The News Thread

[Baroque]

I only mentioned my own upbringing to create a counterpoint against this.

"but I can see why poor people would feel that way."

Note I didn't say "Every poor person feels this way"

I said "I can see why poor people would feel that way"

It's very different. I'm saying I can see why, if I were poor, I might think that people with more fish than they can eat should let me have some fish instead of wasting it.

Again you are ascribing a statement to me that I didn't state. It was a personal opinion about how I might feel if I were poor, which you took to mean my opinion about all poor people.

As to your article,

Basically that 28% might just be the bare minimum of how many people are in poverty in the black community.

It's very close to the well established poverty line that they're using imo.

Would you still argue that the majority of blacks are in poverty as you suggested before? Present some stats to back that up then, because I've shown stats to the contrary.

 

[Matt]

Do you ever stop being a condescending douchebag?

You're pretty condescending yourself honestly. Anyway, I'm not reading that article because I'm asking you to make a case yourself instead of just posting your partisan spin. I've stated facts and why I subsequently think the way I do, you've just spouted some crap about socialism and "keeping my dirty hands off their money" or something along those lines. I could care less about what some pundit thinks.

Besides, I don't really think you do understand what it means. Are you opposed to a progressive tax system? Probably in favor of a flat tax right? lmao

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Yeah, that's not satire. It's propaganda.

How is the "if he bites you" one propoganda? Anyway, all three are just about spot on.

I'll give one thing to Bernie(and even Trump), he comes off as a kind of honest person to me. I dont agree with 95% of the words that come out of his dumb mouth, but at least you can tell he's being somewhat honest. Which is more than can be said for that cunt who should probably be doing time in some prison rather than winning the democratic nomination(and probably the presidency )

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

So poverty isn't a norm in the black community, it's an exception?

yes, sadly.

Are you suggesting poor people are more willing to take the money of other people? They have pride you know. I should know, I grew up poor.

I did too, and yes "poor people" are definitely more willing to take handouts to put food on their families table and a roof over their heads.

Yeah, post some bullshit propaganda vids. You're like TechnicalBarbarity without the associated bullshit.

Also - what do you even think that "wealth redistribution" means in the context of American politics?

Please keep my name out of your filthy mouth.

 

[CiG]

My laptop just crashed so fucking hard I went for a shower waiting for the bastard to right itself. I'm so mad now but at the same time refreshed.

 

[CiG]

You're pretty condescending yourself honestly. Anyway, I'm not reading that article because I'm asking you to make a case yourself instead of just posting your partisan spin. I've stated facts and why I subsequently think the way I do, you've just spouted some crap about socialism and "keeping my dirty hands off their money" or something along those lines. I could care less about what some pundit thinks.

Besides, I don't really think you do understand what it means. Are you opposed to a progressive tax system? Probably in favor of a flat tax right? lmao

I'm a dickhead but I very rarely condescend and assume ignorance or stupidity in others.

You're pretty much one of the only people in here I've seen do that, which is fine I can take it but I won't lie, I sometimes fantasise about Arg mushing you like a bouncer, nonchalantly dealing with a drunk bitch trying to get into a bar.

I'm against whatever you're in favour of, how do you like that faggot?

Anyway, I posted the article because my laptop is playing up. But basically I'm against wealth redistribution because it kills incentives to make money.

You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.

Also yes, I'm in favour of a flat tax.

Would you still argue that the majority of blacks are in poverty as you suggested before? Present some stats to back that up then, because I've shown stats to the contrary.

It would depend what percentage of blacks are in each different class for me. If that 28% is the highest among the rest of the classes blacks belong to, I think I might be right. If more blacks are in poverty than they are any other single class that would suggest it is a norm rather than an exception.

45.8 percent of young black children (under age 6) live in poverty, how many of these kids will break out of poverty?

Anyway you are probably right I'll admit I didn't know about that 28% statistic.

 

[arg]

lol Matt thinks he will get free money if Bernie or Hillary get elected. they will raise taxes on everyone's ass, not just on the rich

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

AUG 2020?

 

[arg]

BERNIE TAX

HILLARY TAX

TRUMP TAX

 

[Dak]

Severe inequality is a symptom of something(s). Yet instead of trying to discover the cause(s), lets just HURDURTAXSTUFFHURDUR.

 

[The Butt]

Trump or an unpeeled cob of corn.

Who wore the hairstyle better????

 

[CiG]

Trump or an unpeeled cob of corn.

Who wore the hairstyle better????

Fucking lol'd.

 

[rms]

Severe inequality is a symptom of something(s). Yet instead of trying to discover the cause(s), lets just HURDURTAXSTUFFHURDUR.

Isn't the cause a combination of a capitalist system + the realization that "old money" is a real thing? Then compounded by a conflicted government etc..

I don't think poor people wanted money..I remember the first time I got actual $ from the government for being poor, it was from using FAFSA my first semester at a community college. I had about a grand extra that went into my pocket, and it was cool. But I had a lot of services that were provided to me my entire upbringing that were essential.

