By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - The US Politics |OT|

Torillian on 14 March 2021
KLAMarine said:
vivster said:

And to add to what Sundin has already said that "lavish spending" is not necessarily going back into the economy, unless you consider the stock market the economy. You won't find many super rich people supporting small businesses. Which means more money will stay with the rich than gets funneled back to the poor. Why do you think there is an ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor? It's an uneven trickle up which has to be stopped.

One way to regulate the uneven flow is increasing taxes on the rich or at least properly enforce existing taxes and taking those gains and giving it straight back to the poorest.

I think small businesses tend to be more expensive compared to a Wal-Mart. I think the wealthier someone is, the more likely they are to shop outside of a Wal-Mart or other big business.

As for why I think there's an increasing gap: maybe the rich are smart about money and the poor are dumb about it? There's a potential explanation. Let's give more money to those who are dumb with their money, that'll solve their problems.

Do you have anything to back your "poor people are dumb" economic model?

Actually, I think before one even gets to that you'd have to prove that the things rich people do with their money are better for the economy than what poor people do. Pretty sure there is evidence specifically against that claim. 



...

Around the Network
KLAMarine on 14 March 2021
Torillian said:
KLAMarine said:

I think small businesses tend to be more expensive compared to a Wal-Mart. I think the wealthier someone is, the more likely they are to shop outside of a Wal-Mart or other big business.

As for why I think there's an increasing gap: maybe the rich are smart about money and the poor are dumb about it? There's a potential explanation. Let's give more money to those who are dumb with their money, that'll solve their problems.

Do you have anything to back your "poor people are dumb" economic model?

Actually, I think before one even gets to that you'd have to prove that the things rich people do with their money are better for the economy than what poor people do. Pretty sure there is evidence specifically against that claim. 

I never claimed poor people are dumb so not sure what model you're referring to here...



Torillian on 14 March 2021
KLAMarine said:
Torillian said:

Do you have anything to back your "poor people are dumb" economic model?

Actually, I think before one even gets to that you'd have to prove that the things rich people do with their money are better for the economy than what poor people do. Pretty sure there is evidence specifically against that claim. 

I never claimed poor people are dumb so not sure what model you're referring to here...

True, technically you only implied poor people are dumb with money and therefore should not be given any more. How about that model? 



...

JWeinCom on 14 March 2021
AsGryffynn said:
Signalstar said:

...Excuse me what?

As in, "What the hell are you talking about?"

That y'all sound like Democratic Party shills given you do nothing but heap praise on them instead of pointing out their flaws (and admitting that they might do good and bad things like every normal person on the planet). 

But no, you're too woke to actually wake up and realize that thanks to idiots like Cinema and Manchurian, a wage increase and a larger package for unemployment benefits, have all but died. 

Runa216 said:

I ask this every time I see their posts. 

Maybe because you're too blind to admit the US system sucks and both parties suck. Period. 

JWeinCom said:

Gonna need some clarification on this pretty quickly.

A pro-Biden Twitter influencer was found out to actually be paid by a Democratic Party PAC. He received more than 57 thousand in money to do this shit. 

In other words, they PAY these people to say that stuff and influence public opinion because they know their actual policies and support from the people is hogwash. 

Also... 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/arizona-apple-app-store-bill_n_603d08f8c5b68297150211e8

Let it be known politics will never ever be a binary choice, and even "teh evulz" party can put good stuff forth. Judging a party by the LCD is a trap I wouldn't dare fall in. 

The post you were responding to said...

"Again, huge win for the Democrats (and for Americans)."

To go from that to "You're a shill who does nothing but heap praise on Democrats" is totally irrational. It was fairly mild praise aimed towards a particular action. Also, an ad hominem attack as instead of pointing out why the plan may have not been a good thing, you went straight to attacking the user, who has certainly criticized democrats in the past.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 14 March 2021

KLAMarine on 14 March 2021
Torillian said:
KLAMarine said:

I never claimed poor people are dumb so not sure what model you're referring to here...

True, technically you only implied poor people are dumb with money and therefore should not be given any more. How about that model? 

Still no. Here's a snippet of what I posted earlier:

"Let's give more money to those who are dumb with their money, that'll solve their problems."

I implied the dumb should not be given money, never said the poor should not be given money.

And no, poor and dumb are NOT the same. One can be smart and poor or rich and dumb (I hate that I have to anticipate things here lest people start imagining me saying things I'm not actually saying).

Spoiler!
I've been thread-banned, I can't respond to anyone. Sorry, my posts "lead to pointless off topic conversations"...
Last edited by KLAMarine - on 15 March 2021

Around the Network
Torillian on 14 March 2021
KLAMarine said:
Torillian said:

True, technically you only implied poor people are dumb with money and therefore should not be given any more. How about that model? 

