*spoiler alert*

3,014 Views | 117 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by Garou
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.

Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.

Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.
OK, so San Francisco is not liberal enough for you. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.

Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.
OK, so San Francisco is not liberal enough for you. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
San Francisco has been liberal enough for me. The state of California not always.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.

Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.
OK, so San Francisco is not liberal enough for you. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
San Francisco has been liberal enough for me. The state of California not always.
So why is the wealth gap in the Bay Area one of the greatest in America if liberal policies should be effective in reducing wealth gap? When does results actually matter? Why haven't those policies worked, and why are so many people displaced, so much segregation in the richer neighborhoods, so many homeless even among the working class, and so much exclusionary schooling, residence, food, etc. for the "more equal" members of the liberal community in the Bay Area?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.

Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.
OK, so San Francisco is not liberal enough for you. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
San Francisco has been liberal enough for me. The state of California not always.
So why is the wealth gap in the Bay Area one of the greatest in America if liberal policies should be effective in reducing wealth gap? When does results actually matter? Why haven't those policies worked, and why are so many people displaced, so much segregation in the richer neighborhoods, so many homeless even among the working class, and so much exclusionary schooling, residence, food, etc. for the "more equal" members of the liberal community in the Bay Area?
Because there are a lot of global forces that led to this economic reality that are not entirely controllable by the local governments in individual cities. In many ways these local governments are also just reacting to those larger forces.

I am not interested in blame here. I think there is plenty of blame to go around, and also a lot of stuff that people just couldn't have seen coming. I am interested in whatever policies can help mitigate the issues brought by rising income inequality. I am interested in forward-looking pragmatism, not backward-looking retribution.
Not Me - Us
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
LOL. Sounding so intellectual, yet completely missing the obvious truth staring him right in his face.

Not Me - Us
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

LMK5 said:

...Corporations are bad, right? Yet most here earned or continue to earn a very good living from corporations...
Your comments always betray so many well-held beliefs that you posit as fact or indisputable thesis, that are really just logical fallacies or false choices.
Is this another example of you not talking down to people?
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.

Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.
OK, so San Francisco is not liberal enough for you. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
San Francisco has been liberal enough for me. The state of California not always.
So why is the wealth gap in the Bay Area one of the greatest in America if liberal policies should be effective in reducing wealth gap? When does results actually matter? Why haven't those policies worked, and why are so many people displaced, so much segregation in the richer neighborhoods, so many homeless even among the working class, and so much exclusionary schooling, residence, food, etc. for the "more equal" members of the liberal community in the Bay Area?
Because there are a lot of global forces that led to this economic reality that are not entirely controllable by the local governments in individual cities. In many ways these local governments are also just reacting to those larger forces.

I am not interested in blame here. I think there is plenty of blame to go around, and also a lot of stuff that people just couldn't have seen coming. I am interested in whatever policies can help mitigate the issues brought by rising income inequality. I am interested in forward-looking pragmatism, not backward-looking retribution.
OK, I see. Liberals are not interested in blaming. Got it.

Also, not sure continuing liberal policies that have failed to address wealth gap is a forward-looking pragmatic solution. In fact, while I am fully supportive of robust social programs for those who want to work but cannot work and for building up the skill set of those displaced, I am not convinced the "wealth gap" in the abstract is a problem that can be solved or needs to be solved. I mean, when has anyone really followed through with that in a non-communist (or even in a communist economic system) setting on a collective or individual basis? Have you given everything or close to something meaningful to reduce wealth gap with those in your block? As anyone on any level? Unless reducing wealth gap means reducing someone else's wealth, I don't see too many people promoting reducing their own wealth and actually following through when rubber meets the road.
Not Me - Us
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:



So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
The wealth gap was created by wealthy people exploiting the loopholes in our tax system to avoid having to pay as high a percentage of their income in tax as people who make less than $50,000 a year.

And anyone that pretends that isn't it is a liar.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.

Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.
OK, so San Francisco is not liberal enough for you. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
San Francisco has been liberal enough for me. The state of California not always.


