State of the Union 2014

[Irish YJ]

In all seriousness I would hope this country is having a serious debate on income inequality. I would welcome all conservative ideas on how it address this issue. If people seriously think a flat tax will somehow make the worker to CEO pay ratio less insane (CEO should make a lot more but 42 to 1 in 1980 is more realistic than the 120 to 1 ratio we have today) I would love to hear why it will work.

I'm supportive of raising the min wage, but unsupportive of the line of thinking that people who succeed should not have the opportunity to make as much as they can. If the market drives high pay to CEOs, I have no problem with that. Complicated topic, but I firmly believe our social programs create a welfare state, and is a primary cause for the disparity. I'd rather see social funds transferred to educational programs which invest in our future. I'd like to see greater personal accountability, and less socialist behavior.

 

[chicago51]

I agree the pubs are getting farther and farther right, but to say O couldn't be closer to the middle is absolutely ludicrous.

#PartySystemOutOfHand

He had Social Security cuts in his last budget.

The Affordable Care Act cut Medicare spending and actually reduced the deficit.

Obama is working on free trade agreements that if passed will have to be done with mostly Republican votes.

Republican party used to be big on infrastructure investment until just recently.

The discretionary spending numbers in law today a cheaper than Paul Ryan's original numbers from his 2010 budget.

I wouldn't say Obama is a true centrist but he is probably just left of center.

 

[Irish YJ]

LOL, just plain LOL.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yes? Civics 101... the legislative branch is supposed to make the laws. I respect his right to give input, use his veto, make EOs, etc. but you seem to be arguing that the President should have the right or ability to set the policy agenda for the country. I don't think many would agree with you.

Adopting their agenda and writing laws are two entirely differnt things Lax. His "right to give input" is what we are talking about, as we are talking about the state of the union address. What laws has Congess made that have not been signed? Throughout the history of this country, the President has (some more successfully than others) set the agenda and tone for the country. Are you suggesting that Obama should abandon what presidents have always done? Suggesting that the president doesn't have the "right" or "ability" to set the policy agenda for the country is to ignore the history of the presidency. It is what presidents do. I don't think that most people would disagree with that at all.

 

[Irish YJ]

 

[GoIrish41]

LOL, just plain LOL.

Your deep intellectual input to the discussion is absolutely enlightening.

 

[chicago51]

Not sure why social welfare is the obsession of everyone's focus. I do welcome any ideas to decrease fraud and abuse of these programs but when it comes down to it a $50k worker pays $36 a year toward the SNAP (food assistance) program. That is 10 cents a day.

While a $50k a year worker pays:
$870 for Direct Subsidies and Grants to Companies
$696 for Business Incentives at the State, County, and City Levels
$722 for Interest Rate Subsidies for Banks
$350 for Retirement Fund Bank Fees
$1,268 for Overpriced Medications
$870 for Corporate Tax Subsidies
$1,231 for Revenue Losses from Corporate Tax Havens

So seriously who is really taking your tax dollars? A bunch of poor people or the corporate plutocracy?

Fingers from the CATO institute.
Add It Up: The Average American Family Pays $6,000 a Year in Subsidies to Big Business | Common Dreams

 

[connor_in]

Count me as part of the not watching crowd. I usually watch the first couple or so of a president 's SOTUs but the thing is it is mostly political theater and deeply lacking in substance...no matter D or R. The most honest moment of the last number of these was when the one guy yelled "You lie!" FYI...some other countries are far more contentious in their ruling bodies. Many of these have simply become campaign speeches with applause lines for the various sides to stand up and clap like trained seals or sit looking disapproving. Also, whatever isn't leaked out beforehand anymore is analyzed to death in less than the next 24 hours so it's not like Mr Orphan Black and Mr West Wing (I preferred SportsNight BTW) are traitors as they will get the information soon enough through myriad other sources from both sides. Seriously, when was the last time something in one of these truly surprised you?

As far as the president and congress, I have ever growing discontent for both. My political views have been evident in other threads. But neither side appears to be doing a whole lot of acting like statesmen vs acting like simply politicians (and the negative connotations that go with the term).

 

[T Town Tommy]

In all seriousness I would hope this country is having a serious debate on income inequality. I would welcome all conservative ideas on how it address this issue. If people seriously think a flat tax will somehow make the worker to CEO pay ratio less insane (CEO should make a lot more but 42 to 1 in 1980 is more realistic than the 120 to 1 ratio we have today) I would love to hear why it will work.

