies in ultra-rich California cities like Los Altos Hills and Beverly Hills, using land deliberately inefficiently to have some of the highest property values in the country? It's almost like rich people want to make everyone else's lives miserable by keeping wages flat and housing costs high *thinking emoji*

Because Los Angeles (and California on the whole) is a fucked up place. California's been so bad that San Fransisco needed to create a Poop Patrol because of how bad the situation has been getting from people living on the streets. Sadly, that's been a big city problem on the whole which I'd argue is from hard left big government policies, and something conservatives have been starting to argue about.

 

[vonFiedler]

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

MIGHT be useful to base your understanding of poverty on the price of living where people are making they're money

 

[Dece1t]

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

MIGHT be useful to base your understanding of poverty on the price of living where people are making they're money

You didn't disprove anything I said because my statistics are still based off of poverty lines lmfao. I'm not sure what you dont get by that.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Because Los Angeles (and California on the whole) is a fucked up place. California's been so bad that San Fransisco needed to create a Poop Patrol because of how bad the situation has been getting from people living on the streets. Sadly, that's been a big city problem on the whole which I'd argue is from hard left big government policies, and something conservatives have been starting to argue about.

Gavin Newsom has been signing anti-NIMBY laws to prevent some of the obstructionism and the seeds that became California's housing crisis *cough* Proposition 13 *cough* were planted when the state was still voting Republican in presidential elections, but sure, let's blame it all on the Democrats. Things don't get this bad overnight and don't get solved overnight. Also, do recognize that the NIMBY homeowners in California are largely to blame for how bad things have gotten and, even in California, this cohort is largely Republican. My source on all of this is that I'm the one who fucking lives here.

 

[vonFiedler]

You didn't disprove anything I said because my statistics are still based off of poverty lines lmfao. I'm not sure what you dont get by that.

Your wiki link says there are three times as many people in poverty in the US than in China... and 50% more in the US than in Thailand.

 

[PDC]

Because Los Angeles (and California on the whole) is a fucked up place. California's been so bad that San Fransisco needed to create a Poop Patrol because of how bad the situation has been getting from people living on the streets. Sadly, that's been a big city problem on the whole which I'd argue is from hard left big government policies, and something conservatives have been starting to argue about.

god i fucking hate how california has been turned into some conservative talking point. it seems that every conservative pundit throats a tantrum over how 'terrible' san fran has become due to 'liberal' policies. i genuinely don't understand how people can repeat this nonsense that progressive politicians are in favor of people being homeless. i see this rhetoric paraded around daily by conservatives. california is the new chicago -- a geographic area plagued by problems (nearly entirely resulting from deep structural inequalities) which is then in turned used by conservatives to shit on the poor/black people. conservatives don't want to fix either of these problems, they just want to use these cities as places to perpetually shit on minority groups in democratic districts. somehow they have convinced people like yourself that if a conservative was elected in that district (they primarily pick on congressional reps, who don't even CONTROL the actual state laws affecting cities) it would be magnificently cleaned up. however, these are not problems an election can solve -- but by keeping up that facade conservatives keep getting a perpetual rhetorical win whenever they turn on the tv. maybe democrats should just play a mirror game and show all the poor white districts in the midwest? it'd be an equally cheap political win.

you want to know why homelessness is so bad in san fran and cali? because it's warm. because other cities bus their homeless people to warmer cities so they don't freeze to death in the winter. people can live year-round in these coastal cities. homelessness is bad in california because exorbitant rent prices, the shrinking availiability of affordable houses due to the big tech boom in the area. homelessness is bad there because of a nation-wide opiod and mental health crisis. it's bad because not enough shelters exist, because mental health resources are abysmal, because perhaps the 'liberal establishment' in california isn't as liberal as you think.

what is the conservative retort to all of these problems? and what is their solution? they really don't have a way to solve this crisis, their entire objective is just to point and whine about how bad liberals are. exactly like you're doing right now. homelessness has been turned into another shitty talking point, just like inner-city violence.

guess we'll just have to raise taxes huh? or vastly expand social programs? or do more boogeyman big government shit, right? seriously, i *really* want to see what your solution to this is from a limited government standpoint. maybe we'll open a bunch of contracted homeless shelters which make money off the homeless and seek to perpetuate the problem...