San Francisco isn't liberal at all- unless, of course, you're deluded by " diversity and tolerance" in to thinking it's economically liberal. It's a company town where both the masters ( tech industry) and their lackeys ( the city) mouth platitudes and self- serving bull**** about saving the world while creating an insipid monoculture where a city once stood.
calpoly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
Why don't you show us an example of classical conservative economic policy that does not lead economic disasters and runaway deficits. You can start with Herbert Hoover.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.

Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.
OK, so San Francisco is not liberal enough for you. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
San Francisco has been liberal enough for me. The state of California not always.


San Francisco isn't liberal at all- unless, of course, you're deluded by " diversity and tolerance" in to thinking it's economically liberal. It's a company town where both the masters ( tech industry) and their lackeys ( the city) mouth platitudes and self- serving bull**** about saving the world while creating an insipid monoculture where a city once stood.

As we can see, there are certainly SOME people who don't think SF is liberal enough.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.

Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.
OK, so San Francisco is not liberal enough for you. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
San Francisco has been liberal enough for me. The state of California not always.
So why is the wealth gap in the Bay Area one of the greatest in America if liberal policies should be effective in reducing wealth gap? When does results actually matter? Why haven't those policies worked, and why are so many people displaced, so much segregation in the richer neighborhoods, so many homeless even among the working class, and so much exclusionary schooling, residence, food, etc. for the "more equal" members of the liberal community in the Bay Area?
Because there are a lot of global forces that led to this economic reality that are not entirely controllable by the local governments in individual cities. In many ways these local governments are also just reacting to those larger forces.

I am not interested in blame here. I think there is plenty of blame to go around, and also a lot of stuff that people just couldn't have seen coming. I am interested in whatever policies can help mitigate the issues brought by rising income inequality. I am interested in forward-looking pragmatism, not backward-looking retribution.
OK, I see. Liberals are not interested in blaming. Got it.


No, not "liberals." I have known plenty of liberals who are interested in blaming. I'm talking about me. I am not interested in this line of conversation. I'd like to hear some solutions on alleviating wealth inequality (not eliminating, reducing). Raising taxes on capital gains sounds like one potential solution. Closing loopholes in the tax code perhaps another.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calpoly said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
Why don't you show us an example of classical conservative economic policy that does not lead economic disasters and runaway deficits. You can start with Herbert Hoover.


How about in the State of **** You and the country of what about our prior exchange gave you the idea that I would be interested in a discussion with a twat like you? I can name some other examples but let's start with **** you.
Matthew Patel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Roxie Richter said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets. Is that burly truck driver really voting Democrat because he has a soft spot for LGBT rights? No, he wants to make sure the Teamsters remain powerful enough to succeed in the next contract talks.

Some may claim to vote one way or another on ideological grounds, but when push comes to shove, most won't pay more to advance that ideology. College-aged kids are especially prone to falling for the liberal side of the argument. Yet something happens when you start working, paying bills, raising kids, and paying taxes. You look at things from a wider angle. Most people, when they start to work, really notice how much tax they pay, and the more intelligent ones start to ask where it's all going. Rational thought slowly overtakes ideological, feel-good thought.
You want to know where your taxes are going?



57% of every dollar to the miltary and defense contractors.

All that stuff that conservatives think their money is wasted on? Drop in a bucket compared to how much money is wasted defending ourselves from enemies that aren't going to attack us and making war against countries who have done nothing to deserve it.
OK, well if you say so. I guess I just needed one of your sock puppets to confirm that point for the rest of the world to stop worrying about what Russia, China, Iran and North Korea would do with a toothless American military.
We're more in danger from Mike Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Goldman Sachs than we are from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea combined.
Matthew Patel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:


San Francisco isn't liberal at all- unless, of course, you're deluded by " diversity and tolerance" in to thinking it's economically liberal. It's a company town where both the masters ( tech industry) and their lackeys ( the city) mouth platitudes and self- serving bull**** about saving the world while creating an insipid monoculture where a city once stood.

As we can see, there are certainly SOME people who don't think SF is liberal enough.
That's because you can't tell the difference between cultural liberalism and economic liberalism. Which doesn't surprise me one bit.

Talk about homelessness, do nothing for them.

Talk about income inequality, then provide no low-income housing.

Talk about climate chance, then have a horrible mass-transit system.