Still no. Here's a snippet of what I posted earlier:

"Let's give more money to those who are dumb with their money, that'll solve their problems."

I implied the dumb should not be given money, never said the poor should not be given money.

And no, poor and dumb are NOT the same. One can be smart and poor or rich and dumb (I hate that I have to anticipate things here lest people start imagining me saying things I'm not actually saying).

"As for why I think there's an increasing gap: maybe the rich are smart about money and the poor are dumb about it? There's a potential explanation. Let's give more money to those who are dumb with their money, that'll solve their problems."

So you're claiming now that "the poor are dumb about it" is really meaning "some poor are dumb about it"? You should've at least included a "and some I'm sure are smart people that just happen to be poor"



...

The_Yoda on 15 March 2021
sundin13 said:
The_Yoda said:

Again, this is exactly why I don't like argumentative analogy. By making a comparison between two things in this sense, you make the discussion not about the point you were trying to make but about the issues with that comparison. Like, you are now saying that people defrauding the government is comparable to the "employee pocketing money"? It really isn't, and I can't address the actual argument here because it is hiding behind this comparison. This is just a nonsensical bundle of words that provides no value. 

I urge you to make your argument instead of making an argument that is kind of like your argument and hoping that the argument that you actually made proves something about the argument you didn't make.

I'll grant you that.  I didn't think "employee pocking money" and money being lost through fraud were too far apart to keep you from understanding the analogy but I guess I was wrong.  In the last two posts we have been talking more about the analogy but I fell that is because you have misconstrued and tried to twist it, not because it was horribly flawed in the first place.  The point of it was how you react to the situation not the nuts and bolts of how exactly you came to find yourself there. It was not perfect but it was not all that far off the mark. Analogies do not have to be and are not always perfect.  Very few situations are EXACTLY the same which is what you at least seem to need to be able to accept an analogy.

A couple of you keep saying I want to stop the aid and do nothing or are under the false assumption that I only now have a problem with constant deficit and waste as a reason to argue against this bill and helping people instead of the waste.  You are wrong and mis-characterize what I am saying.

Let me put it this way and then I will drop it.

There is a big difference between doing nothing and doing something.  There is also a difference between doing something and doing something right.

It is obvious that several of you are in the do something category and I am in the do something right category.  Perhaps I'm just being too idealistic and you guys are being realistic.  If that is the case then that is just sad for all of us.  



Barozi on 15 March 2021

There's no point in doing something right when that causes it to be too late to achieve anything.

If you want less fraud then you have to accept more bureaucracy (more detailed forms to fill out and closer inspection of your personal and financial status etc.) which takes a lot of time (and money!).



The_Yoda on 15 March 2021
Barozi said:

There's no point in doing something right when that causes it to be too late to achieve anything.

If you want less fraud then you have to accept more bureaucracy (more detailed forms to fill out and closer inspection of your personal and financial status etc.) which takes a lot of time (and money!).

We got it wrong quite some time ago, saying we didn't have time to get it right seems like accepting less than we should from our politicians and our bureaucracy.

How long ago did we get hit by covid?  How long ago did we add gig workers to unemployment insurance? The only thing I've seen besides the 100M is the same thing I have to offer, no real solutions to the problem.  Perhaps I should run for office, at least I'd get rich in the process.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/poorest-politicians-united-states.html/ - I don't recall reading anything from these guys but they keep referencing Roll Call as their source who is a little left of center but pretty damn on it otherwise.

Ok, I really am probably done talking about this.



The_Yoda on 15 March 2021
Hiku said:
KLAMarine said:

I implied the dumb should not be given money, never said the poor should not be given money.

"and the poor are dumb about it"

Well right here you implied that poor people are dumb with their money.
If you phrased your sentence wrong, then you should clarify that rather than sounding like you were trying the Jedi mind trick on us.

As for your theory, I think the most obvious problem is that 3 people sit on half the wealth of the country (USA) and do nothing with the majority of it.

(And that's only counting three billionaires. There are many more.)

Combined with the fact that poor people are kept poor to the point where their paychecks are just barely enough to survive.
This is the loop that the wealthiest have created, because they can. Thanks to their money influencing lawmakers to keep this going.


David Cross: Why America Sucks at Everything - YouTube

Why the fuck would I want to listen to some never-nude's opinion?   I miss when Arrested Development was on the air.  Perhaps it is because I've only watched it once but I didn't care for how netflix handled it but bless them for trying I suppose.

Spoiler!
Stealth analogy don't tell Sundin. Shhhhh, I kid I kid