• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

income inequality debate

We're just not gonna agree, and that's fine. I too appreciate the conversation though. Let me stress, I'm as concerned about the population growth and all that entails as I am some of the other aspects. Aren't you a libertarian? I seem to recall you saying you were but that might have been someone else. It used to be libertarians were very much pro-immigration/open borders but I've noticed a split in recent years. Just wondering if that has influenced your thinking on the issue.
 
I could probably be described as a bleeding heart libertarian. I think libertarians have a lot of really good ideas that could really help free up our economy for more growth, reduce the prison population, etc. etc. I don't subscribe to the Ayn Rand libertarian true believers, that stuff is a fantasy that leads to nothing but strong man rule and anarchy. A modern society requires a strong state, a decent safety net, and good institutions that are capable of protecting the weak from the strong.
 
Recommended reading.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/20-years-welfare-reform/496730/

Cleveland, where the Republicans hosted their convention this year, is one of the poorest cities in the country and a place where the effects of this reform can be seen most plainly. What has happened to welfare in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland and its inner suburbs, is reflective of its fate elsewhere in the nation. Currently, the county’s TANF-to-poverty ratio (the fraction of poor families with children who are actually receiving help from the program) sits at 22 percent—right about at Ohio’s, and the nation’s, average. (In some states, it is dramatically lower, such as Georgia, where it is just six, and Texas, where it is five.)

Wait, i thought I was told that the safety net is a hammock and all this free cash we're giving out is keeping people poor and if we cut the free cash they'll all get a job? (checks poverty and unemployment rates in Georgia and Texas) Hmm.

To put it plainly, TANF is not really a welfare program at all. Peter Germanis, a conservative expert on welfare policy and former Reagan White House aide, describes it best, as a “fixed and flexible funding stream”—think slush fund—for states, provided by what are known as “block grants.” Yes, some block-grant dollars are used to provide cash aid to struggling families. But three of every four dollars allocated to TANF is directed toward other purposes.

Built into the very core of TANF are perverse incentives for states to shed families from the welfare rolls. If they do so, they get to keep the money and use it for other things. And outside of what’s spent on cash aid, there is virtually no meaningful oversight on how the rest of the money is spent.

If past is prologue, the dollars devoted to cash assistance will only continue to dwindle. Even in 2006, TANF had far greater reach than it does now. Meanwhile, counts of the number of families knocking on the doors of the nation’s food pantries have reached the highest point ever recorded. “Donations” of blood plasma in exchange for cash have tripled in the last decade. School-aged children are increasingly likely to be homeless or doubled up. In sum, on many measures, child and family wellbeing has taken a nosedive.

What states spend astonishingly little on—besides cash assistance—is helping the poor find employment. In 2014, Ohio—which is about at the national average here—allocated only 8 percent of combined federal and state TANF funding to vital “hand-up” activities linking recipients to jobs.
 
I could probably be described as a bleeding heart libertarian. I think libertarians have a lot of really good ideas that could really help free up our economy for more growth, reduce the prison population, etc. etc. I don't subscribe to the Ayn Rand libertarian true believers, that stuff is a fantasy that leads to nothing but strong man rule and anarchy. A modern society requires a strong state, a decent safety net, and good institutions that are capable of protecting the weak from the strong.

Your last sentence has nothing to do with libertarianism. Further, libertarians are against things like civil rights laws saying they deny business owners, schools, etc., their liberty. Libertarians are against government regulations. Go to the border with Mexico, India, China and other places to see what happens whens businesses don't have to worry about dumping, polluting the air, water or safety regulations.

In a perfect world, libertarianism would be wonderful. Sadly, we are far from that in the real world.
 
Note that the person bailing out the sinking dinghy isn't as concerned with a rising tide.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 
Your last sentence has nothing to do with libertarianism. Further, libertarians are against things like civil rights laws saying they deny business owners, schools, etc., their liberty. Libertarians are against government regulations. Go to the border with Mexico, India, China and other places to see what happens whens businesses don't have to worry about dumping, polluting the air, water or safety regulations.

In a perfect world, libertarianism would be wonderful. Sadly, we are far from that in the real world.