Talk about the rights of minorities, then provide them an awful public educational system.

San Francisco is the perfect city for the dajo9's of the world. Talks a good game, but unable to smell the smell of the **** they're dealing out.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not Me - Us said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
LOL. Sounding so intellectual, yet completely missing the obvious truth staring him right in his face.



This diagram was so 2019. The left invented systemic racism and it became popular in 2020. Racism is apparently....systemic so it should be at the top of the Democrats list.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:


San Francisco isn't liberal at all- unless, of course, you're deluded by " diversity and tolerance" in to thinking it's economically liberal. It's a company town where both the masters ( tech industry) and their lackeys ( the city) mouth platitudes and self- serving bull**** about saving the world while creating an insipid monoculture where a city once stood.

As we can see, there are certainly SOME people who don't think SF is liberal enough.
That's because you can't tell the difference between cultural liberalism and economic liberalism. Which doesn't surprise me one bit.

Talk about homelessness, do nothing for them.

Talk about income inequality, then provide no low-income housing.

Talk about climate chance, then have a horrible mass-transit system.

Talk about the rights of minorities, then provide them an awful public educational system.

San Francisco is the perfect city for the dajo9's of the world. Talks a good game, but unable to smell the smell of the **** they're dealing out.


Put up black lives matter signs where there used to be blacks.

Put up sanctuary city signs so the cleaning ladies who can't afford to live there and commute from Sacramento can be empowered

And all the techies are wowed by their own munificence
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.

Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.
OK, so San Francisco is not liberal enough for you. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
San Francisco has been liberal enough for me. The state of California not always.
So why is the wealth gap in the Bay Area one of the greatest in America if liberal policies should be effective in reducing wealth gap? When does results actually matter? Why haven't those policies worked, and why are so many people displaced, so much segregation in the richer neighborhoods, so many homeless even among the working class, and so much exclusionary schooling, residence, food, etc. for the "more equal" members of the liberal community in the Bay Area?
Because there are a lot of global forces that led to this economic reality that are not entirely controllable by the local governments in individual cities. In many ways these local governments are also just reacting to those larger forces.

I am not interested in blame here. I think there is plenty of blame to go around, and also a lot of stuff that people just couldn't have seen coming. I am interested in whatever policies can help mitigate the issues brought by rising income inequality. I am interested in forward-looking pragmatism, not backward-looking retribution.
OK, I see. Liberals are not interested in blaming. Got it.


No, not "liberals." I have known plenty of liberals who are interested in blaming. I'm talking about me. I am not interested in this line of conversation. I'd like to hear some solutions on alleviating wealth inequality (not eliminating, reducing). Raising taxes on capital gains sounds like one potential solution. Closing loopholes in the tax code perhaps another.
sycasey, I have to give you credit. In the face of some pretty good calBear93 posting, you're standing firm without being petty or nasty. You're more pragmatic than most of your compatriots here. I appreciate your relative evenhandedness in these exchanges.
A conservative fines the man who won't pick up after his dog. A liberal sends him a lifetime supply of doggie bags instead.
--From my HOA board meeting days
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.

Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.
OK, so San Francisco is not liberal enough for you. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
San Francisco has been liberal enough for me. The state of California not always.
So why is the wealth gap in the Bay Area one of the greatest in America if liberal policies should be effective in reducing wealth gap? When does results actually matter? Why haven't those policies worked, and why are so many people displaced, so much segregation in the richer neighborhoods, so many homeless even among the working class, and so much exclusionary schooling, residence, food, etc. for the "more equal" members of the liberal community in the Bay Area?
Because there are a lot of global forces that led to this economic reality that are not entirely controllable by the local governments in individual cities. In many ways these local governments are also just reacting to those larger forces.

I am not interested in blame here. I think there is plenty of blame to go around, and also a lot of stuff that people just couldn't have seen coming. I am interested in whatever policies can help mitigate the issues brought by rising income inequality. I am interested in forward-looking pragmatism, not backward-looking retribution.
OK, I see. Liberals are not interested in blaming. Got it.


