The left has gone full retard

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But we have plenty of evidence that countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty. If someone gives you enough money -- you aren't poor anymore are you? The argument that government spending can't decrease the poverty rate is wrong via common sense. We don't even have to delve into the psychological impact of getting money from the government.

It amazes me how free market ideology so successfully gets people to ignore the obvious. They tell you with a straight face that trickle down economics helps poor/working people.

Edit: to clarify, I agree poverty is -- at least for my purposes -- somewhat relative to where you live. This is why we talk about "inequality" more than poverty. My primary concern is quality of life. I feel it is generally lower for the poor. I can't necessarily say the same for middleclass vs wealthy people.

You say "poverty is relative to where you live," and then say countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty

If a country with a high GDP per capita and a high standard of living as a result, spends more money on welfare because of a higher cost of living than, say, a poorer country, did your stats prove the efficacy or welfare spending or did they just show that a more successful country, with a higher standard of living, has a higher cost to provide basic services? Even if you had data, statistics matter. Sweden would have to spend more to fight poverty than Latvia. In addition, welfare systems don't make Sweden experience less poverty than say, latvia. There are other cultural, educational, and societal factors at play

PS: as for the free market, we had this dude named Hamilton. After arguing for tariffs for decades, he finally got them implemented after the War is 1812. This had two effects: 1. Jump started nascent American industry
2. Provided jobs for a growing merchant marine (American ships with American crews hauling goods from Europe were exempted from tariffs).

Voila, minimal regulation, minimal bureaucracy, and economic growth, wage increases, prosperity! But you support Hillary Clinton, the devil incarnate, so you wouldn't know about fighting for America workers against fucked up trade deals like NAFTA and TPP, the former signed into law by a Clinton and the latter to be signed into law by a Clinton in the future

[maskedmelon]

With regard to charity/redistribution/etc., here is what struggle with. Two questions, one moral, one rational.

How does it serve my loved ones for me to expend resources that I have acquired on random strangers? Why should I place the interests of anyone above those whom I care about? How am I a better person for depriving those who have helped, cared for and loved me in favor of those who have not?

How does society or man in general benefit from subsidy of failure? What is the rational argument for investing in the least fit? Is it wise to dilute the mean?

[dafier]

Vote HILBAMA 2016!!!

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by dafier [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Vote HILBAMA 2016!!!

heh I wish.

theres highlight videos that prove Hillary is not 0bama. 4-8 min compilations of weird behavior and weird political platform shifts.

she is nothing like barrack, and comparing her to him is really doing 0bama a disservice.

Hillary's pet project was Libya. 0bama had no say in it, the documents have leaked proving as much.

[dafier]

I wasn't digging that deep. But ya, one is black and one is white. They are quite different.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

With regard to charity/redistribution/etc., here is what struggle with. Two questions, one moral, one rational.

How does it serve my loved ones for me to expend resources that I have acquired on random strangers? Why should I place the interests of anyone above those whom I care about? How am I a better person for depriving those who have helped, cared for and loved me in favor of those who have not?

How does society or man in general benefit from subsidy of failure? What is the rational argument for investing in the least fit? Is it wise to dilute the mean?

not getting eaten is a pretty good survival strategy

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You say "poverty is relative to where you live," and then say countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty

If a country with a high GDP per capita and a high standard of living as a result, spends more money on welfare because of a higher cost of living than, say, a poorer country, did your stats prove the efficacy or welfare spending or did they just show that a more successful country, with a higher standard of living, has a higher cost to provide basic services? Even if you had data, statistics matter. Sweden would have to spend more to fight poverty than Latvia. In addition, welfare systems don't make Sweden experience less poverty than say, latvia. There are other cultural, educational, and societal factors at play

PS: as for the free market, we had this dude named Hamilton. After arguing for tariffs for decades, he finally got them implemented after the War is 1812. This had two effects: 1. Jump started nascent American industry
2. Provided jobs for a growing merchant marine (American ships with American crews hauling goods from Europe were exempted from tariffs).

Voila, minimal regulation, minimal bureaucracy, and economic growth, wage increases, prosperity! But you support Hillary Clinton, the devil incarnate, so you wouldn't know about fighting for America workers against fucked up trade deals like NAFTA and TPP, the former signed into law by a Clinton and the latter to be signed into law by a Clinton in the future

The economy is a lot different than it was in 1812. The only reason we are a rich country is because of things like intellectual property laws that are internationally enforced. We (advanced industrial economies) rig the international trade regime so that it works better for our countries' overall wealth. The problem with our country is a big portion doesn't think the wealth created this way needs to be redistributed more equally throughout society. Meanwhile, these kinds of trade agreements hit the poor hard and sudden in the short term.

But its not like Clinton just decided that there would be no more manufacturing in the rust belt. There are world economic realities at play. Clinton (along with most people in power) wanted to preserve the sectors of the economy that bring our country the most overall wealth. We can't do this while simultaneously holding our manufacturing and other skilled labor sectors. Trump implies we can -- but he's just BSing/selling himself.

The sectors we have going for us in the US economy include radical innovation (computers / phones and stuff like that) and financial services (investment and financial tools). We don't train our workforce for the high tech skills of the future for the most part. We just let the cream of the crop rise in the other two sectors I mentioned. Meanwhile, in the successful and advanced industrial economies of Europe -- seem to put much more effort into training their workforce to make things like IPhones and heavy machinary needed by the 3rd world in mass (Germany is cashing in).

Maybe that's all well and good, and its not wrong to let countries like Germany do what Germany is good at and try to work with what we are good at. But regardless, we need to get rid of the phobia of redistribution -- because it just isn't practical. It also isn't practical to bring back vast amounts of manufacturing in the US...unless we are ready to spend the kind of money Europe does on training highly skilled workers you can't find anywhere else.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

not getting eaten is a pretty good survival strategy

Have you almost been eaten recently?

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So let me get this straight. You dont know the source of poverty but you advocate an elaborate, wasteful, expensive, unproven solution to ending it?

I advocate what? Where did I advocate?

U crazy

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Have you almost been eaten recently?

no, luckily for me, the social safety net fed those who would have otherwise been forced to consume and digest my nutrient-rich flesh

it doesn't take long. starve someone for seven days, come and see.