The working class is getting royally screwed.

Jarod said:
Its statements like this that show how brainwashed they are.
Click to expand...

Point out where I'm wrong, fucktard.

Unlike your sorry ass, I've done my due diligence into finding out how we got to where we are now.

Bush wrote NAFTA and Clinton signed it.

W. allowed the housing bubble which burst and then bailed out the big banks and Obama continued with that.

Trump levied tariffs on imports of certain things to encourage domestic production and didn't sign onto the TPP.

All TPP does is gimp our country while others can do whatever they want. It's a bad deal for the US and Biden signed right onto it.
 
Last edited:
goat said:
Are you aware that our grandkids lack the opportunities we had because our generation fell for the political theater of red vs blue?
Click to expand...

No. What makes you think that?

We can change the president but we can't change the neolib race to the bottom policies.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that? Remember, during Democratic administrations, poverty rates have, on average, dropped dramatically (over 12 points total since they started measuring), whereas under Republican ones poverty rates have actually risen, net. Don't those facts matter?

Biden spent his entire political career screwing the working class yet you voted for him anyway
Click to expand...

Biden voted for pretty much every policy that helped the working class in the last several decades, including minimum wage hikes, child tax credits, new labor rights, collective bargaining protections, higher taxes on the rich, environmental protections, etc. I know it's really tempting to dismiss everyone as a neolib, so you can feel above the fray and too cool for both parties. But facts matter. The fact is Biden has been fighting for policies that help the working class for decades.
 
PoliTalker said:
This is a complex situation. There is nothing simple about it. The rich and powerful exert an outsized influence over our government because corruption is legal. People on both sides of the isle agree that big money has too much control in government, but there is too much apathy, which leads most to assume nothing can be done about it. (That is incorrect. There is much which can be done, but we lack the strive and organization to accomplish progress on that front.)

As long as the rich and powerful control government, they will increase their wealth and power. The 99% will continue to lose.

As long as apathy reigns, and people believe nothing can be done about the situation, no progress will be made.

To complicate that little dynamic, consider that big money spends heavily on the promulgation of propaganda which keeps people emotionally hateful of government and politics in general. As long as things remain on an emotional basis, a logical solution will not be realized.

Congress will not vote to end the legal corruption. Congress must be largely replaced with people who make that a priority. But every election is dominated by emotional propaganda, making people sick and tired of hearing about the whole thing. So we simply get more of the same. It won't change until people get better educated and take the initiative to get informed and vote.

Good people are not voting in great enough numbers to make a difference. Too many voters are motivated by hateful propaganda and not well enough informed. If they vote at all. Remember the apathy thing. Good people simply become disgusted with the whole thing and decide to avoid getting well enough informed to vote with confidence. Since they don't know what to do, they don't vote. Easy choice in this busy world.

Our self created government relies on the active monitoring of the progress of our country by every citizen. People really need to learn what's going on and get involved. What we have instead is the active participation of misguided emotional people who have been persuaded to actually vote against their own better interest, based on wedge issues.

We can fix corruption. It won't be easy, but it is entirely possible. We already have all the tools we need. It will just take a long time. Perhaps longer than many of us will live. It was the same way with the women's vote. People who fought for that were already dead when it finally happened.

Should we avoid fixing corruption because it won't happen instantly?

Apathy says yes, don't try, it's not worth it.

Fixing corruption
Click to expand...

all of it will change, quite soon actually.
 
Flash said:
Reducing poverty is great, but the percentage of Americans actually living in poverty is also important.
Click to expand...

Yes, and by reducing the poverty rate, the number living in poverty is decreased.

Average annual poverty rate under Democrats: 14.6%
Average annual poverty rate under Republicans: 12.7%
Click to expand...

