2016 Presidential Horse Race

[GoIrish41]

How'd they get there? Take the whole population of "people struggling," subtract drug users, drinkers, criminals, teenage parents, unmarried parents, high school dropouts, those with legitimate disabilities, those with imagined disabilities, art history majors (and the like), career students, and those who just simply live beyond their means. The list of people left from plain bad luck is remarkably small.

22% of children in the country live in poverty -- most were born into it. How could they be so freakin irresponsible?

 

[Buster Bluth]

It is supremely easy to earn a comfortable living in the United States in 2015. Like, remarkably easy. Like, you have to actively try to manage to screw it up. If you work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children, your chance of living in poverty is 2%. Those are remarkably good odds and a remarkably low standard. None of those things require a government program.

Wait isn't high school a government program? Or does that not count because you don't want to bitch about that government program for your worldview?

You've bought into the great lie of modern American liberalism; that life is hard. Life is so hard, in fact, that Average Joe is completely screwed without the help of the government. Every liberal talking point revolves around that belief. The deck is stacked against you. Level the playing field. Pay their fair share. Women are being held back. Blacks are being held back. Immigrants are being held back. Gays are being held back. The Democrat party needs a permanent underclass to form their base. To keep people in their place, they instill in them the belief that the only way they'll overcome the otherwise insurmountable problems in their life is through a government program. Most Democrat politicians perpetuate this lie, knowing it's a lie, to keep the "true believers" in line.

There isn't enough straw in the Midwest to build a strawman argument this well. Bravo.

Your rush to not understand poverty is the epitome of why the "personal responsibility card" is so utterly destructive in political discourse (easily beating the #2 card, race). Because, as I believe you've stated without much subtlety recently, you don't really care why poverty exists and more importantly, continues to exist. You seem entirely uninterested in any answer other than "government" or "bad choices." You sound like me from the ninth grade.

The personal responsibility card is awful because 1) to disagree with it sounds like you want to enable losers, 2) you can use it on any situation at any time like dropping a nuke on the conversation, and 3) it's really just giving yourself a license to stop caring about context, to basically stop giving a fuck. What's that? The steel factory closed and your pension went up in smoke? Welp, shoulda got an education fuck you.w

Personal responsibility makes total sense on an individual level, so it's not hard to see why a libertarian is obsessed with it, but it is actually a rather dangerous worldview to apply to whole populations because there are actual reasons people make pisspoor decisions. If it were actually "like, remarkably easy" poverty wouldn't be an issue but when context like 40% of children living in poverty aren’t prepared for primary schooling, and by the end of the 4th grade, African-American, Hispanic and low-income students are already 2 years behind grade level. By the time they reach the 12th grade they are 4 years behind. But yeah they made bad decisions to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Just admit it, you just don't give a shit about their context. You don't care why there is poverty, you don't want to actually criticize specific policies that have helped enable generational poverty, you just want to wash your hands of the matter and continue to assume that life is easy for everyone because we all start off from the same square and if only you weren't inept you wouldn't be such a colossal clusterfuck of a person. Uh huh. And the people who disagree juuuust don't get it.

The phenomenon of Bernie Sanders is that he actually is one of those true believers. He's not a puppet master spreading the lie for political expedience. He actually believes it. The problem with that lie is that life isn't actually that hard.

The phenomenon of Bernie Sanders isn't a whole lot different than the same "fuck DC" populism that is empowering Donald Trump. I find it hilarious that when Trump says something outlandish (eg "hey let's ban Muslims from coming into the country") you run to his defense and say this...

Read The Art of the Deal. In any negotiation, open with hyperbole and bombast, then scale back so you look reasonable and compromising. Trump isn't proposing actual policy, he's just moving the conversation where it needs to be. I'd wager his "landing point" is exactly what you describe.

(I'm not a Trump supporter by any stretch. But I absolutely love what he's teaching Republican candidates.)

...but can't see the very obvious point of Sanders' campaign is more or less doing the same thing with his effect on the national discussion.

 

[Buster Bluth]

While i will agree with you that the price needs to come up. 15 dollars an hour for fast food workers is absurd. If that's the case it will be easier to cut the staff by about 40 percent put touch screen computers in to order from. Now yow don't need 4/5 people taking orders. Unless you inspire to be a manager the fast food industry is designed to be a starter job not a career path. I know that you didn't specificity say fast food, but i was using it as my example.