No, not "liberals." I have known plenty of liberals who are interested in blaming. I'm talking about me. I am not interested in this line of conversation. I'd like to hear some solutions on alleviating wealth inequality (not eliminating, reducing). Raising taxes on capital gains sounds like one potential solution. Closing loopholes in the tax code perhaps another.
sycasey, I have to give you credit. In the face of some pretty good calBear93 posting, you're standing firm without being petty or nasty. You're more pragmatic than most of your compatriots here. I appreciate your relative evenhandedness in these exchanges.


Yes, generally very true.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
I don't think America has had particularly liberal economic policies since the Reagan years at least, and yes that includes in blue states. For most of those years Democrats were trying to be moderates.

Which is why I favor a more progressive batch of policies now, perhaps taking some pages from the European social democracies. 40 years of Reaganism is enough.
OK, so San Francisco is not liberal enough for you. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
San Francisco has been liberal enough for me. The state of California not always.
So why is the wealth gap in the Bay Area one of the greatest in America if liberal policies should be effective in reducing wealth gap? When does results actually matter? Why haven't those policies worked, and why are so many people displaced, so much segregation in the richer neighborhoods, so many homeless even among the working class, and so much exclusionary schooling, residence, food, etc. for the "more equal" members of the liberal community in the Bay Area?
Because there are a lot of global forces that led to this economic reality that are not entirely controllable by the local governments in individual cities. In many ways these local governments are also just reacting to those larger forces.

I am not interested in blame here. I think there is plenty of blame to go around, and also a lot of stuff that people just couldn't have seen coming. I am interested in whatever policies can help mitigate the issues brought by rising income inequality. I am interested in forward-looking pragmatism, not backward-looking retribution.
OK, I see. Liberals are not interested in blaming. Got it.


No, not "liberals." I have known plenty of liberals who are interested in blaming. I'm talking about me. I am not interested in this line of conversation. I'd like to hear some solutions on alleviating wealth inequality (not eliminating, reducing). Raising taxes on capital gains sounds like one potential solution. Closing loopholes in the tax code perhaps another.
sycasey, I have to give you credit. In the face of some pretty good calBear93 posting, you're standing firm without being petty or nasty. You're more pragmatic than most of your compatriots here. I appreciate your relative evenhandedness in these exchanges.

And I thank you for that!
Matthew Patel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

sycasey said:


No, not "liberals." I have known plenty of liberals who are interested in blaming. I'm talking about me. I am not interested in this line of conversation. I'd like to hear some solutions on alleviating wealth inequality (not eliminating, reducing). Raising taxes on capital gains sounds like one potential solution. Closing loopholes in the tax code perhaps another.
sycasey, I have to give you credit. In the face of some pretty good calBear93 posting, you're standing firm without being petty or nasty. You're more pragmatic than most of your compatriots here. I appreciate your relative evenhandedness in these exchanges.
Yeah. Politeness is his thing. That way you don't notice that he never takes a firm stand on how to fix this stuff. He just talks about the problems on the right, never confronts the problems from his own party, and pretends to claim the moral high ground.

As I've already told you before, you should all be reading "The Economist's Hour" by Binjamin Applebaum. It lays out very quickly how a bunch of economic theories adopted by politicians have led to income disparity, the destruction of anti-trust law, moronic tax policies, etc. And it's not just the Republicans. The Democrats are quite complicit in this too. They both want enormous defense budgets at the expense of spending money on their own citizens so they can control the world by threat of force.

You want these issues seriously addressed. Raise income taxes on everybody who makes more than $100,000 in this country, lower taxes way down for everybody who makes $50,000 or less, and more or less punitively go after the 1% and the multi-national conglomerates that control most of the major industry and tech world. Stop spending 50% of your annual budget on a military that creates zero economic benefit to anyone other than employees and defense contractors. Make jobs and the welfare of your people the central purpose of your government again, instead of making it about cheap goods and zero gain in real wages.