Yes, because more Democrats tended to be earlier in that process, they had some higher rates, because even good policies don't change things overnight. Simply taking the average of each is silly. Again, it's like comparing two diets meant to help you lose weight. You go on the first diet for a year and drop weight from 300 pounds to 200, then you go on the second diet and gain weight from 200 pounds to 290 in a year. If you simply compared your average weight on each diet, you'd conclude the second diet was better. You'd also be a blithering moron.

If you want to look at averages, then look at them relative to trend lines. Poverty fell from 22.4 to 11.4 between 1959 and 2020. So, an average year was about 0.18 points down. How did each president compare to that average?

I am not arguing about whether anything was better or worse under either party, I am just challenging the research and data used to try to prove partisan points.
Click to expand...

I don't come at things from that perspective. I research what is happening and then take my position based on that. I had no view about whether Democrats or Republicans were better for the poor until I researched the historical data and found out Democrats were. Similarly, I had no view about which one was worse for inflation until I researched that and found that different reasonable ways to score that give you different results, so I don't have any strong view on it.
 
Hello American Man,

American Man said:
I'm sorry, but neither party really cares about the working class. It truly is a matter of the haves and have-nots, regardless of politics.
Click to expand...

The working class does a whole lot better with Democrats than Republicans.

Republicans are totally and completely subservient to the super-rich.

Democrats have some members who have sold out to big money, but not as many as Republicans, and Democrats do a better job of looking out for the 99%.

It is too easy to say the parties are the same, but the reality is far more complex.

If it wasn't for Democrats, the working class would have no minimum wage, no weekends, no overtime pay, no Social Security, no Medicare and no unemployment compensation. All of those things came from Democrats.
 
Hello Mina,

Mina said:
Yes, and where the working class had been sliding over the course of the 20 years before that, it gained after that. Were you aware of that? Were you aware that over the course of the two decades before NAFTA, the poverty rate rose, unemployment rates rose, and median real incomes hardly budged at all? Were you aware that after NAFTA became law, the poverty rate plummeted, unemployment rates fell, and median real incomes soared?



Were you aware that the poverty rate for children rose 7.9 points in the two decades before Clinton took office, but then plummeted 6.1 points on his watch?



Were you aware that Glass-Steagall never actually got repealed, and instead all that happened is that certain provisions of it were repealed-- the major one being the rule against common ownership of retail and investment banks? Were you aware that the Treasury made a profit on its bailouts of the banks?



Were you aware that before Obama took office, military spending was a much larger share of GDP than it was by the end of his presidency, and that before he took office we were suffering much higher rates of KIA's in foreign military engagements?



He is? Do you have a link to him currently doing that?



What makes you think that?



You need to own up to the measurable facts. When Democrats have led, on average, the real median income growth has been strong, unemployment rates have fallen, and poverty rates have plummeted... none of which is true for Republican have led. Don't the facts have a place in this discussion?
Click to expand...

Nice job of fact-splaining.

:)
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello American Man,



The working class does a whole lot better with Democrats than Republicans.

Republicans are totally and completely subservient to the super-rich.

Democrats have some members who have sold out to big money, but not as many as Republicans, and Democrats do a better job of looking out for the 99%.

It is too easy to say the parties are the same, but the reality is far more complex.

If it wasn't for Democrats, the working class would have no minimum wage, no weekends, no overtime pay, no Social Security, no Medicare and no unemployment compensation. All of those things came from Democrats.
Click to expand...

^Unadulterated bullshit.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
Reducing poverty is great, but the percentage of Americans actually living in poverty is also important. For example, using that same census data on the poverty rate from 1959-2020 (I began with 1961 as the start of a presidential term). If you take the average poverty rate for each year for percent of all people below the poverty level we find:

The poverty level for each year under a Democratic or Republican presidency and average all of those annual rates we find:

Average annual poverty rate under Democrats: 14.6%
Average annual poverty rate under Republicans: 12.7%

I am not arguing about whether anything was better or worse under either party, I am just challenging the research and data used to try to prove partisan points. In another post I showed teen birth rate was lower under Republican than Democratic presidents.