I agree with you that it needs to come up and that $15/hr it too much. I think that is also the most popular opinion of economists, too.

I do disagree with you about the touch screen computers. Only in that if $15/hr were what caused companies to install them, well knowing what we know about the costs of computer processing power plummeting constantly...well I guess I'm just saying that if $15/hr in 2016 were enough to bring that change on, then minimum wage in the near future will be enough. So I don't know, that example has always been weird to me.

 

[pkt77242]

How'd they get there? Take the whole population of "people struggling," subtract drug users, drinkers, criminals, teenage parents, unmarried parents, high school dropouts, those with legitimate disabilities, those with imagined disabilities, art history majors (and the like), career students, and those who just simply live beyond their means. The list of people left from plain bad luck is remarkably small.


Nobody actually earns minimum wage. 1% of workers earn the minimum wage. 3% of workers are age 16 to 19. Meaning even teenagers are earning above the minimum wage.

How about medical expenses? I believe that medical debt is still the top reason for people to file for bankruptcy and most of those people have health insurance. Does that not count as bad luck?

 

[wizards8507]

22% of children in the country live in poverty -- most were born into it. How could they be so freakin irresponsible?

College students aren't children, they're adults.

Wait isn't high school a government program? Or does that not count because you don't want to bitch about that government program for your worldview?

A bit snarky, but a fair question. Public schools can be very effective when run at the state and local level, allowing for the parents and communities a greater say in how their children are educated. When I object to the "government" doing something, I almost always mean the federal government. I'm a federalist, not an anarchist.

Your rush to not understand poverty is the epitome of why the "personal responsibility card" is so utterly destructive in political discourse (easily beating the #2 card, race). Because, as I believe you'd stated without much subtlety recently, you don't really care why poverty exists and more importantly, continues to exist. You seem entirely uninterested in any answer other than "government" or "bad choices." You sound like me from the ninth grade.

That's absolutely incorrect. Now it's you building strawmen. The statement "this problem does not need to be addressed by the federal government" is NOT equivalent to "this is not a problem."

The personal responsibility card is awful because 1) to disagree with it sounds like you want to enable losers, 2) you can use it on any situation at any time like dropping a nuke on the conversation...

In the context of debating federal programs, disagreeing with the personal responsibility card absolutely is enabling losers. The federal government lacks the efficiency and precision to filter out those who are simply free riders. What do you think is more efficient? $1 in federal taxes used to fund social welfare programs, or $1 in the collection basket at the Basilica, which funds Notre Dame students "in direct service to the poor"?

...and 3) it's really just giving yourself a license to stop caring about context, to basically stop giving a fuck. What's that? The steel factory closed and your pension went up in smoke? Welp, shoulda got an education fuck you.

I don't need a license to stop caring about context. The federal government, by definition, does not care about context. It is incapable of caring about context. Resources are much better allocated to local agencies, charities, and programs that can filter out those that really need help and what "help" really means to them as individuals.

Personal responsibility makes total sense on an individual level, so it's not hard to see why a libertarian is obsessed with it, but it is actually a rather dangerous worldview to apply to whole populations because there are actual reasons people my pisspoor decisions.

The problem with the "whole populations" view is that these problems cannot be addressed from a "whole population" perspective. Treating the X% of people in poverty with one-size-fits-all federal programs is ineffective because each individual that makes up that percentage has his or her own unique needs.

 

[connor_in]

'We hardly knew ya': Sounds like George Pataki's about to break his supporter's heart - twitchy.com twitchy.com


BREAKING: Pataki exits race for President

 

[GoIrish41]

College students aren't children, they're adults.

Well, thanks for that insight, but you weren't talking about college students. You were talking about all those inept poor people who are the product of their own poor decisions. I was simply pointing out that a pretty big chunk of those inept people were born into the poverty that you so cavalierly dismiss. They are the same people you will saying have no excuse for their circumstances 10 or 15 years from now.

 

[GoIrish41]

While i will agree with you that the price needs to come up. 15 dollars an hour for fast food workers is absurd. If that's the case it will be easier to cut the staff by about 40 percent put touch screen computers in to order from. Now yow don't need 4/5 people taking orders. Unless you inspire to be a manager the fast food industry is designed to be a starter job not a career path. I know that you didn't specificity say fast food, but i was using it as my example.

