So who do we blame
- Thread starter johnhugh
- Start date
Poor is somewhat relative but I have a very responsible friend who is a school principle and had to join the national guard recently because they couldn't afford their family on one salary. Maybe his wife could work but she was also a teacher and then they'd have two children to pay childcare for.
PPHHHHHBBBBBTTTTTTTTT. You just said the government should be legislating abortion.
No I didn’t, I said that it should be left up to the states. The federal governments job is to defend our borders, defend our foreign interest, build and maintain critical infrastructure.
... maybe she could? Maybe they should have only had one kid or no kids kids till they could afford them?
What are their debt to income ratio? Spending habits? Did they buy a house bigger than they could afford? What kind of cars do they have? How many years has he been a principle? I would assume he is pretty new in the role. If he isn’t, maybe he isn’t very good at his job? Did he take advantage of instate student debt programs?
Regardless, it sounds like your friend is in the middle class which isn’t poor
Still a budget hawk, still Goldwater conservative, not voting republican at the moment.
Someone took economics.
So state governments can legislate morality but the federal government can't? That seems really dumb.
I don't recall that discussion when I took economics a long, long time ago. I have read Freakonomics since then though and agree with it 100%.
You're right, he probably isn't poor. He's a brilliant person and one of the most moral people I've ever known. He could have probably done anything he wanted to but decided to teach and serve his community.
My point is that this is a brilliant and hard working person who has lived life responsibly and is barely getting by. I know he could have chosen a more lucrative career but I think it'd be pretty crappy to criticize someone for wanting to be an educator.
People who are less brilliant can still make good decisions and just not have jobs that pay a lot of money. Almost everyone can live within their means, sure, but that doesn't stop you from not having a lot of means.
I'm basing this off the fact that you said that the government shouldn't legislate morality but also said states should legislate abortion.
So your friend isn’t poor, he is firmly in the middle class, and his current situation is only temporary as his career develops and his kids grow and won’t require his wife to stay home.... cool, he is just like the majority in the country.
Statement still stands, if you make good decisions with money you won’t be poor. Conversely, give someone who is bad with money a million dollars, and there is a high probability that they will be poor again.
My statement still stands, people who make
The federal government’s function does not include legislating morality. The topic of abortion, should be a States issue decided by the residents of that state. Wouldn’t the allowance of abortion also constitute “legislation”?
If you don’t like a States direction, you can do what you can do today, you can move. If a individual state is on the wrong side of societal development, the free market will take care of it. People will not live in that state, businesses will not HQ there, etc etc until they change their behavior.
So your contention is that people who earn low wages can someday have enough wealth to not be poor simply by being responsible? Every last one of them?
To be clear, you initial statement was only the government, not the federal government specifically. I think it's extremely strange to suggest that it's fine for state governments to legislate morality but not the federal. And no, the allowance of abortion doesn't count as legislation. The government is in the business of restriction. Most of those restrictions are to ensure fairness and safety, mind you. The default status for a thing that the government hasn't weighed in on is that you can do it.
I think this statement is optimistic in its more generous interpretation and naive in is most realistic interpretation. The free market didn't end Jim Crow in the South and the people being oppressed weren't all able to move simply because they were being oppressed. History does not tend to suggest that your statement is true and I don't know why it would be different in the future.
Fair points. My understanding is that both sides can be right in a way. The free market would have ended Jim Crow....eventually. American's didn't want to wait generations to fix that problem so they used policy to accelerate things.
Truthfully, most poor people in America suck with money. Kinda like the lottery winner that blows it all at the strip club. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and design a system that both respects private property and hard work but still helps those who simply lack the ability to manage money regardless of whose at fault.
"Legislating from the bench" is completely against how the government was designed to run. I'm amazed at how few people get that.
I would love to see the source for this. Not calling you out but ....
About 20 years ago I got a visit from an FBI agent doing a background check - on the neighbors living above me. I'd met them once. Just as an example of how thorough those things are.
Considering, as a country, we have a large assortment of morons, that's not a bad plan.
Yeah. This is going to sound more condescending than I want it to but I just feel like basic human dignities shouldn't be left up to the market.
I don't disagree with this. I'd actually say that most Americans in general suck with money. Some people just have good enough jobs they can get away with it. The 401k guy at my company told me that the average age of the employees at his plant is like 59 and they aren't even close to ready for retirement (as a general rule). The operators here don't get paid great but it's enough that the should be taking advantage of their 401k's. Some people have bad spending habits and some people just don't know the basics of personal finance. Hell, Dave Ramsey is supposed to be good at personal finance and he tells people to never get a credit card and gives bad investing advice.
My preferred system has a progressive income tax, probably taxes capital gains as income, and would likely incorporate a VAT tax. We can keep corporate tax rates low, I trust economists that this item (in and of itself) is a good thing. Use all of that to have guaranteed healthcare for everyone, good primary and secondary education, universal pre-k, keep foodstamps, and maybe make public housing less awful and more common and I think we'd be better off.
It'd also be good if better banking options were available to the working poor. It's why I like Gillibrand's proposal to make postal banking a thing again. This goes through some of why it's expensive to be poor, but I'll acknowledge it's a little heavy on the heartstring tugging.
I'm not getting in here, this post ... on this board, is like baiting for 150 pages of arguments lol.
Along with the rest of the country. When these people approve laws that screw you over will you still blame it on “the libs”? Or has Fox News fooled you into voting against your own interests?
This makes no sense. Officers serve & protect & make arrests when warranted. Doesn't mean you don't get your day in court though.
Please elaborate John... What kind of laws will the Supreme Court approve that will screw over?
The one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.
Similar threads