Did you even read his post (from like 10 months ago)?
 
DTWIFEZXUAANmB1.jpg
 
Not sure where to put this. Good article, analysis, and chart comparing the economic performance of Trump counties to Clinton counties. Spoiler: All the money and jobs are in the Clinton counties. https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/politics/economy-prosperity-paradox-divide-country-voters/index.html The question is how long can the rubes hold onto power and override the policy preferences of the people who are actually creating jobs and wealth and funding the government with their tax dollars?
 
It's the Dems job to win over enough of those voters, and not punt because racism. Obama did it at least once, and he is actually black. People want hope, not pragmatic pussy foot hem-haw bullshit. Dems for some stupid fucking reason think they have a better chance of converting racist suburban MAGA chuds instead of disenfranchised working class voters.
 
Last edited:
A very good, long read which brings together a lot of concepts about income inequality, opportunity hoarding, and the eventual downfall of the aristocracy we're building in America.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/

I’ve joined a new aristocracy now, even if we still call ourselves meritocratic winners. If you are a typical reader of The Atlantic, you may well be a member too. (And if you’re not a member, my hope is that you will find the story of this new class even more interesting—if also more alarming.) To be sure, there is a lot to admire about my new group, which I’ll call—for reasons you’ll soon see—the 9.9 percent. We’ve dropped the old dress codes, put our faith in facts, and are (somewhat) more varied in skin tone and ethnicity. People like me, who have waning memories of life in an earlier ruling caste, are the exception, not the rule.

By any sociological or financial measure, it’s good to be us. It’s even better to be our kids. In our health, family life, friendship networks, and level of education, not to mention money, we are crushing the competition below. But we do have a blind spot, and it is located right in the center of the mirror: We seem to be the last to notice just how rapidly we’ve morphed, or what we’ve morphed into.

The meritocratic class has mastered the old trick of consolidating wealth and passing privilege along at the expense of other people’s children. We are not innocent bystanders to the growing concentration of wealth in our time. We are the principal accomplices in a process that is slowly strangling the economy, destabilizing American politics, and eroding democracy. Our delusions of merit now prevent us from recognizing the nature of the problem that our emergence as a class represents. We tend to think that the victims of our success are just the people excluded from the club. But history shows quite clearly that, in the kind of game we’re playing, everybody loses badly in the end.
 
Related: how the Baby Boomers broke America.

the most talented, driven Americans used what makes America great–the First Amendment, due process, financial and legal ingenuity, free markets and free trade, meritocracy, even democracy itself–to chase the American Dream. And they won it, for themselves. Then, in a way unprecedented in history, they were able to consolidate their winnings, outsmart and co-opt the forces that might have reined them in, and pull up the ladder so more could not share in their success or challenge their primacy.

The result is a new, divided America. On one side are the protected few – the winners – who don’t need government for much and even have a stake in sabotaging the government’s responsibility to all of its citizens. For them, the new, broken America works fine, at least in the short term. An understaffed IRS is a plus for people most likely to be the target of audits. Underfunded customer service at the Social Security Administration is irrelevant to those not living week to week, waiting for their checks. Except for the most civic-minded among them, corporate executives are not likely to worry that their government doesn’t produce a comprehensive budget. They don’t worry about the straitjacket their government faces in recruiting and rewarding talent or in training or dismissing the untalented because of a broken civil-service system. Civil service is another great American reform that in the last 50 years has become a great American moat, protecting incompetent or corrupt workers, like those who supervised the Veterans Affairs hospitals where patient waiting lists were found to have been falsified.

On the other side are the unprotected many. They may be independent and hardworking, but they look to their government to preserve their way of life and maybe even improve it. The unprotected need the government to provide good public schools so that their children have a chance to advance. They need a level competitive playing field for their small businesses, a fair shake in consumer disputes and a realistic shot at justice in the courts. They need the government to provide a safety net to ensure that their families have access to good health care, that no one goes hungry when shifts in the economy or temporary setbacks take away their jobs and that they get help to rebuild after a hurricane or other disaster. They need the government to ensure a safe workplace and a living minimum wage. They need mass-transit systems that work and call centers at Social Security offices that don’t produce busy signals. They need the government to keep the political system fair and protect it from domination by those who can give politicians the most money. They need the government to provide fair labor laws and to promote an economy and a tax code that tempers the extremes of income inequality and makes economic opportunity more than an empty cliché.
 