I don't think it should go up to $15, but I do think that it should be set at a level in which a full time worker would not fall below the poverty line today, and then adjusted annually for cost of living to ensure that it remains a livable wage.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Perhaps, but I have always found inclusion superior to exclusion. By comparison, you have what I would consider an unhealthy, and dare I say mean spirited and cynical, aversion to the concept of increasing citizens' access to healthcare and education. Perhaps that speaks volumes about why we agree on almost nothing politically. Of course, it also might have something to do with what you seem to consider acceptable in our society. So long as people aren't 'dying on our streets' (which they do, by the way) and parents can send their kids to school if they are willing to work multiple jobs and make the entire family suffer through living in substandard neighborhoods while juggling utility bills for half a decade, you are of the mind that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Something can hardly be called access if, as a practical matter, it is inaccessible to so many people in this country.

No, we disagree because you think the federal government is here to solve all the problems of our society. I think the federal government has 18 enumerated powers and aside from those should stay the hell out of our lives.

We disagree because whether we're talking about food stamps, education, health care, or whatever else...you paint the picture of "government has to fix this" or "there will be disaster." Example: we need more federal funding for education or the kids won't be able to read and write.

 

[kmoose]

I don't think it should go up to $15, but I do think that it should be set at a level in which a full time worker would not fall below the poverty line today, and then adjusted annually for cost of living to ensure that it remains a livable wage.

It's not supposed to be a livable wage. The Federal Government should not be mandating that businesses pay you enough to buy a house, buy a car, and also raise a family on, no matter what function you perform for them. That's not to say that businesses should be able to pay a pittance for your work, which is why minimum wage laws exist. But you are not guaranteed enough money to raise a family, just by having a job.

A person making minimum wage (7.25/hr) will make $15,080/yr. The Poverty level for a 1 person household is $11,770. So you will make 28% above the poverty level, if you just make minimum wage.

 

[DomeX2 eNVy]

'We hardly knew ya': Sounds like George Pataki's about to break his supporter's heart - twitchy.com twitchy.com


BREAKING: Pataki exits race for President

Who? What did he do?

OP updated, thanks.

 

[kmoose]

Opportunities to earn a comfortable living. As I said, that doesn't mean everyone goes to school. Does anyone think that a Roosevelt-style jobs program to rebuild our infrastructure would not grow the economy? Manufacturing jobs lost are not coming back ... Not at the same level of wages as when they left, at any rate. New industries must be built -- in renewable energy. For example, invest like JFK did in the space race to perfect high functioning, large capacity batteries for the home that could store sufficient energy to make solar power a no brainer. If successful, installation businesses would grow to meet demand of this new "free" energy source. Those technicians would have money in their pockets to go to restaurants and local stores, creating more jobs. So would all the folks who no longer have a $250 energy bill each month. This can be done if we have the will to do it.

All this does, in my opinion, is create a culture of entitlement. When no one has to work hard to be comfortable, the next thing they will want is to not have to work hard to be well off, then to not have to work hard to be rich. People have opportunity NOW. Even those born into the most impoverished families. There are programs like Big Brothers/Big Sisters, to teach them morals and values; and there are a plethora of aid programs to help them get a quality education.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's not supposed to be a livable wage. The Federal Government should not be mandating that businesses pay you enough to buy a house, buy a car, and also raise a family on, no matter what function you perform for them. That's not to say that businesses should be able to pay a pittance for your work, which is why minimum wage laws exist. But you are not guaranteed enough money to raise a family, just by having a job.

A person making minimum wage (7.25/hr) will make $15,080/yr. The Poverty level for a 1 person household is $11,770. So you will make 28% above the poverty level, if you just make minimum wage.

Who says it isn't supposed to be a livable wage? Just because it isn't does not mean it shouldn't be.

 

[GoIrish41]

All this does, in my opinion, is create a culture of entitlement. When no one has to work hard to be comfortable, the next thing they will want is to not have to work hard to be well off, then to not have to work hard to be rich. People have opportunity NOW. Even those born into the most impoverished families. There are programs like Big Brothers/Big Sisters, to teach them morals and values; and there are a plethora of aid programs to help them get a quality education.

Those are great programs but they barely make a dent in the problem.

