My argument is that a growing gap in income inequality is preventing a large part of the population from benefitting from being in the most prosperous time in history.

I know its a very technical distinction, but I don't really have a problem with the government monitoring people's communication. However, I do have a problem with them acting on this in any way. Obviously, if they're not going to act on it then it becomes pointless to monitor, but my issue is with any actions stemming from monitoring and not the monitoring itself. I think any actions taken on monitored communication should require a warrant to have been issued before any of the relevant information was gathered.

Are you being serious?

Even completely ignoring any humanitarian reasons, you, as an aspiring upper classer should even selfishly want to help the lower class because they inhabit the same land as you and the further the gap widens the more they'll threaten the quality of life that you hope to enjoy.

+1

Though I assume they have a system where it's all basically computerized and algorithms are deciding what kind of threats justify human involvement, at which point a warrant is required.

the lower classes are being helped. they are getting better off. its better to be right at the border of the lower and middle class now than it was to be right at the median 100 years ago. life is constantly improving even for the poor. many of the poor have cell phones and internet access and all these other opportunities that were completely unfathomable years ago for even the average citizen. Life is improving for all classes in America and most people worldwide.

If the lower or middle class was stagnate or getting poorer (relative to inflation not relative to the upper class) then I would favor intervention and redistribution of wealth in those instances such that they can maintain or improve their standard of living.

So basically what you're saying is that those dumb greedy black poors should really just be comparing themselves to poor people from 100 years ago instead of comparing themselves to you. Gotcha.

1) you're talking only about America
2) if literally everyone is doing better (and they are) it's still the most prosperous time in history even if income isn't distributed equally

no. For one I never used any descriptors like this and don't agree with those descriptors. However, absolute improvement is more important than relative improvement.

Would you rather be a poor person with access to a smartphone, the internet, public transportation, and have your basic needs met in a very rudimentary way or would you rather be relatively well off, but dropped into a situation where you don't have access to the conveniences we have now? Life is getting better for poor people. Its getting better for the middle class. Its getting better for the rich. Its improving with technology and societal gains. Why should someone who has doubled their standard of living in 10 years be forced down through policy to 75% growth so that someone who has improved their value by 25% can get to 50%? (those are made up percentages, but thats essentially what you'd be doing).

Easy to say from your shoes.

This is a false dichotomy.

It's also a question that can only be answered by a member of that lower class. The relatively better off poor person without smartphones could reasonably be happier than the poor person with a smartphone is now.

Not to mention that if the absolute is all that matters, why can't the rich sacrifice some of their relative wealth given that they still are the all time greatest in terms of absolute wealth?

Why is their desire for relative wealth respected while the poor should just be happy with their smartphones?

The false dichotomy that we actually have to vote for one person? Sorry, these are the choices. Who are your actual preferred winners of the actual candidates?

Thayer supports Bernie he just doesn't realize it yet.

But Clark you don't have to force someone to pick a candidate since none of the above exists as an option to us.

Nah, it's counterproductive to any meaningful dialogue to have someone just say "everyone sucks". We have to choose. It's how it works. Force ranking choices is a super useful exercise for this.

A year ago Bernie and Trump had 0% as well. You can take your argument to it's full conclusion and say Hillary is literally the only choice. I reject this notion that we must choose from the people Washington tells us to choose from.

Obviously that doesn't mean one supports everything about a given candidate btw. But good and bad we have to pick from the items on the shelf.

Hillary vs Cruz with a Trump-Bernie independent card would be GOAT

They still have zero %.

And whatever. We are discussing actual candidates. Both have always been actual candidates. It's not useful or productive to the thread for anyone on any issue to merely take potshots and not have an actual stance that is based on reality. You saying "everyone sucks" is useless. I agree - so what.

Another reason for Bern>Hildawg is that Bernie can get a VP who can do a lot of the Washingtoning that you think gives Hilary an edge in "getting things done"

btw the Repub debate on Tuesday is shaping up to be must watch. could be the time the other candidates finally turn on Trump.

No one ever said the poor should be happy with it. It makes the most sense for every individual to strive to improve their absolute AND their relative situations. While there will always be poor, middle, and upper class people the people in these groups are fluid to a degree. Some people born in the upper class die in the lower class and vice versa even though you are more likely to remain in the same class. No one should be discouraged from taking steps to improve their own situations and in the case of the rich this means they should want to protect their wealth.

If I am fortunate enough to improve my situation in life I would prefer the option to control exactly when and how much of my wealth to redistribute and exactly who receives it. I would prefer to direct my money to family, friends, and those around me than to the broad population or even worse the bureaucracy of government.

True. Everyone always sucks in every election (at least the ones I've been able to vote in). This goes for not just presidential candidates, but congress too. That doesn't mean you shouldn't support and vote for whoever sucks least.

right.

it's not like I love any of the candidates but the choices are to vote for one of them or move. sticking my tongue out at all of them feels good but is ultimately a useless exercise.