Our government has been trying to create income equality through social engineering for the better part of sixty years. It hasn't worked nor will it moving forward. Why? It has taken the responsibility of individual responsibility for your life and your future and tried to transfer that to others - those commonly referred to as the upper income elite. Tax the rich bastards and give the money to those less fortunate. That's been the welfare plan for decades.

I am a firm believer that "to whom much is given, much is required" but I also believe that the decline of traditional family values, coupled with all the entitlement programs the government has put in place, has raised generations of people who believe they don't have to do anything in order to survive. Stop having babies out of wedlock. Stop making excuses for why a person can't do something. Too many programs in place for any kid not to be able to go to school. Turn off that junk on MTV. Stop glorifying lifestyles that lead to nowhere.

I will forever be indebted to those people from my generation that had the courage to step out and become mavericks of capitalism. Steve Jobs, Ted Turner, Mike Dell, just to name a few. They did it against all odds. Why not the rest of us?

 

[NDBoiler]

Count me as part of the not watching crowd. I usually watch the first couple or so of a president 's SOTUs but the thing is it is mostly political theater and deeply lacking in substance...no matter D or R. The most honest moment of the last number of these was when the one guy yelled "You lie!" FYI...some other countries are far more contentious in their ruling bodies. Many of these have simply become campaign speeches with applause lines for the various sides to stand up and clap like trained seals or sit looking disapproving. Also, whatever isn't leaked out beforehand anymore is analyzed to death in less than the next 24 hours so it's not like Mr Orphan Black and Mr West Wing (I preferred SportsNight BTW) are traitors as they will get the information soon enough through myriad other sources from both sides. Seriously, when was the last time something in one of these truly surprised you?

As far as the president and congress, I have ever growing discontent for both. My political views have been evident in other threads. But neither side appears to be doing a whole lot of acting like statesmen vs acting like simply politicians (and the negative connotations that go with the term).

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[chicago51]

Our government has been trying to create income equality through social engineering for the better part of sixty years. It hasn't worked nor will it moving forward. Why? It has taken the responsibility of individual responsibility for your life and your future and tried to transfer that to others - those commonly referred to as the upper income elite. Tax the rich bastards and give the money to those less fortunate. That's been the welfare plan for decades.

Taxes on the rich have dropped significantly since the 1980s. I'm not advocating for raising income tax rates for on the rich as much I am for eliminating special interest subsidies for people/corporations that don't need it.

The only reel issue on I have on the tax rates themselves is how the super rich (0.1%) can essentially use their assets through capital gains to acquire more money and in the process pay a lower tax rate than a middle class American because of the capital gains tax rates. They also use stock options to avoid paying income taxes and pay a much lower capital gains rate. I agree that people should be able to use the stock market and investment funds to save and build their money. At some point though rather it me $1 million? $2 million? $5 million? (whatever seems reasonable and won't hurt a middle class worker who has invested his/her income all their life) capital gains taxes ought be taxed at the same rate as regular income taxes.

I am a firm believer that "to whom much is given, much is required" but I also believe that the decline of traditional family values, coupled with all the entitlement programs the government has put in place, has raised generations of people who believe they don't have to do anything in order to survive. Stop having babies out of wedlock. Stop making excuses for why a person can't do something. Too many programs in place for any kid not to be able to go to school. Turn off that junk on MTV. Stop glorifying lifestyles that lead to nowhere.

I think many confuse liberalism with communism. Liberalism is doing as much as reasonably possible to give everyone an equal economic opportunity and what they make of it is up to them. When a child is hungry, in a neighborhood of crime, can't afford college, etc he/she doesn't have an equal economic opportunity. How to fix this is easier said than done but the essential philosophy is all about giving everyone a fair chance to earn (not simply given) success.

I will forever be indebted to those people from my generation that had the courage to step out and become mavericks of capitalism. Steve Jobs, Ted Turner, Mike Dell, just to name a few. They did it against all odds. Why not the rest of us?

Ever heard of Rockefeller?, Morgan?, Carnegie? We've had Mavericks of capitalism for a long time. While I think these men deserve a ton of credit I would argue they owe something to the American system (and their hard working employees) that has allowed them to succeed.