 

[pkt77242]

It's not supposed to be a livable wage. The Federal Government should not be mandating that businesses pay you enough to buy a house, buy a car, and also raise a family on, no matter what function you perform for them. That's not to say that businesses should be able to pay a pittance for your work, which is why minimum wage laws exist. But you are not guaranteed enough money to raise a family, just by having a job.

A person making minimum wage (7.25/hr) will make $15,080/yr. The Poverty level for a 1 person household is $11,770. So you will make 28% above the poverty level, if you just make minimum wage.

The poverty level is a flawed metric. Now I will say that measuring poverty is very difficult but things you like make ____% more than the poverty level doesn't really mean anything.

 

[kmoose]

Who says it isn't supposed to be a livable wage? Just because it isn't does not mean it shouldn't be.

Just because Social Security wasn't intended to, does not mean it shouldn't pay me $10,000 a month....

Actually, minimum wage IS a livable wage. It pays 28% above the poverty level.

 

[GoIrish41]

No, we disagree because you think the federal government is here to solve all the problems of our society. I think the federal government has 18 enumerated powers and aside from those should stay the hell out of our lives.

We disagree because whether we're talking about food stamps, education, health care, or whatever else...you paint the picture of "government has to fix this" or "there will be disaster." Example: we need more federal funding for education or the kids won't be able to read and write.

You are right. I do believe the government is here to solve problems of the society ... That's kinda the point. It is what "promote the general welfare" means. You care more about your warped interpretation of the Constitution than you do about the millions of people who are suffering in this country. If those people were getting help from some other entity than the government, we would not be having this conversation. But you'd rather bitch about the poor than help them to be anything else. It's sad really.

 

[GoIrish41]

Just because Social Security wasn't intended to, does not mean it shouldn't pay me $10,000 a month....

Actually, minimum wage IS a livable wage. It pays 28% above the poverty level.

Good thing poor people never have children, huh?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You are right. I do believe the government is here to solve problems of the society ... That's kinda the point. It is what "promote the general welfare" means. You care more about your warped interpretation of the Constitution than you do about the millions of people who are suffering in this country. If those people were getting help from some other entity than the government, we would not be having this conversation. But you'd rather bitch about the poor than help them to be anything else. It's sad really.

Your logic is beyond sad.

1) I have a warped view of the Constitution but you think the federal government is here to solve everyone's problems? lol ok

2) You have NO clue what I do for the poor, where I donate money, what kind of volunteer work I do, etc. so just stop there. You're not a bad guy at all, but that's a shitty and baseless accusation considering you have no idea how I spend my time and money in regards to those who are less fortunate.

3) If government intervention were the cure to all our problems, health care and education would be a perfect scenario full of bright, healthy people skipping around a country full of unicorns. That's not the case.

 

[kmoose]

Good thing poor people never have children, huh?

Two people working minimum wage jobs can afford to have a 5 person household, and still be above the poverty level. 1.5 people working minimum wage jobs can afford to have a 3 person household above the poverty level. Just don't have more kids than you can afford. It's really that easy.

 

[loomis41973]

Two people working minimum wage jobs can afford to have a 5 person household, and still be above the poverty level. 1.5 people working minimum wage jobs can afford to have a 3 person household above the poverty level. Just don't have more kids than you can afford. It's really that easy.

+1

Make good decisions

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Two people working minimum wage jobs can afford to have a 5 person household, and still be above the poverty level. 1.5 people working minimum wage jobs can afford to have a 3 person household above the poverty level. Just don't have more kids than you can afford. It's really that easy.

Yes, it is.

 

[irishmarine]

That may have been the most wel out breakdown I've seen.

 

[GoIrish41]

Two people working minimum wage jobs can afford to have a 5 person household, and still be above the poverty level. 1.5 people working minimum wage jobs can afford to have a 3 person household above the poverty level. Just don't have more kids than you can afford. It's really that easy.

What country are you talking about with the bolded?

And if it is that easy, tell me how it works for a single mother of two children or even one child? The real world is not filled with mommies and daddies and two children. It's often much muddier than that.

 

[kmoose]

What country are you talking about with the bolded?

And if it is that easy, tell me how it works for a single mother of two children or even one child? The real world is not filled with mommies and daddies and two children. It's often much muddier than that.

There was nothing bolded, so I'm not sure what you were asking.


