Are the Democrats back on track?

But you do support, the act of beheading of a president you don't like. Makes perfect Libtard sense.

Clear enough for you?

 

I do? That's news to me. Thanks for the heads up.

 

Anti-Trumpers never promote violence...

 

Well it doesn't count if they are supporting Anti Trump actions. That's not the same thing you Right Wing Nut Job.

 

Nobody said that. Steve Scalise was shot.

 

Answer is still no. Our president is drawing huge crowds.

 

Are the Democrats back on track again? As of early Tuesday evening: not looking like it.

 

Such a useless party.

 

I lost interest in this debate a while back, but since you asked, I'll bring it up again.

It's not social darwinism. It's tough love.

I want the poor to succeed and better themselves. We just have a different way of approaching it. You think poverty should be subsidized. I think poverty should be disincentivized. You want equality of outcome. I want equality of opportunity.


I think more could be done with the education system to teach the importance of investment and personal finance. You see this with lottery winners who win big, only to make really bad investment decisions, and go broke.

The way the welfare system is currently set up in the United States, is that single mother (unwed) households receive greater benefits than a married household. Therefore, the welfare system penalizes marriage, and gives more benefits for unmarried families. Children who are brought up by unmarried/single mothers are more likely to live a life of crime, and usually don't have the same opportunities than children who were fortunate enough to have both parents.
How Welfare Undermines Marriage and What to Do About It

When the War on Poverty began in 1964, the poverty rate was 14%. In the last 54 years, that poverty rate has not gotten any lower, but the number of single parent families has skyrocketed. You see this a lot in black families; many poor black children come from single mother households, and don't have any contact with their fathers. Their mother is married to the government through the welfare system. It's no wonder crime rate from the black community is among the highest rates; so many black youths are growing up without father figures in their lives. It's not easy for someone to make their way out of poverty, but these welfare programs don't help at all. They make the problem worse. And it's all done by design; to keep a sizeable population poor and dependent on the system, so the politicians who write these laws can keep the votes rolling in. These people are slaves on the democratic party plantation and it's really fucked up.

Democrats love poor people. That's why they keep making so many of them. If we changed the poverty rate from 14% to 1.4%, the democrats would have to re-think their whole marketing strategy. So they won't allow that to happen.



If you think I'm fringe right, you can call me that all you want. It won't phase me either way. I'm not a big fan of the left-right labeling system anyway as it's very subjective and has lots of flaws. On the far left you have hardcore communism and systems of collectivism, where many people would consider Castro and Stalin hard left. And on the far right you have collectivist systems of Nazism, Hitler, statism and jingoism. Which leaves us with a line between two extremes of collectivism. Between two extremes of collectivism, how can libertarian individualism fit anywhere between two major collectivist extremes?

 

6

LOL oh you are so predictable but so funny.

You mean that you can’t address the criticisms of your views but try to cover that up with regal disinterest, a wave of the hand and a pompous ‘that's all beneath me’

Hilariours

I do find it funny that right wingers always seem to claim they are the hardworking diligent ones but when you ask them to defend their ideas they suddenly become incredibly work shy, oh they just can’t be bothered, they’ve lost interest, etc etc.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck even if you want to call it an aardvark.

LOL - So people are incentivised through pay increases at the top, but to incentivise those at the bottom you need to threaten them with starvation?

Thing is that we have been through this before, the incentive argument, the single parent argument, the poverty rate argument and so on have all been covered before and in the past you have run away from those debates because you could not defend your stance Oh sorry LOL you ‘lost interest’

As I’ve told you before just pumping out the same alt-right, alt-lite, right wing libertarian clap trap does not become improved with repetition because the same criticism of them still remain unanswered.

Ho hum so here we go again – you make statements – they get knocked out of the water – you run away – the perpetual dance of the alt-righter and the sane.

 

6

Basically we are back with the old con game of the deserving and undeserving poor

The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged, or just a basic safety net.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

And as I pointed out at the time this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make the ‘right choices’ they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make the wrong choices then they deserve the hardships they are in.

 

6

But to repeat many of the people receiving public assistance are working they claim assistance to survive, how is removing such help incentivising them?

One of the hallmarks of modern welfare states is a government backed old age pension scheme – so under your policy of a ‘diminishing asset’ the older a person gets the less they get until they are cut off which basically seems like a euthanasia scheme for the less well off.

Also many of these schemes are paid into by working people over their life so this policy of yours would be basically robbing people of the money they have paid into through tax.

What about benefits going toward those that are mentally or physically impaired are they also to be withdrawn?

I know the US has limited healthcare for the disadvantaged anyway but are you going to withdraw what there is?

What you seem to be proposing is a Social Darwinist based eugenics programme?

Honestly I don’t think you have given this much thought.

 

6

This has been already covered in detail a number of times.