 

[DSully1995]

Ever heard of Rockefeller?, Morgan?, Carnegie? We've had Mavericks of capitalism for a long time. While I think these men deserve a ton of credit I would argue they owe something to the American system (and their hard working employees) that has allowed them to succeed.

Which means they owe you something right? Thats what it boils down to, we're all greedy, but some of us have leveraged skills and efforts in order to be in a position to actually advance themselves

 

[T Town Tommy]

Taxes on the rich have dropped significantly in the last 3 decades. I'm not advocating for raising income tax rates for on the rich as much I am for eliminating special interest subsidies for people that don't need it.

The only reel issue on I have on tax rates is how the super rich (0.1%) can essentially use their assets through capital gains to acquire more money and in the process pay a lower tax rate than a middle class American because of the capital gains tax rate. They also use stock options to avoid paying income taxes and pay a much lower capital gains rate. I agree that people should be able to use the stock market and investment funds to save and build their money. At some point though rather it me $1 million? $2 million? $5 million? (whatever seems reasonable and won't hurt a middle class work who has invested his income all his life) capital gains taxes ought be taxed at the same rate as regular income taxes.



I think many confuse liberalism with communism. Liberalism is doing as much as reasonably possible to give everyone an equal economic opportunity and what they make of it is up to them. When a child is hungry, in a neighborhood of crime, can't afford college, etc he/she doesn't have an equal economic opportunity. How to fix this is easier said than done but the essential philosophy is all about giving everyone a chance to earn (not given) success.



Ever heard of Rockefeller?, Morgan?, Carnegie? We've had Mavericks of capitalism for a long time. While I think these men deserve a ton of credit I would argue they owe something to the American system that has allowed them to succeed.

But you, in turn, make the liberal argument. In a capitalistic society, not everyone will be equal. There are winners and there are losers for a lack of a better way of putting it. To the extent of that should be up to the individual and not a government entity. As a product of severe poverty growing up, I realized I had a choice to make. Either do something to change my situation or die a slow death on my ridge in the middle of nowhere Ky. I didn't wait for someone else to hand me something. I took advantage of the opportunities afforded me and have broken that cycle of poverty. Maybe my beliefs on individual responsibility for success is so strongly rooted because I lived it and know it can be done... even against what appeared to be horrible odds.

 

[IrishLax]

Throughout the history of this country, the President has (some more successfully than others) set the agenda and tone for the country. Are you suggesting that Obama should abandon what presidents have always done?

I mean... yes and no. Like you've said, some more successfully than others. Presidents run on platforms, and there has always been a belief (to varying degrees) that if elected they have a sort of mandate to pursue the policy enumerated in that platform. That's never going to change. I don't disagree with that.

At the same time, the other party has the "right" to pursue whatever agenda they want. That's how our political system is designed. When a President has approval ratings consistently in the 40s and confidence ratings in the 30s... you would have a hard time selling the majority of Americans that he should have a mandate to exclusively set the policy agenda for this year or the next. Only a few rare times in the history of this country has any one party been able to work unilaterally on policy agenda without playing ball with the opposition and considering what policy they're interested in.

Whether or not the Republican plan of "fuck it, I'm voting no on everything Barry likes #YOLO" is prudent or responsible is a completely different discussion.

 

[Ndaccountant]

In all seriousness I would hope this country is having a serious debate on income inequality. I would welcome all conservative ideas on how it address this issue. If people seriously think a flat tax will somehow make the worker to CEO pay ratio less insane (CEO should make a lot more but 42 to 1 in 1980 is more realistic than the 120 to 1 ratio we have today) I would love to hear why it will work.

I think you should read this paper. You might like it.

It focuses on inequality thru consumption rather than incomes, since incomes tend to fluctuate wildly over one's lifetime. Consumption tends to be more stable over time, thus a better measurement. Additionally, the goal of income is to buy things to consume. So, skip the income part (since as many have pointed out, income on a tax return fails to capture certain things, like EITC, health care, etc) and get to consumption, which what matters most to the typical household anyway. So if the money transfers systems in place today are successful, consumption is where you would see it.

