|
Post by HOLIDAY on Nov 15, 2020 2:52:51 GMT -5
No. Stop. You don't get to create a spurious talking point and then when confronted with the inaccuracies of what you've said, strawman away. Since you brought income inequality into this conversation, please address this (without resorting to 'whataboutism'): First google result for income inequality by state: Most equal (using Gini coefficient): 1. Utah 2. Alaska 3. New Hampshire 4. Wyoming 5. Hawaii 47. California 48. Connecticut 49. Louisiana 50. New York 51. Washington DC New Hampshire and Louisiana are purple. Hawaii is the only outlier in that group. Where was the inaccuracy? Don’t try to talk sense into these Democrats. It’s not possible. Their own truth in their head is never with the truth really is. Isn’t that blatantly obvious from the posts they make? They’re nuts!
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Nov 15, 2020 2:54:46 GMT -5
I lived in Louisiana for a time. It ain’t purple. John Bel Edwards wouldn’t make it out of a primary in any blue state.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 2:56:35 GMT -5
No. Stop. You don't get to create a spurious talking point and then when confronted with the inaccuracies of what you've said, strawman away. Since you brought income inequality into this conversation, please address this (without resorting to 'whataboutism'): First google result for income inequality by state: Most equal (using Gini coefficient): 1. Utah 2. Alaska 3. New Hampshire 4. Wyoming 5. Hawaii 47. California 48. Connecticut 49. Louisiana 50. New York 51. Washington DC New Hampshire and Louisiana are purple. Hawaii is the only outlier in that group. Where was the inaccuracy? Here are the 10 states with the highest income inequality: New York (51.02) Connecticut (49.47) Louisiana (49.03) California (48.8) Florida (48.52) Massachusetts (48.26) Georgia (48.16) Texas (48.03) Mississippi (47.99) Illinois (47.89) worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/income-inequality-by-state
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 3:00:24 GMT -5
No. Stop. You don't get to create a spurious talking point and then when confronted with the inaccuracies of what you've said, strawman away. Since you brought income inequality into this conversation, please address this (without resorting to 'whataboutism'): First google result for income inequality by state: Most equal (using Gini coefficient): 1. Utah 2. Alaska 3. New Hampshire 4. Wyoming 5. Hawaii 47. California 48. Connecticut 49. Louisiana 50. New York 51. Washington DC New Hampshire and Louisiana are purple. Hawaii is the only outlier in that group. Where was the inaccuracy? More for you, because you asked... Here are 2018 poverty rates for the 10 poorest states: Mississippi – 19.6% Louisiana – 19.0% New Mexico – 16.6% Alabama – 16.0% West Virginia – 15.9% Arkansas – 15.9% Kentucky – 15.7% Georgia - 14.8% District of Columbia – 14.7% Texas – 13.7% www.thebalance.com/us-poverty-rate-by-state-4585001
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 3:01:49 GMT -5
So please, yes, n00b let's talk about all these poorly run blue states.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Nov 15, 2020 3:11:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Nov 15, 2020 10:13:26 GMT -5
I think you are missing the connection between fighting poverty and reducing income inequality, and you left out the part of the story where Republican politicians have been inciting class warfare for decades by destroying unions, demonizing the poor, and worshipping the super-rich ("job creators"). Sure, some Democrats are trying to get support for policies they believe will help reduce income inequality--that's their approach to fighting poverty. Are you for real? This is not at all what the Democrats are now. They used to be. If they cared so much about the poor and inequality, they would have passed the stimulus bill or tried like hell to do it Instead of holding out for political purposes. Your party is nothing but a bunch of cheaters who accomplish nothing.Now you’re nothing but a bunch of rich celebrities, obnoxious sanctimonious media people, and elitist. The workingman now belong to the republican party First of all, I'm not a Democrat. My voter registration is NPP ("No party preference") and I consider myself politically homeless. I don't particularly like any Democrats in Congress or their proposals, and nor do I like any Republicans. I will say that I know plenty of Democrats who are not rich, not in the media, and not elitist. You should really try an experiment where you don't use stereotypes in your writing for a while. It appears to me that Democrats like Sanders and Warren have proposed what they view as short-term (e.g., raising taxes on the super-rich, medicare-for-all) and long-term (e.g., free higher education, worker representation on corporate boards) solutions to the income inequality problem. Typically politicians' proposals aren't well thought-out and that seems true here too, but my point wasn't that Democrats actually have a solution to income inequality--only that they have some ideas they think will help.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 15, 2020 10:42:32 GMT -5
When capitalism works like it is supposed to, it does drive income inequality. Those who invest their labor, ingenuity, risk, and wealth into successful ventures are supposed to get rewarded.
When capitalism fails, it is because the knob is turned to far toward wealth-creating-wealth, which leads to runaway inequality and the concentration of the wealth into smaller and smaller fractions of the people.
This is why steeply progressive taxes and sharp limitations on inheritance are necessary in a capitalist system. It's not that we don't want to make people wealthy -- it's that we don't want it set up so that only wealthy people can get more wealthy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 11:02:37 GMT -5
People confuse our economic system with capitalism. It is a rigged system, not capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Nov 15, 2020 12:10:33 GMT -5
People confuse our economic system with capitalism. It is a rigged system, not capitalism. Is there an example of "unrigged" capitalism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 12:14:31 GMT -5
Sure.
But I'm not against rigged capitalism if it means regulated. All of our rules seem to favor those who already have wealth. That's the worst type of rigging.
The simplest definition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 12:15:47 GMT -5
The key there is who is allowed -- or has the ability to be -- a "private owner." That's where our system is rigged.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 15, 2020 12:48:06 GMT -5
But I'm not against rigged capitalism if it means regulated. All of our rules seem to favor those who already have wealth. That's the worst type of rigging. "Unrigged" capitalism already has a massive positive feedback loop. It's right there in the name. If you have capital (wealth), you can use the system to generate more. If you don't, it's much, much harder.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Nov 15, 2020 12:52:06 GMT -5
Sure, everything in a capitalist system favors capital. It's how it works. I don't see how it's rigged if it's operating as designed.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 15, 2020 12:52:58 GMT -5
Sure, everything in a capitalist system favors capital. It's how it works. I don't see how it's rigged if it's operating as designed. It can still be rigged to make the feedback loops even stronger. "Rigged" is probably not the right word. But there are ways to provide some negative feedback, like progressive taxation, and there are ways to provide positive feedback, like tax breaks that only the rich can qualify for. Positive feedback == "the rich get richer"
|
|