Single parent rates according to the OECD in 2014

UK – 26%

Denmark – 23%

US – 23%

If there is a definite link between crime rates then that should be reflected in homicide rates so the UK homicide rates should be larger than the US and the American rates should be on a par with Denmark’s.

Homicide per 100,000 –

US – 5.00

UK - 0.92

Denmark – 0.99

Now here it should be noted that the UK and Denmark have more generous welfare systems than the US and both have universal healthcare.

Now according to the 2016 US census - Two-thirds of American single parent households are white, 1/3 are African-American and 1/4 are Hispanic. One-third have a college degree and 1/6 have not completed high school.

Once again I would point out that you are thinking in too a simplistic way to just to say ‘single parentage’ is the problem is not to see the complexity of the issues involved to blame crime rates just on the supposed ill effects of single parentage especially when bringing race into it is to ignore other evidence that seem to contradict your conclusions.

There are socio-economic influences involved which can lessen or harden the effects of single parentage. It is going to affect different groups differently depending on support structure and circumstance. The more advantaged are going to feel the effects of single parentage much less than those who are disadvantaged, the burden of single parentage is going to be less for the disadvantaged in places with well-funded Social Services and welfare systems.

 

6

I think we did a whole thread on the right wing view that the War on Poverty didn’t have an effect – the stance didn’t stand up well to scrutiny.

Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect


Anyway I once again post this from the Eight Great Myths About Welfare site

MYTH: Poverty and homelessness have grown in spite of the trillions of dollars spent since 1965 to help the poor; therefore, these programs have failed.


FACT: These programs have succeeded and are succeeding in getting people out of poverty and homelessness. As Michael Harrington reported in The Other America (originally printed 1962, most recently printed http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068482678X/realchangehomele/"]1997) not everyone was living like Ward and June Cleaver in the 1950's. Poverty hovered around 20 percent. In 1964, Johnson declared "war on poverty" with his "Great Society" program. The increased welfare payments reduced poverty to 12 percent by the end of the 60s.
As Nancy Amidei said in a speech at the Family Reunion conference in Tennessee, 1992: "Joan Growe, the Secretary of State of Minnesota is a former welfare mom. Judge Sedgewick, an appeals court judge, is a former welfare mom. Two members of the Montana legislature, two members of the Wisconsin legislature, a couple members of the Pennsylvania legislature. (Probably members of the Tennessee legislature are all former welfare moms.) Whoopi Goldberg is a former welfare mom. Carol Burnett is a former welfare kid. Bishop Weakland in Milwaukee is a former welfare kid. Six members of Congress (that I have been able to identify) are former welfare kids. I have run into former welfare kids and former welfare moms who are now PhDs and County Executives, nurses, career Army officials, police, Head Start aides. They are all over the place; they are terrific people and they are welfare success stories."
More people, new people, become poor and homeless daily, therefore the numbers grow. The increase in poverty and homelessness is due to grave problems in our economy, like the income of the lower 20 percent of the economy falling during the "economic boom", 6 out of 10 of the "new jobs" being under $10 an hour -- a wage at which no one can afford a market rate apartment -- racism (the median income of a Hispanic family is $3000 a YEAR), sexism, and a widening income gap. It is not due to welfare programs failing.
Eight Great Myths About Welfare

 

6

Again we have covered this

At one end you have left wing Anarchy and at the other anarcho-capitalism.

In theory the outcome of communism would be a state of Anarchy - "Withering away of the state" is a Marxist concept coined by Friedrich Engels referring to the idea that with realization of the ideals of socialism the social institution of a state will eventually become obsolete and disappear as the society will be able to govern itself without the state and its coercive enforcement

And at the other extreme the idea of - Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market

*

The big thing about National Socialism, was that it wasn’t socialism in fact the first people sent to the concentration camps were the socialists remember what Martin Niemoller said-

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

*

The reason that Nazis are thought of as right wing is that they were very much opposed to the socialists and that they based many of their ideas on Social Darwinist thinking, in both an economic sense and ethnic sense, but leaning a lot more to the ethnic sense.

To put it simply

The ethnic sense is the idea that there are inferior and superior races and people

The economic sense (followed my many right wing libertarians) is that there are inferior and superior groups and people distinguished by wealth.

The advantaged have their position through hard work and productivity (even if wealth is inherited) the disadvantaged are the lazy that need to be incentivised into being productive.

The Nazis wanted a system that advantaged the master race it seems to me that the more economic leaning Social Darwinist want a system that would only promote the interests of the already advantaged.

 

6

Ok so another rant full of spit, vinegar and grievance but once again containing little or nothing of substance.

You are just repeating stuff you could not defend from criticism the first time you posted why do you think they are going to fare any better the tenth, fiftieth or one hundredth time you repeat them – a bad idea is a bad idea how many times you repeat it.

You talk of the need for education and I agree that education can help but someone has to be willing to learn, to be willing to change ideas they have invested in when they turn of to be junk.