It's an interesting view point if nothing else at all.

http://www.aei.org/files/2012/06/25/-a-new-measure-of-consumption-inequality_142931647663.pdf

 

[GoIrish41]

But you, in turn, make the liberal argument. In a capitalistic society, not everyone will be equal. There are winners and there are losers for a lack of a better way of putting it. To the extent of that should be up to the individual and not a government entity. As a product of severe poverty growing up, I realized I had a choice to make. Either do something to change my situation or die a slow death on my ridge in the middle of nowhere Ky. I didn't wait for someone else to hand me something. I took advantage of the opportunities afforded me and have broken that cycle of poverty. Maybe my beliefs on individual responsibility for success is so strongly rooted because I lived it and know it can be done... even against what appeared to be horrible odds.

The liberal argument is the one that Chicago made ... that the deck should not be stacked against the success of the majority in favor of the few. A level playing field is what we are after.

I appreciate and respect your rise out of poverty. I have taken a similar journey and know and understand how difficult it was. It would be easy for me to look down on those who haven't followed my path, but once I climbed the ladder a bit, I made the personal choice to hold that ladder to help others have a steadier climb than I did to get to the next level. I agree whole heartedly about personal responsibility, but when there are so many people in a pit and that pit is full of quicksand, there are only so many people who can climb the ladder at a time. Should the rest just smother? How long should they wait before they lose all hope? Escaping poverty isn't easy, nor is it logical that everyone can just will themselves out of it by sheer force of personaliy and effort. The playing field isn't level and in many cases the ladder has fallen to the ground and been buried by the victims of the society, whether it be via stigma or actual policy roadblocks. In many circles, these are people who have come to be known as second class citizens who doen't have what it takes to make it to the top (or even the middle). What we are talking about is raising the ladder and holding it steady so that others can climb out and join the middle class. Equality, fair play. I suspect that is what you will hear the president talk about tonight.

 

[Bluto]

Which means they owe you something right? Thats what it boils down to, we're all greedy, but some of us have leveraged skills and efforts in order to be in a position to actually advance themselves

I have no doubt you're smart and talented, however what consistently rubs me the wrong way about statements like this is that they often ignore the fact that many successful people had greater access to resources that allowed them to succeed (education, food, shelter, capital ect...). A poor kid from say Mississippi and a rich kid from say Palo Alto might be running the same marathon but it seems pretty ridiculous to ignore that said rich kid started with a 10 mile lead, better trainers, has more water stations along the way, better running shoes and gear and is in all likelihood going to win.

 

[GoIrish41]

I mean... yes and no. Like you've said, some more successfully than others. Presidents run on platforms, and there has always been a belief (to varying degrees) that if elected they have a sort of mandate to pursue the policy enumerated in that platform. That's never going to change. I don't disagree with that.

At the same time, the other party has the "right" to pursue whatever agenda they want. That's how our political system is designed. When a President has approval ratings consistently in the 40s and confidence ratings in the 30s... you would have a hard time selling the majority of Americans that he should have a mandate to exclusively set the policy agenda for this year or the next. Only a few rare times in the history of this country has any one party been able to work unilaterally on policy agenda without playing ball with the opposition and considering what policy they're interested in.

Whether or not the Republican plan of "fuck it, I'm voting no on everything Barry likes #YOLO" is prudent or responsible is a completely different discussion.

I don't think we disagree, and I'm not saying that the Rs don't have a right to pursue their own agenda. At some point, though, it becomes obvious that they are "voting no on everything Barry likes" so that is not a point that isn't irrelavant to this discussion. I also wouldn't say that the President has "consistently" had approval ratings in the 40s. That is a relatively new phenomena brought about by not getting things done (in large part due to said obstructionism and in part by self inflicted wounds like the Obamacare rollout debacle). If you don't see that Obama has been willing to play ball soooo many times since being elected only to be left on the field alone, I don't think we can have a constructive conversation about "playing ball." During his first term, I was absolutely disgusted with how he inevitably caved to the Rs just to engender a sense of being above politics. He always played from a disadvantaged point and ended up closer to the republican side on virtually every issue (save healthcare). In his second term, he finally grew a pair and when he drew a line in the sand and demonstrated he would not buckle if that line was crossed, the new narrative became that he has been confrontational and elitist to the Rs. I believe that is total BS.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I have no doubt you're smart and talented, however what consistently rubs me the wrong way about statements line this is that they often ignore the fact that many successful people had greater access to resources that allowed them to succeed (education, food, shelter, capital ect...). A poor kid from say Mississippi and a rich kid from say Palo Alto might be running the same marathon but it seems pretty ridiculous to ignore that said rich kid started with a 10 mile lead, better trainers, has more water stations along the way, better running shoes and gear and is in all likelihood going to win.