 

[Dece1t]

Gavin Newsom has been signing anti-NIMBY laws to prevent some of the obstructionism and the seeds that became California's housing crisis *cough* Proposition 13 *cough* were planted when the state was still voting Republican in presidential elections, but sure, let's blame it all on the Democrats. Things don't get this bad overnight and don't get solved overnight. Also, do recognize that the NIMBY homeowners in California are largely to blame for how bad things have gotten and, even in California, this cohort is largely Republican. My source on all of this is that I'm the one who fucking lives here.

Yea, Democrats did turn Calirfornia, and sadly many of our big cities into trash heaps.
v From a liberal

god i fucking hate how california has been turned into some conservative talking point. it seems that every conservative pundit throats a tantrum over how 'terrible' san fran has become due to 'liberal' policies. i genuinely don't understand how people can repeat this nonsense that progressive politicians are in favor of people being homeless. i see this rhetoric paraded around daily by conservatives. california is the new chicago -- a geographic area plagued by problems (nearly entirely resulting from deep structural inequalities) which is then in turned used by conservatives to shit on the poor/black people. conservatives don't want to fix either of these problems, they just want to use these cities as places to perpetually shit on minority groups in democratic districts. somehow they have convinced people like yourself that if a conservative was elected in that district (they primarily pick on congressional reps, who don't even CONTROL the actual state laws affecting cities) it would be magnificently cleaned up. however, these are not problems an election can solve -- but by keeping up that facade conservatives keep getting a perpetual rhetorical win whenever they turn on the tv. maybe democrats should just play a mirror game and show all the poor white districts in the midwest? it'd be an equally cheap political win.

you want to know why homelessness is so bad in san fran and cali? because it's warm. because other cities bus their homeless people to warmer cities so they don't freeze to death in the winter. people can live year-round in these coastal cities. homelessness is bad in california because exorbitant rent prices, the shrinking availiability of affordable houses due to the big tech boom in the area. homelessness is bad there because of a nation-wide opiod and mental health crisis. it's bad because not enough shelters exist, because mental health resources are abysmal, because perhaps the 'liberal establishment' in california isn't as liberal as you think.

what is the conservative retort to all of these problems? and what is their solution? they really don't have a way to solve this crisis, their entire objective is just to point and whine about how bad liberals are. exactly like you're doing right now. homelessness has been turned into another shitty talking point, just like inner-city violence.

guess we'll just have to raise taxes huh? or vastly expand social programs? or do more boogeyman big government shit, right? seriously, i *really* want to see what your solution to this is from a limited government standpoint. maybe we'll open a bunch of contracted homeless shelters which make money off the homeless and seek to perpetuate the problem...

Lol. It's your cities man. Own it. And you can look at successes from conservative governing. Look at when Rudy Guiliani cleaned up New York City (and no I am not claiming he's a good lawyer, I don't like him, but his results from being mayor in New York showed). Look at the national unemployment rate under Trump, which I've cited now numerous times.

Edit:
Here's your solution though since you so politely asked. Let the free market do its work. Let business compete so that they can lower the cost of goods and services, and raise their wages and give more benefits. Why? Because as a consumer they want your business to keep going, and you as a citizen have the powerful ability to shut down businesses you don't like by simply not going to them. If enough people agree, they don't last. You choose what businesses you want to buy from, and more times than not, you'll want to go to the businesses with the cheeper goods and who can give you more bang for your buck on the whole. In turn, they'll want to make more and make it better. That's basic supply and demand. Because as an employee, businesses want you to work for them. If you see a business hiring people for more than some of the surrounding businesses (depending on the labor), other businesses will likely react in turn because they want people to work for them as opposed to the other company.