Some idiot always tries to claim I am left-wing or right-wing just because I challenge their partisan arguments.
Click to expand...

My perception is you are right of center.

Could it be that there is a lag time between when Democratic policies are enacted and when the numbers are affected?
 
Matt Dillon said:
Bush set a lot of that stuff up and Clinton kept it going. No president has even tried to do anything except Trump.
Click to expand...
The policies are planned way in advance but there's no way Bush could pass NAFTA, it took Clinton to get it done. The best thing Trump did was call out the FBI and CIA for playing politics.
 
goat said:
The policies are planned way in advance but there's no way Bush could pass NAFTA, it took Clinton to get it done. The best thing Trump did was call out the FBI and CIA for playing politics.
Click to expand...

Bush wrote NAFTA. Clinton signed it during his lame duck period. Just before W. came in.
 
Hello Mina,

Mina said:
No. What makes you think that?



What makes you think that? Remember, during Democratic administrations, poverty rates have, on average, dropped dramatically (over 12 points total since they started measuring), whereas under Republican ones poverty rates have actually risen, net. Don't those facts matter?



Biden voted for pretty much every policy that helped the working class in the last several decades, including minimum wage hikes, child tax credits, new labor rights, collective bargaining protections, higher taxes on the rich, environmental protections, etc. I know it's really tempting to dismiss everyone as a neolib, so you can feel above the fray and too cool for both parties. But facts matter. The fact is Biden has been fighting for policies that help the working class for decades.
Click to expand...

President Biden is a big money career politician who, among those things you mentioned, also voted to exclude student loan debt from personal bankruptcy. That helped the big banks that bankrolled his campaigns and got him into power, but it certainly did not help the unfortunate individual who attempted to gain more education, but for whatever reason, was unable to complete their education and get the job which would pay for the education.

Saddling someone like that with life debt is consigning them to a life of poverty.

Also consider that people could face things out of their own control, such as a divorce with kids, a big corporation deciding to leave a local economy high and dry with skyrocketing unemployment, or a major medical event without insurance.

Any one of those, a combination of them, or a myriad of other personal tragedies could end aspirations to complete higher education and qualify for a job that would pay off those student loans.

Even President Biden, a man who truly does try to look out for the little guy, has to bow to the wishes of the rich and powerful sometimes if he wants to continue to be in a position to help when he is able to and has the support of voters.

So there is at least one exception to Biden voting for 'pretty much every policy that helped the working class in the last several decades.'

Yes, I still voted for him. There is no perfect politician and the USA is logically a grand compromise. Certainly there is no question that the alternative would have been far worse.
 
Matt Dillon said:
^Unadulterated bullshit.
Click to expand...

I believe in measurables -- otherwise, all we're doing is making assertions that harmonize with our emotional needs. So, does the working class, in fact, do a whole lot better with Democrats than Republicans, at PoliTalker says?

There are a number of measurables we could use to check that. As I previously mentioned, poverty rates are one. During Democratic administrations, the poverty rate fell, net, by over twelve points, whereas it experienced a net increase during Republican administration.

Or how about income. If we measure family income in real terms (adjusted for inflation), then at the median, between 1953 and 2000 (the period the Federal Reserve has data for), then in the average year with a Democratic president, income rose 1.77%, versus just 0.97% in the average year with a Republican president.

That may sound like a small difference, but think of what it means over time. In 1953, the median family earned $36,095 per year in today's dollars. If that had increased at the Republican rate (about 0.97%) every year, then today the median family would be earning about $68,833. If, on the other hand, it had spent the same time increasing at the Democratic rate (about 1.77%), then today the median family would be earning about $116,956.So, over time, that seemingly small difference in rates would be the difference in a middle-class family having nearly $50k extra in annual income. Or, to put it another way, over the course of that run, it's the difference of well over a million dollars of extra earnings.

So, yes, I think the working class does, in fact, do a whole lot better with Democrats than Republicans, as PoliTalker says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top