That is most certainly true and the data constantly points to a higher likelihood of the "deck being stacked" against single parent homes. Those families have higher poverty rates and kids coming from those families typically have a lower level of education.

Until someone addresses the ever declining role of family in this country, we will still see this opportunity gap where children of married couples are distinctly more advantaged.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The liberal argument is the one that Chicago made ... that the deck should not be stacked against the success of the majority in favor of the few. A level playing field is what we are after.

I appreciate and respect your rise out of poverty. I have taken a similar journey and know and understand how difficult it was. It would be easy for me to look down on those who haven't followed my path, but once I climbed the ladder a bit, I made the personal choice to hold that ladder to help others have a steadier climb than I did to get to the next level. I agree whole heartedly about personal responsibility, but when there are so many people in a pit and that pit is full of quicksand, there are only so many people who can climb the ladder at a time. Should the rest just smother? How long should they wait before they lose all hope? Escaping poverty isn't easy, nor is it logical that everyone can just will themselves out of it by sheer force of personaliy and effort. The playing field isn't level and in many cases the ladder has fallen to the ground and been buried by the victims of the society, whether it be via stigma or actual policy roadblocks. In many circles, these are people who have come to be known as second class citizens who doen't have what it takes to make it to the top (or even the middle). What we are talking about is reaising the ladder and holding it steady so that others can climb out and join the middle class. Equality, fair play. I suspect that is what you will hear the president talk about tonight.

I appreciate your view but I do disagree somewhat. The ladder is there for anyone to climb it. Are there socioeconomic issues that make it harder to climb? Yes. But after 60 years of a government trying to climb the ladder for those that won't, then what makes you or anyone else think another entitlement program, more taxes, or whatever the next big program will be will actually work?. The President's speech tonight will hit on a lot of topics... and his attack on income inequality is simply political rhetoric for class warfare. That's the only way he can garner support for his agenda. Ain't worked for decades... and won't work now.

On a personal level, I have given, and will continue to give, well beyond my means at times to help those less fortunate. And it involves more than simply writing a check to a local charity to feel good about myself. I am very passionate about faith based giving and try to steer the youth of our church in the direction for success, both spiritually and professionally. All too often, I find their lack of drive or success goes back to the breakdown of the family, living in poverty, no emphasis on education, and parents' that don't challenge them to be successful. And sadly, many will not be any more successful than their parents are today. SO, twenty years from now, we will have yet another President, with another set of social engineering, telling us all how it is the fault of the income elite, and offering up yet another failed program. Been there... done that.

 

[connor_in]

Quick question on income inequality...if this administration is so worried about it...the why has the gap continued to widen during their 5 year run? ...and please don't be disingenuous and claim its all the House R's fault

 

[tussin]

The liberal argument is the one that Chicago made ... that the deck should not be stacked against the success of the majority in favor of the few. A level playing field is what we are after.

I appreciate and respect your rise out of poverty. I have taken a similar journey and know and understand how difficult it was. It would be easy for me to look down on those who haven't followed my path, but once I climbed the ladder a bit, I made the personal choice to hold that ladder to help others have a steadier climb than I did to get to the next level. I agree whole heartedly about personal responsibility, but when there are so many people in a pit and that pit is full of quicksand, there are only so many people who can climb the ladder at a time. Should the rest just smother? How long should they wait before they lose all hope? Escaping poverty isn't easy, nor is it logical that everyone can just will themselves out of it by sheer force of personaliy and effort. The playing field isn't level and in many cases the ladder has fallen to the ground and been buried by the victims of the society, whether it be via stigma or actual policy roadblocks. In many circles, these are people who have come to be known as second class citizens who doen't have what it takes to make it to the top (or even the middle). What we are talking about is raising the ladder and holding it steady so that others can climb out and join the middle class. Equality, fair play. I suspect that is what you will hear the president talk about tonight.

Everything you mentioned is achievable today by anyone with personal drive. I refuse to believe that there are self-driven and self-aware folks that simply CANNOT make a living wage. And to the single mother of 5 in the inner city... unfortunately that is your lot in life. You made the choices you made and you will likely always be struggling around the poverty line. The best you can do is pass on your life lessons to your kids. Real societal change begins and ends with the family, not government handouts.