Anything else is just denial of reality.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:

sycasey said:


No, not "liberals." I have known plenty of liberals who are interested in blaming. I'm talking about me. I am not interested in this line of conversation. I'd like to hear some solutions on alleviating wealth inequality (not eliminating, reducing). Raising taxes on capital gains sounds like one potential solution. Closing loopholes in the tax code perhaps another.
sycasey, I have to give you credit. In the face of some pretty good calBear93 posting, you're standing firm without being petty or nasty. You're more pragmatic than most of your compatriots here. I appreciate your relative evenhandedness in these exchanges.
Yeah. Politeness is his thing. That way you don't notice that he never takes a firm stand on how to fix this stuff. He just talks about the problems on the right, never confronts the problems from his own party, and pretends to claim the moral high ground.

As I've already told you before, you should all be reading "The Economist's Hour" by Binjamin Applebaum. It lays out very quickly how a bunch of economic theories adopted by politicians have led to income disparity, the destruction of anti-trust law, moronic tax policies, etc. And it's not just the Republicans. The Democrats are quite complicit in this too. They both want enormous defense budgets at the expense of spending money on their own citizens so they can control the world by threat of force.

You want these issues seriously addressed. Raise income taxes on everybody who makes more than $100,000 in this country, lower taxes way down for everybody who makes $50,000 or less, and more or less punitively go after the 1% and the multi-national conglomerates that control most of the major industry and tech world. Stop spending 50% of your annual budget on a military that creates zero economic benefit to anyone other than employees and defense contractors. Make jobs and the welfare of your people the central purpose of your government again, instead of making it about cheap goods and zero gain in real wages.

Anything else is just denial of reality.
I don't often take firm stands because I can acknowledge that there are things I don't know. When I take a firm stand it's only when I'm very sure I've studied the issue on all sides and am totally solid in my position.

That said, I generally agree with your argument here that it's been decades of economic theories that have led to this point, theories supported by both parties. Your solutions are interesting, though I think a hard line on income tax raises and a hard floor on reductions doesn't quite address the different cost-of-living requirements in different parts of the country. ($100k in the SF Bay Area is very different from $100k in, say, Albuquerque). Still, it's a good starting point.
Matthew Patel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Matthew Patel said:


Yeah. Politeness is his thing. That way you don't notice that he never takes a firm stand on how to fix this stuff. He just talks about the problems on the right, never confronts the problems from his own party, and pretends to claim the moral high ground.

As I've already told you before, you should all be reading "The Economist's Hour" by Binjamin Applebaum. It lays out very quickly how a bunch of economic theories adopted by politicians have led to income disparity, the destruction of anti-trust law, moronic tax policies, etc. And it's not just the Republicans. The Democrats are quite complicit in this too. They both want enormous defense budgets at the expense of spending money on their own citizens so they can control the world by threat of force.

You want these issues seriously addressed. Raise income taxes on everybody who makes more than $100,000 in this country, lower taxes way down for everybody who makes $50,000 or less, and more or less punitively go after the 1% and the multi-national conglomerates that control most of the major industry and tech world. Stop spending 50% of your annual budget on a military that creates zero economic benefit to anyone other than employees and defense contractors. Make jobs and the welfare of your people the central purpose of your government again, instead of making it about cheap goods and zero gain in real wages.

Anything else is just denial of reality.
I don't often take firm stands because I can acknowledge that there are things I don't know. When I take a firm stand it's only when I'm very sure I've studied the issue on all sides and am totally solid in my position.

That said, I generally agree with your argument here that it's been decades of economic theories that have led to this point, theories supported by both parties. Your solutions are interesting, though I think a hard line on income tax raises and a hard floor on reductions doesn't quite address the different cost-of-living requirements in different parts of the country. ($100k in the SF Bay Area is very different from $100k in, say, Albuquerque). Still, it's a good starting point.
See how easy that was folks? Instead of resorting to ad hominem, he responded to the words.