On the other side are the unprotected many. They may be independent and hardworking, but they look to their government to preserve their way of life and maybe even improve it. The unprotected need the government to provide good public schools so that their children have a chance to advance. They need a level competitive playing field for their small businesses, a fair shake in consumer disputes and a realistic shot at justice in the courts. They need the government to provide a safety net to ensure that their families have access to good health care, that no one goes hungry when shifts in the economy or temporary setbacks take away their jobs and that they get help to rebuild after a hurricane or other disaster. They need the government to ensure a safe workplace and a living minimum wage. They need mass-transit systems that work and call centers at Social Security offices that don’t produce busy signals. They need the government to keep the political system fair and protect it from domination by those who can give politicians the most money. They need the government to provide fair labor laws and to promote an economy and a tax code that tempers the extremes of income inequality and makes economic opportunity more than an empty cliché.

I take exception with this comment; most independent/hardworking folks are doing just fine. Unfortunately in this country we've raised a generation where many either couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag or would rather have mom/dad or the gov't. do it for them (and if that doesn't work, then figure out how to sue somebody). The glimmer of hope I see in my area is the number of young Hispanics and their families who are operating restaurants, opening law and accounting offices, going to the community college to learn an in-demand trade, etc. while some of our "good kids" head to Raleigh or Charlotte to wait tables and "couch surf" b/c there's "no opportunity" here.
 
it's always weird when two or more media outlets release essays/longform pieces that are almost the same thing
 
It's the Dems job to win over enough of those voters, and not punt because racism. Obama did it at least once, and he is actually black. People want hope, not pragmatic pussy foot hem-haw bullshit. Dems for some stupid fucking reason think they have a better chance of converting racist suburban MAGA chuds instead of disenfranchised working class voters.

There are far too many limousine liberals in the Democratic Party. They would much rather "convert' other affluent people, than associate with the poor. Its why the party is broken.
 
On the other side are the unprotected many. They may be independent and hardworking, but they look to their government to preserve their way of life and maybe even improve it. The unprotected need the government to provide good public schools so that their children have a chance to advance. They need a level competitive playing field for their small businesses, a fair shake in consumer disputes and a realistic shot at justice in the courts. They need the government to provide a safety net to ensure that their families have access to good health care, that no one goes hungry when shifts in the economy or temporary setbacks take away their jobs and that they get help to rebuild after a hurricane or other disaster. They need the government to ensure a safe workplace and a living minimum wage. They need mass-transit systems that work and call centers at Social Security offices that don’t produce busy signals. They need the government to keep the political system fair and protect it from domination by those who can give politicians the most money. They need the government to provide fair labor laws and to promote an economy and a tax code that tempers the extremes of income inequality and makes economic opportunity more than an empty cliché.

I take exception with this comment; most independent/hardworking folks are doing just fine. Unfortunately in this country we've raised a generation where many either couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag or would rather have mom/dad or the gov't. do it for them (and if that doesn't work, then figure out how to sue somebody). The glimmer of hope I see in my area is the number of young Hispanics and their families who are operating restaurants, opening law and accounting offices, going to the community college to learn an in-demand trade, etc. while some of our "good kids" head to Raleigh or Charlotte to wait tables and "couch surf" b/c there's "no opportunity" here.

But that’s part of the point. If you had to bet who would be better off 10 years from now, would you bet on “good kids” from upper class households or hard working children of Hispanic restaurant owners?
 
I take exception with this comment; most independent/hardworking folks are doing just fine...

Oh really? That's good to hear. I was worried for a while, but now i'm reassured that all the hardworkers are doing fine.
 
But that’s part of the point. If you had to bet who would be better off 10 years from now, would you bet on “good kids” from upper class households or hard working children of Hispanic restaurant owners?

If by "better off" you mean self-reliant, stable, happy to get up in the a.m. for another opportunity to "get after it" and not on opioids, I'll go with the Hispanics.
 
Back
Top