In regards to government policy, the lower class isn't going anywhere. There are ALWAYS going to be McDonalds workers and janitors and garbage men... this won't change. It just so happens that the lower and lower-middle class is often hit the hardest in a downturn. What Obama should be doing is focusing on how to create more jobs, not ways to redistribute wealth.

That's my viewpoint on the issue.

 

[GoIrish41]

I appreciate your view but I do disagree somewhat. The ladder is there for anyone to climb it. Are there socioeconomic issues that make it harder to climb? Yes. But after 60 years of a government trying to climb the ladder for those that won't, then what makes you or anyone else think another entitlement program, more taxes, or whatever the next big program will be will actually work?. The President's speech tonight will hit on a lot of topics... and his attack on income inequality is simply political rhetoric for class warfare. That's the only way he can garner support for his agenda. Ain't worked for decades... and won't work now.

On a personal level, I have given, and will continue to give, well beyond my means at times to help those less fortunate. And it involves more than simply writing a check to a local charity to feel good about myself. I am very passionate about faith based giving and try to steer the youth of our church in the direction for success, both spiritually and professionally. All too often, I find their lack of drive or success goes back to the breakdown of the family, living in poverty, no emphasis on education, and parents' that don't challenge them to be successful. And sadly, many will not be any more successful than their parents are today. SO, twenty years from now, we will have yet another President, with another set of social engineering, telling us all how it is the fault of the income elite, and offering up yet another failed program. Been there... done that.

It is class warfare to state the obvious and to suggest that something should be done to fix a systemic problem in our society? I don't agree.

As to your second paragraph, I hope I didn't leave you with the impression that I was suggesting otherwise. Certainly wasn't my intent. I tip my hat to you sir for your contributions to those less fortunate. However this, as I said before, is a systemic social problem that requires more than just the kind-heartedness of a relative few good citizens. Systemic problems require systemic solutions. And no, that does not always mean large-scale social programs. It could mean not allowing those who are positioned for success in our society to write laws that ensure they stay that way. It could mean as Chicago has pointed out earlier in this thread, the elimination of Corporate welfare programs that cost individual taxpayers far more than the social programs that you do not favor. Again, it is about a level playing field. I'm sure that the President will talk about the minimum wage tonight. When I started working more than 3 decades ago, the minimum wage was $3.10, and with that money I could purchase far more than my daughter, who is a HS senior, can purchase today with her minimum wage earnings of $7.25. Who is pocketing that extra purchasing power? The businesses, increasingly larger and fewer of them who own more and more, are profiting from underpaying employees that are making them rich. That isn't a social program, but a simple law that goes directly to fairness.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Quick question on income inequality...if this administration is so worried about it...the why has the gap continued to widen during their 5 year run? ...and please don't be disingenuous and claim its all the House R's fault

Because it's an inherent characteristic of capitalism, and that won't be affected by either party. It's worsened when there is a "jobless recovery" and public education remains a joke.

 

[Ndaccountant]

It is class warfare to state the obvious and to suggest that something should be done to fix a systemic problem in our society? I don't agree.

As to your second paragraph, I hope I didn't leave you with the impression that I was suggesting otherwise. Certainly wasn't my intent. I tip my hat to you sir for your contributions to those less fortunate. However this, as I said before, is a systemic social problem that requires more than just the kind-heartedness of a relative few good citizens. Systemic problems require systemic solutions. And no, that does not always mean large-scale social programs. It could mean not allowing those who are positioned for success in our society to write laws that ensure they stay that way. It could mean as Chicago has pointed out earlier in this thread, the elimination of Corporate welfare programs that cost individual taxpayers far more than the social programs that you do not favor. Again, it is about a level playing field. I'm sure that the President will talk about the minimum wage tonight. When I started working more than 3 decades ago, the minimum wage was $3.10, and with that money I could purchase far more than my daughter, who is a HS senior, can purchase today with her minimum wage earnings of $7.25. Who is pocketing that extra purchasing power? The businesses, increasingly larger and fewer of them who own more and more, are profiting from underpaying employees that are making them rich. That isn't a social program, but a simple law that goes directly to fairness.