And now we are getting into bad choices that people make, instead of circumstances beyond their control. I don't think the federal government owes a comfortable living to those who choose risky behaviors over common sense. And before you get indignant, that's NOT the same as saying that we owe them nothing, and they should just be thrown away.

 

[GoIrish41]

There was nothing bolded, so I'm not sure what you were asking.


And now we are getting into bad choices that people make, instead of circumstances beyond their control. I don't think the federal government owes a comfortable living to those who choose risky behaviors over common sense. And before you get indignant, that's NOT the same as saying that we owe them nothing, and they should just be thrown away.

Fixed it, sorry. On this post, what bad decisions did the kids make in my example?

 

[kmoose]

Fixed it, sorry. On this post, what bad decisions did the kids make in my example?

I'm talking about the United States:

Federal Poverty Level Guidelines

The Fed says that the poverty level for a 5 person household is $28,410. Two people working full time minimum wage jobs will earn more than that ($30,160).

The kids are not working a job, so the wages have nothing to do with them. If you are suggesting that all someone has to do to be guaranteed a comfortable living by the government, is to procreate, then I think you are so far off your rocker that I am not sure how to respond.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm talking about the United States:

Federal Poverty Level Guidelines

The Fed says that the poverty level for a 5 person household is $28,410. Two people working full time minimum wage jobs will earn more than that ($30,160).

The kids are not working a job, so the wages have nothing to do with them. If you are suggesting that all someone has to do to be guaranteed a comfortable living by the government, is to procreate, then I think you are so far off your rocker that I am not sure how to respond.

As several have pointed out, the federal poverty level is not the best metric to determine what a livable wage is. If you think $30k is anywhere close to enough money to support 5 people, you are high.

The kids are not working, but sonofabitch if they don't still cost money to house and feed and clothe. I am not suggesting procreation bonuses any more than you are suggesting castration, so let's not steer this to crazy town. I am simply pointing out that the world isn't as tidy as you are pretending it is. And since we don't live in China, we aren't passing any laws limiting the number of children people have. So what happens to those kids who are born -- at no fault of their own -- into desperate circumstances? I know who you blame the circumstances on, but that doesn't do anything to solve the problems.

 

[kmoose]

As several have pointed out, the federal poverty level is not the best metric to determine what a livable wage is. If you think $30k is anywhere close to enough money to support 5 people, you are high.

The kids are not working, but sonofabitch if they don't still cost money to house and feed and clothe. I am not suggesting procreation bonuses any more than you are suggesting castration, so let's not steer this to crazy town. I am simply pointing out that the world isn't as tidy as you are pretending it is. And since we don't live in China, we aren't passing any laws limiting the number of children people have. So what happens to those kids who are born -- at no fault of their own -- into desperate circumstances? I know who you blame the circumstances on, but that doesn't do anything to solve the problems.

I don't have an answer for what happens to the kids. There are social programs that hopefully will provide a safety net for them. But I do know this........... if you guarantee a comfortable living to anyone with a minimum wage job, then you will create an entitlement mentality that will be nearly impossible to reverse without some seriously Draconian measures. Think of the average person on the street displaying the exact same "you owe me" mentality that many student-athletes have......... there's nothing good that can come from that. You're also absolving the parents of ALL responsibility for their poor choices. They know that they can't support 5 people on two minimum wage jobs, so why did they not take advantage of the Obamacare provided birth control?

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't have an answer for what happens to the kids. There are social programs that hopefully will provide a safety net for them. But I do know this........... if you guarantee a comfortable living to anyone with a minimum wage job, then you will create an entitlement mentality that will be nearly impossible to reverse without some seriously Draconian measures. Think of the average person on the street displaying the exact same "you owe me" mentality that many student-athletes have......... there's nothing good that can come from that.

Well, the kids are always who I think of first when thinking of this topic. I posted some links earlier in this thread and one of them says that 22% of kids in this country are food insecure. That means they are poor and they did nothing to earn it but are being penalized. The problem is simple if all we are talking about consenting adults. Much bigger and more complex issue when the reality of children is considered.

And to your point ... "what is comfortable?" I mean we are talking about minimum wage. You think anyone living on their own on $7.25 or $8 an hour is living comfortably? It'd be tough today on $10 an hour and splitting expenses with a roommate. There is a lot of real estate between comfortable and desperate circumstances. I say move a little further to the middle where people can realistically live.