You want an interesting read, read up on how Robert Bork and Richard Posner helped change the legal profession by having economists give lectures to your federal judges to change the way they ruled in anti-trust cases. Very real damage has been done to this country by Reaganomic trickle-down theories and their failures.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

We're more in danger from Mike Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Goldman Sachs than we are from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea combined.
You just crossed over from annoying belligerent poster to the irrational troll most other posters already think you are. I try and not do this too often, but you are now on ignore.
Matthew Patel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

Matthew Patel said:

We're more in danger from Mike Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Goldman Sachs than we are from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea combined.
You just crossed over from annoying belligerent poster to the irrational troll most other posters alreadyy think you are. I try and not do this too often, but you are now on ignore.
And you just confirmed that you are no progressive at all. Thanks for making it clear that you are a Republican hiding in progressive clothing.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

blungld said:

Matthew Patel said:

We're more in danger from Mike Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Goldman Sachs than we are from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea combined.
You just crossed over from annoying belligerent poster to the irrational troll most other posters alreadyy think you are. I try and not do this too often, but you are now on ignore.
And you just confirmed that you are no progressive at all. Thanks for making it clear that you are a Republican hiding in progressive clothing.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

LMK5 said:

...Corporations are bad, right? Yet most here earned or continue to earn a very good living from corporations...
Your comments always betray so many well-held beliefs that you posit as fact or indisputable thesis, that are really just logical fallacies or false choices.
^^Right out of the gate with irony is always amusing, but what immediately follows is pure Gold:
Quote:

Let's step out of binary world and describe the actual held beliefs of people you disagree with instead of your strawman ad nauseam. Simply put bad corporations are bad corporations and good corporations are good. Just like bad governments (like this one) are bad and good governments are good.
Dunning-Kruger in motion -- you demand someone else to stop framing a discussion in binary terms, but then immediately proceed to engage in a vapid and simplistic binary framing of governments. And of course, this binary framing is categorized by bluengld's political view of "good" and "bad".

What a joke, but also hilarious.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

blungld said:

Matthew Patel said:

We're more in danger from Mike Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Goldman Sachs than we are from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea combined.
You just crossed over from annoying belligerent poster to the irrational troll most other posters alreadyy think you are. I try and not do this too often, but you are now on ignore.
And you just confirmed that you are no progressive at all. Thanks for making it clear that you are a Republican hiding in progressive clothing.


Lmao, being put on ignore by a conspiracy quack strangely qualifies you for the big door prize.
calpoly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

calpoly said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
Why don't you show us an example of classical conservative economic policy that does not lead economic disasters and runaway deficits. You can start with Herbert Hoover.


How about in the State of **** You and the country of what about our prior exchange gave you the idea that I would be interested in a discussion with a twat like you? I can name some other examples but let's start with **** you.
Hope you got over your temper tantrum.

The question you asked is poorly posed unless you define the two different economics policies (liberal and conservative). If you ask 10 people for the definitions you will get 10 different answers. Here is my broad definition of the two economic policies in the USA:

Liberal economics - regulated capitalism

Conservative economics - unregulated capitalism

Regulated capitalism has been successful over the last century. We have economic despair and corruption when the economy is unregulated.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calpoly said:


Here is my broad definition of the two economic policies in the USA:

Liberal economics - regulated capitalism

Conservative economics - unregulated capitalism

Regulated capitalism has been successful over the last century. We have economic despair and corruption when the economy is unregulated.
Not a very deep analysis. Your binary framework is vague and unsatisfactory in aims to judge economic policy. It's also false, as we've never had unregulated capitalism.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calpoly said:

calbear93 said:

calpoly said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
Why don't you show us an example of classical conservative economic policy that does not lead economic disasters and runaway deficits. You can start with Herbert Hoover.


How about in the State of **** You and the country of what about our prior exchange gave you the idea that I would be interested in a discussion with a twat like you? I can name some other examples but let's start with **** you.
Hope you got over your temper tantrum.

The question you asked is poorly posed unless you define the two different economics policies (liberal and conservative). If you ask 10 people for the definitions you will get 10 different answers. Here is my broad definition of the two economic policies in the USA:

Liberal economics - regulated capitalism

Conservative economics - unregulated capitalism

Regulated capitalism has been successful over the last century. We have economic despair and corruption when the economy is unregulated.


What part of **** you was not clear to you. Not a temper tantrum. Just think you are a twat based on who you have proven yourself to be over and over again. Stop seeking my attention when I have made it clear that you are intellectually bankrupt and that discussions with you add no value or interest to me.

OK, will throw you a bone since you seem so desperate for a response.