Please go read the report that I posted earlier in thread. By the measurements in the paper, consumption inequality has stayed flat or even improved over the last few decades.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I

That is most certainly true and the data constantly points to a higher likelihood of the "deck being stacked" against single parent homes. Those families have higher poverty rates and kids coming from those families typically have a lower level of education.

Until someone addresses the ever declining role of family in this country, we will still see this opportunity gap where children of married couples are distinctly more advantaged.

How do you address it? I'd suggest paying girls in select area codes and/or school districts to take the shot that provides birth control for years, until they're 22. So many of these girls get pregnant for the govt check, give them a relative check to not fuck their lives over (and basically hold a child hostage). In a generation, the problem could be relatively solved.

It'll never fly because Catholics won't support contraception and conservatives consider it a hand out and ignore that it might be much cheaper in long run.

Then of course, voucher the shit out of public schools and encourage more post secondary. Too many kids are the first in their family to go to college and think that means they'll be a doctor. Fix that mindset before they sprint into the brick wall and drop out.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Quick question on income inequality...if this administration is so worried about it...the why has the gap continued to widen during their 5 year run? ...and please don't be disingenuous and claim its all the House R's fault

When you are measuring inequality via income, the top of the pool derives most of their income via capital markets. Thanks to a historic low in 2008/2009 as well as Fed intervention, the stock market has accelerated at a pace far exceeding economic growth. The latter being what drives incomes for most other people.

If you believe that the Fed is independent, then the President really cannot control the income of the top other than taxation. Where he can influence things is via economic growth, which has been tepid at best. I will leave it up to you to assign the level of responsibility for lack of growth.

 

[ACamp1900]

To the original point...

I tend to feel bad for those who vote for either party expecting those in power to actually, “look out for the little guy”… that kind of Washington politician went the way of the Dodo a long time ago IMO. As far as tonight, I won’t be watching, at this point when I hear Obama talk I dismiss just about every word as disingenuous, self-serving, lies… I don’t trust this man at all, and no, he isn’t special in that regard when it comes to DC. Just my feeling towards the TC’s question.

 

[Ndaccountant]

How do you address it? I'd suggest paying girls in select area codes and/or school districts to take the shot that provides birth control for years, until they're 22. So many of these girls get pregnant for the govt check, give them a relative check to not fuck their lives over (and basically hold a child hostage). In a generation, the problem could be relatively solved.

It'll never fly because Catholics won't support contraception and conservatives consider it a hand out and ignore that it might be much cheaper in long run.

I am not sure what to do. It's a real touchy subject for many. I know many point to education, but even if kids were all equal in terms of what they get in the classroom, the education support at home will still provide an incredible advantage.

I would be in support of some type of economic based affirmative action in the pre-school ranks all the way up thru 4 year colleges. I think you get there in some sort of hybrid voucher system. I have no idea how that would work, but we need some sort of innovative idea here where we transform the educational structure & system that is in place today.

 

[chicago51]

But you, in turn, make the liberal argument. In a capitalistic society, not everyone will be equal. There are winners and there are losers for a lack of a better way of putting it. To the extent of that should be up to the individual and not a government entity. As a product of severe poverty growing up, I realized I had a choice to make. Either do something to change my situation or die a slow death on my ridge in the middle of nowhere Ky. I didn't wait for someone else to hand me something. I took advantage of the opportunities afforded me and have broken that cycle of poverty. Maybe my beliefs on individual responsibility for success is so strongly rooted because I lived it and know it can be done... even against what appeared to be horrible odds.

How old are you roughly? Not saying you can't lift yourself out of poverty in today's world but I would argue today's millenial generation have a tougher climb than previous genarations. In 1968 you could walk down to the factory and tell the manager I'd like a job and get hired. In the 1970s state universities had a greater percentage of their cost government, tuitions have sored. Student loan debt is over a trillion dollars. Student was unheard of in the 50s, 60s, and 70s as you used to be able to work your way through college on a minimum to low wage job. Sometime graduate and doctoral students would acrew student but it was rare for a four year degree.

I no clue how old you are perhaps you are a millenial that has beaten the odds. I assume being in poverty you went to public school. Without public education you don't make it. Today's conservative philosophy is gut public education go with charter schools. Would you have been able to afford going to a charter school growing up? The other thing about charter schools is that there is a hidden agenda to ensure "conservative values" mainly no evolution, climate change doesn't exist kind of values are taught in schools.