Your wiki link says there are three times as many people in poverty in the US than in China... and 50% more in the US than in Thailand.

I'm seeing some 27% of people in China making less than 5.50 a day, with the US at substantially less. Not sure where the hell you're getting that one from.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Yea, Democrats did turn Calirfornia, and sadly many of our big cities into trash heaps.

Lol. It's your cities man. Own it.



I'm seeing some 27% of people in China making less than 5.50 a day, with the US at substantially less. Not sure where the hell you're getting that one from.

Good job completely ignoring what we've been saying and also proving our point. I have literally been explaining how California's housing situation has been exacerbated by (largely Republican) homeowners suing to stop new housing developments for completely selfish reasons and you basically responded with "nuh-uh" and citing Tim Pool talking about Trump's attacks on California's governor (which, knowing Trump, is because California is one of the major blue states, so it's an easy target for him). Trump and conservatives don't have a solution to California's housing crisis. They just want to delegitimize the whole state.

 

[Dece1t]

Good job completely ignoring what we've been saying and also proving our point. I have literally been explaining how California's housing situation has been exacerbated by (largely Republican) homeowners suing to stop new housing developments for completely selfish reasons and you basically responded with "nuh-uh" and citing Tim Pool talking about Trump's attacks on California's governor (which, knowing Trump, is because California is one of the major blue states, so it's an easy target for him). Trump and conservatives don't have a solution to California's housing crisis. They just want to delegitimize the whole state.

Look at my edit. I responded to PDC with the basic solution.

Edit: I'll make it clearer. Their solution is to cut heavy regulations from businesses.

 

[eifo]

Socialism is authoritarianism. Centralizing the government to do whatevever the hell you want is authoritarianism.

odd how i read about socialism in my curriculum, yet somehow it didn't mention that socialism is inherently authoritarian. wow, i had no idea. here i was thinking democratic socialism was based on democratic reformism.

If you wanna look at how "sticking it to the corporations" has gone? You can look at China and Venezuela to start. If not that, how about Communist Russia? Marxism and Socialism do not work. It has been tried countlessly, and it's only destroyed more than it has created any wealth or prosperity. There's no "trying it right," it's been done as intended until some crazy wacko takes all of the power. That's also why I'm against most centralized government policies, or anything that makes the government more powerful than it actually is. I'm for the free market through competition doing the work.

u keep bringing up china and the soviet union in order to refute socialism/marxism/communism, when (i) the former two are/were economically organized after state capitalism; (ii) there's a huge difference between the latter three ideal types u conflate with one another, which again have several sub-types; (iii) e.g. neo-marxism (aka modern marxism/western marxism) explicitly states that it is "repelled by the Bolshevik model of orthodox communism" (Heywood 1992:121).

Then why are Capitalists countries among the richest in the world and among the least impoverished? I think much more other authoritarian countries have their own, much worse poverty problems, and yet here you and everyone else are bitching about the US.

why that would be because this is a thread about "democratic candidates discussion", i.e. US politics. your endless whataboutism responses is a display of intellectual laziness. stop it.

wanna know what the "capitalist countries among the richest in the world and least impoverished" look like? they're based on this funny concept called social democracy (aka the nordic model). norway, sweden, denmark and finland have way less issues wrt poverty and than the US. turns out, taxing the rich at a reasonable rate ensures proper funding to universal programs, who in turn become good enough to out-compete the private alternatives. when u redistribute money in order to make sure there is relative equality, u get actual equality of opportunity, while still keeping the profit incentive neoliberals love to death. when u regulate business, it won't screw over the workers. when u don't fuck over the majority of the population at the expense of the few, but rather invest in them wrt health care/education/water/infrastructure/social safety net, and thus give them the same opportunities as the boogies, they do better. "sticking it to the corporations" works.