I don't think anyone is saying $ is going to poor people with Sanders' plan, but rather some % of more income will go directly to services that are now paid for, which in the end will save $ of the middle class (Health + College) which in turn will contribute to the spending economy. That's my guess. I think the question more or less lies in "How big will government get in healthcare and education?" vs. "Do people require this?" I don't want the government rationing oreos and alcohol because the obvious health risks which in turn will save more money for the U.S.

 

[Dak]

Isn't the cause a combination of a capitalist system + the realization that "old money" is a real thing? Then compounded by a conflicted government etc..

Severe inequality can be the rule with or without capitalism as a general economic orientation. It's rentseeking in all its forms that insulates and systematically enriches the richest. But instead of investigating these mechanisms, wealth redistribution merely attempts to scrape some off the top and throw it under the table.

I don't think poor people wanted money..I remember the first time I got actual $ from the government for being poor, it was from using FAFSA my first semester at a community college. I had about a grand extra that went into my pocket, and it was cool. But I had a lot of services that were provided to me my entire upbringing that were essential.

Direct money transfers would help people more than a panoply of "services", but neither help people grow any more financially literate or responsible.

 

[arg]

The best ways to boost the economy are:

Tax cuts on businesses so they have more money to make more and better products and hire more people. Maybe even a tax cut for operating locally.

Tax cuts on the middle class so they have more money to buy more stuff which will boost businesses.

THE ABOVE IS TRUMP'S PLAN

On the other hand Bernie and Hillary want to tax rich people, tax businesses (which will cause salary cuts, layoffs and bankruptcy), raise the minimum wage (which will also have those same 3 effects), tax middle class people TAX EVERYONE OUT THEIR ASS!

 

[rms]

@Dak Your last sentence seems directly disputed by the ability to attain a collegiate degree/certificate

Severe inequality can be the rule with or without capitalism as a general economic orientation. It's rentseeking in all its forms that insulates and systematically enriches the richest. But instead of investigating these mechanisms, wealth redistribution merely attempts to scrape some off the top and throw it under the table.

A capitalist system encourages profiteering and exploitation of the working class. I'm not sure any system can attain this kind of inequality without, effectively, controlling the worker population.

The best ways to boost the economy are:

Boosting economy does not mean destroying inequality. While suggestion 2 makes sense and that's what stimulus packages aim to do, step 1 does nothing to increase the buying power of the American working class.

 

[Dak]

@Dak Your last sentence seems directly disputed by the ability to attain a collegiate degree/certificate

People are graduating high school and college while remaining near-illiterate (and reading/writing is something you must use daily). How many people are going to take any serious courses on economics, philosophy, politics, etc., and even further - internalizing instead of merely regurgitating for a test and then data dumping? A diploma in itself doesn't mean much anymore other than the ability to stick with something to completion (which is important, but doesn't mean the person is going to be one you'd want sticking around).

A capitalist system encourages profiteering and exploitation of the working class. I'm not sure any system can attain this kind of inequality without, effectively, controlling the worker population.

You're going to need a little more than some marxist buzzwords to make the point you want to here.

 

[Matt]

Severe inequality is a symptom of something(s). Yet instead of trying to discover the cause(s), lets just HURDURTAXSTUFFHURDUR.

What are the causes then?

 

[rms]

A diploma in itself doesn't mean much anymore other than the ability to stick with something to completion (which is important, but doesn't mean the person is going to be one you'd want sticking around).

Well this is just wrong. Your diploma does not have to be in the field you work in. A college degree, of anything, will you get farther in the door than a high school diploma or a GED.

How many people are going to take any serious courses on economics, philosophy, politics, etc., and even further - internalizing instead of merely regurgitating for a test and then data dumping?

Only one of the topics you mentioned are at all legitimate in discussion job availability. Sure there is a higher margin of students taking liberal arts degrees, but to my first sentence, that's better than not having one. STEM is also getting a lot of press and I imagine will receive subsidies if the American population does not address the quota the government wants.

You're going to need a little more than some marxist buzzwords to make the point you want to here.

Are you going to dispute the claim that a capitalist system is inherently more interested in profits than any other? If you don't disagree, then profits do not correlate with giving a shit about the labor force.

 

[Dak]

What are the causes then?

The Fed/fractional reserve system, graft, etc. Rentseeking. I'd tack on public K-12 education to some degree as well.

Well this is just wrong. Your diploma does not have to be in the field you work in. A college degree, of anything, will you get farther in the door than a high school diploma or a GED.

Only one of the topics you mentioned are at all legitimate in discussion job availability. Sure there is a higher margin of students taking liberal arts degrees, but to my first sentence, that's better than not having one. STEM is also getting a lot of press and I imagine will receive subsidies if the American population does not address the quota the government wants.

You didn't respond to what I said at all. Sure having one is better than not having one, that says nothing about the actual education represented by the diploma. They are so easy to get you need at least a bachelors to be competitive now if you don't have a tradeskill.

Are you going to dispute the claim that a capitalist system is inherently more interested in profits than any other? If you don't disagree, then profits do not correlate with giving a shit about the labor force.

It is not more interested in profits than *any* other. Mercantilism is equally interested in profit. Creating a profits vs labor situation is a false dichotomy. Just because business schools adopted a "shareholder first" orthodoxy some decades ago doesn't mean it is the only or best/correct way of doing business.