What part of my stating that we need a robust safety net and educational program for those who are displaced or who want to work but cannot work or that we need strong environmental protection leads you to brilliantly conclude that I am for unregulated capitalism.

Now just go back to you state of **** you and stay there.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sometimes you just need to pause and appreciate the little pleasures life brings your way. Ahhhhhhh.


calpoly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

calpoly said:

calbear93 said:

calpoly said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

I still find that people vote with their wallets.
Except that this doesn't really track. I mean, I'm sure this is ONE factor in determining a person's voting preferences, but there are a lot of other factors.

Working-class white voters (perhaps exemplified by that burly truck driver in your example) have been tilting increasingly Republican, even though there isn't really a solid economic argument that Republican policies will benefit them. There must be other factors at play, cultural ones, perhaps a sense that they just don't like liberals, or that even if they don't get a personal benefit from the policies they agree with the principles of small government, no handouts, everyone making their own way, etc. Or there could also just be good old-fashioned racism or sexism (note: I am not saying all working-class white voters are racist, just that this is one possible motivation for some individuals).

Similarly, college-educated white-collar professionals are increasingly tilting left. There isn't really a great individual economic argument for them to vote that way. Theoretically, they are the people currently doing fine who would benefit from maintaining the status quo. So again, there must be larger philosophical and/or ideological reasons why they are voting that way.

Personal finances are only one piece of the puzzle.
Yes, they are tilting left but not with what really matters.

I mean think about this. Where in America is the wealth gap the largest? Alabama? Oklahoma?

Or is it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington?

And where do these professionals work? Do you think the wealth gap was created by lower taxes or do you think it was created by the surge of tech companies creating billionaires of the founders and millionaires of the employees? Do you think the tax rate created the wealth gap or do you think it was venture capital firms, asset bubbles, and inflated real estate prices? And where did this happen? In states controlled by Republicans or in blue states where the liberals make all of the policies?

And how many of these left tilting liberals (whether professionals or liberal politicians) actually choose to leave their stock options and high salary in objection to working for companies that violate our privacy for profit, create division for ad dollars, and allow our elections to be manipulated for shareholder gains? How many of these liberals are working on technology to further automate and create IA that will destroy more blue collar jobs for the low and middle income families they so "love"? And how many of these liberals are rejoicing reduction of SALT that increase their taxes?

Of course they are talking as if they don't care about their own wallets as the one and only but they sure act as if they do.
That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that since these folks are closer to the "inequality" problem they are quicker to look around for solutions to the issue and thus have turned to more liberal voting practices. No one said the right solution has been found yet.
So, it is not as if the wealth gap in California started yesterday. It has been around since the internet boom in the late 90s. So, why are the Republicans responsible for the wealth gap when it is those organizations that generally tilt left and located in cities that tilt FAR FAR LEFT that have exasperated the situation in the last 20 some years?
I didn't say only one party was responsible for it. But as far as what policies are being pursued today, I don't see anything in the Republican platform designed to combat the issue at all. Democrats may have inadequate ideas, but they have some.
Wait, so the failed Democratic policies in the last 20 years in places that have the greatest wealth gap should be taken nationally? I don't see anything in Democratic platform (which is still wrapped up in taxes and completely missing the point and missing what is coming around the corner) able to address the issue at all. They have been in control at the heart of the problem and have failed for over 20 years. Not sure that is the right basis to take that nationally to solve the same problem.
Okay, so what solutions do you think would help address the issue? Who has proposed them? Which party?
I think the problem lies in thinking that either party will do anything meaningful about wealth gap.

It is like two beavers arguing who is better able to stop a tsunami.

Technological advances won't care about your pretty words or kind feelings that are not tied to actual actions.

Taxes will not save those in assembly lines who will be taken over by robotics or maintenance experts who will be replaced with sensors and predictive analytics. No matter the tax rate or whether college is free, small business owners and restaurant owners will be squeezed out by liberal millennial demanding lowest prices from gig companies for convenience so that they can spend more time expressing their high moral values while enriching social media companies that sold out our privacy and our elections. Do I think any of the idiots on either party will have the right answer to forestall what is coming? Have you seen them question the tech executives during their hearings? Of course I don't think the answer is coming from the government, if, short of dissolving tech companies, anything can be done at all.

