How the Hypocrite Leftwing Argues

[TaraJo]

We need a champion for demand side economics.

And maybe then we can transition to keeping in mind that economics isn't one-sided.

I whole heartedly agree. However, as of now, all the economic and political power rests solidly on the supply side of things. We need an answer that is wholely demand side to balance things out. Once things get balanced, yeah, we do need to address both supply and demand. Unfortunately, we are far less than balanced right now.

[LastPoet]

A Theist: the paradigmatic example of the spoiled american.

[Faith No More]

By "leveling the playing field" I believe she meant providing equal access to resources, such as a good education, that make social mobility a reality and not a pipe dream.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

That's not going to solve one thing until the people in the poor inner city areas change their freaking attitudes that they're always owed something and take on some personal responsibility for themselves....put down the drugs and alcohol, stop thinking of yourself and put aside the leisure time, nobody owes you a freaking thing that you haven't earned and worked for, get off your lazy entitlement butt, forget about your Bingo games and get a job! That's the best program out there for leveling the playing field...there's no way that you lived in a poor neighborhood long enough to not see that....unbelievable!

How about redistributing the wealthy's fortunes? No one needs a personal fortune in the 10's or 100's of millions, let alone in the billions. If they want a fortune that size, well, they are selfish, greedy bastards. If we redistributed all of America's wealth, waited a few generations, and I guarantee you it wouldn't be the currently wealthy that have amassed more wealth. You want to talk about poor work ethics, what about the snot-nosed, rich, bastard who has his mom call his college professor to protest a poor grade that was well deserved because he did not apply himself? He'll still have a job waiting for him when he graduates though, at daddy's law firm.

Yay, stereotypes!

[Mister Agenda]

Also grew up poor, shiftless dad, moved all the time. Like economics, being poor isn't one-sided.

Middle-class and up usually DO have lots of advantages. They generally get to go to better schools, have their parents fund their college education, probably have their first car bought for them, good chance of grandparents chipping in big time on that first house. Through no effort on their part, middle-class (and higher) children get more capital, espescially human capital (marketable skills, confidence in their ability to achieve financial goals, investing practices modeled for them, and so on). Some of these advantaged kids lose those advantages, either from bad luck, or not absorbing the qualities that would help them perpetuate their economic class.

Working poor and down often DO have behaviors that contribute to remaining in their situation. Like the middle-class kids, they were born into their disadvantaged situation to no credit or fault of their own. Their options are more limited, they have less access to any kind of capital (especially including a comparable education), the behaviors they're exposed to are not usually conducive to moving up the economic ladder, but some of them manage to do it anyway, due to genetics or different experiences or good parenting in a bad situation, a mentor, or whatever.

I don't conclude from this that it's pointless to assist the poor. It's pointless to expect assistance aimed at keeping their heads above water to be effective in remedying their situation; not so pointless to expect results-based programs aimed at getting them the skills and behavioral tools to achieve more economically to help more than just food stamps and Medicaid alone.

A harsh reality seems to be that it's not very effective to aim such efforts at adults, except to help them be more effectively supportive of the success of the children. Train the adults to be parents of children who will make it out of poverty and properly educate those children, and you can see real improvement.

I would think a conservative could recognize that spending more now in ways that will make more people less dependent on government assistance in the future is simply a good investment.

[festive1]

Yay, stereotypes!

Yep, I used a stereotype... One that I've met and seen in many people I've encountered in my life. It was not my intention to imply that ALL wealthy people are like this, some are very generous and aware of other's hardships and very hard working, but some are lazy idiots, oblivious, and wouldn't be able to support themselves if cut off from their trust funds. But the bit about amassing personal fortunes... If that's your ultimate goal... well, you are selfish and greedy, no way around that.

[TaraJo]

Every study done has confirmed what Mister Agenda said. You have money, your kids have advantages which result in them having money later on. It starts before birth, when your parents can afford the best pre-natal care for you. It continues as you get better nutrition, better supervision and a better education. As you continue on, you have more general stability. You have a better chance of having a car or having continued quality health care. Money lets you get tutors or your kids to make damn sure they get good grades. Money helps your kids emphasize more on school and less on getting a job simply because they aren't going to see their family in dire economic straights. Money is what gets them into college which is the doorway to getting a good job. You don't see kids from dirt poor families getting into Harvard or Yale. You see them getting into state schools on sports scholarships sometimes, sure, but the great majority of them wind up going to community colleges if they go to college at all.

Yes, there is some amount of personal responsibility with poverty, no question, but persoal responsibility only adds onto circumstances you were born into. Take a person born into a por family but works his ass off. Sure, he'll be able to climb out of poverty but he probably won't get further than middle class. Take someone born into power and privilege and give him a lazy work ethic and he can still become president of the United States (that's exactly what happened with George W. Bush, the president who set record for vacation days while president).

I've watched it happen. My dad has a better work ethic than anyone I have ever known; he actually gets excited to work lots of overtime. He came from some pretty extreme poverty, though, and even with that work ethic, he's upper middle class (and it helps that he was married to a woman who comes from an upper middle class background; in fact, he had to rely on help from my mom's family while he was getting his career established). If he had worked that hard and put that much effort into his career but he had come from a wealthy family, who knows where he would be now; he might be refered to as 'Governor Rizzatto' or 'Doctor Rizzatto' or some other prestigious title.

Also worth noting, while hard work did get him where he wants to be, he also knows he never could have gotten there on his own. He has always been a union supporter, even when he was in a supervisory position and prohibited from being an actual union member because of it. He knows that the plutocrats would milk him for everything he's worth if given half the chance and his only protecions from their abuses of power are unions.

The bottom line is, every single fucking study in the history of the world has shown the same thing: if your family has power and privilege, you're chances of having an easy life go up drastically regardless of what other personal circumstances you have to deal with. If your family is poor, you're probably going to be poor even if you work your ass off.

[LastPoet]

There is a big equalizer in all of that TaraJo, usually the spoiled brats fuck up everything once they get any power. whimsical isn't it?

[TaraJo]

There is a big equalizer in all of that TaraJo, usually the spoiled brats fuck up everything once they get any power. whimsical isn't it?

While that may be true, it doesn't mean they ever lose that power no matter how bad they fuck things up. Again, George W. Bush comes to mind: the worst president ever who completed two terms.

[LastPoet]

"we" elected Jose Socrates as PM for 1 and a half terms in my country, so yeah, tell me about it