People like you and me can engage in as much mental masturbation as we want on which party is better to reduce the wealth gap in any meaningful manner, because at the end of the day, we are skilled enough and have enough that we will be removed from what is coming.

And humans will adapt like we did with the steam engine, with assembly lines, with motorized transportation, and with internet. And market forces will dictate winners and losers, with the choice necessary and directly resulting from what is being created by those who profess liberal view points (tech employees and VC firms) but who are the greatest enabler of the change that is coming.

And I don't begrudge them. I celebrate them. You cannot stop innovation or progress. But Republican vs. Democrat will not move the needle on the wealth gap. So, I shake my head when I hear tech upper middle class or upper class folks who will enable this almost dystopian society for middle class talk about how Republicans don't care about the little guys.

Now, as to what is best for our social values and our Democracy, the parties can have legitimate discussions. And we agree that Trump is bad for our country and our Democracy.
So your position is that the wealth gap just is what it is, and no government solutions can affect it? Do I have that right?
Yes, short of shutting down the creator of the greatest wealth (tech companies) and short of going to a communist economic system, nothing we can do to eliminate the greatest value creators getting the most reward, including those funding the innovation, those driving them, and those creating them. Taking out the reward will take out motivation for innovation as well. We can make that decision as a society as well, but taxing more here and there and throwing money at poorly managed government programs is not going to do anything. California is a prime example of that failure.
That's a pretty classically conservative view on the economy. I don't agree, but at least it's consistent.
Show me an example of a jurisdiction in America where liberal economic policies have succeeded in promoting innovation at the same rate while materially reducing wealth gap. All I see are blue states with the highest wealth gaps. But continuing failed concepts over actual results seem like pretty classical liberal view on the economy.
Why don't you show us an example of classical conservative economic policy that does not lead economic disasters and runaway deficits. You can start with Herbert Hoover.


How about in the State of **** You and the country of what about our prior exchange gave you the idea that I would be interested in a discussion with a twat like you? I can name some other examples but let's start with **** you.
Hope you got over your temper tantrum.

The question you asked is poorly posed unless you define the two different economics policies (liberal and conservative). If you ask 10 people for the definitions you will get 10 different answers. Here is my broad definition of the two economic policies in the USA:

Liberal economics - regulated capitalism

Conservative economics - unregulated capitalism

Regulated capitalism has been successful over the last century. We have economic despair and corruption when the economy is unregulated.


What part of **** you was not clear to you. Not a temper tantrum. Just think you are a twat based on who you have proven yourself to be over and over again. Stop seeking my attention when I have made it clear that you are intellectually bankrupt and that discussions with you add no value or interest to me.

OK, will throw you a bone since you seem so desperate for a response.

What part of my stating that we need a robust safety net and educational program for those who are displaced or who want to work but cannot work or that we need strong environmental protection leads you to brilliantly conclude that I am for unregulated capitalism.

Now just go back to you state of **** you and stay there.
Whatever snowflake! Go get a cookie and sit in the corner and calm down.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not happening for a multitude of reasons.

Millenials and Gen Z are largely ineffectual. Their activism only made an impact when they turned it into lawless, violent terrorism.

The partisan divide is exaggerated, but admittedly exacerbated by our addiction to screens (social media, MSM) and a lack of meaning in the lives of our young men and women as a result of having nothing to contribute (at least yet) to themselves or others, a tinge of nihilism and helplessness sets in an they either become a recluse or radicalize in front of our eyes, lashing out when given an excuse (Floyd protests).

The majority (ie middle class) are too busy taking care of business, tending to responsibilities (which give our lives meaning), to engage in this seemingly daily partisan outrage. This is not to be conflated with being apolitical -- you can have a perspective on society and politics and NOT have a twitter account. These types are the majority -- the silent majority.

The silent majority's liability of late has been acquiescing and cowtowing to the recent "compassionate-driven" authoritarian socio-cultural political tactics of the leftist regressives and the elites who use these foolish ground soldiers as pawns for their own ends. It always seems fine until it goes too far. This is why we have a system built that smacks down the mob -- even when they're right.
Page 2 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.