Ikes isnt remotely listening to clark and is just so obnoxious in every reply

And it's unfortunate because he's absolutely right that bernies free trade opposition is scary its so often glanced over because hes become such a hero and breath of fresh air in so many areas. It's amazing that politicians can oppose free trade and just use 'rah rah jobs in america' and people eat it up. Pretty much every top economist that's ever lived will tell you awful bernies position is. For me it's one of the scariest positions in the whole election.

So yeah I think ikes is right about that but unfortunately can't read and is unable to hold a civilized conversation

I think my personal belief is a more extremist take on Clark's. While he doesn't see why we should have a duty to people in other countries, I don't see why we have a duty to people all over the US given that most of us couldn't even cure the ills of society locally.

I see my obligations to society as taking a hierarchical structure where:

1. Family (including self)
2. Friends
3. Community/Hyper Local (people/areas I am likely to encounter)
4. Expanded Local (entire city, suburban areas, and places where people might commute to the city)
5. Regional
6. National
7. International

Frankly, I don't have enough resources to do anything beyond number 3 (and even that is doing extremely limited stuff like going and giving old jackets/shoes or food to homeless people nearby) and would prefer that my taxes not be diverted to the levels beyond that except for national public goods given there are people in need that those taxes could help on a local level. I would much prefer to go hand out $100/day to people on the street in need of help than to pay taxes that go to bloated government programs and things like social security.

I don't particularly like spending on public programs at the national level and would rather families, friends, and communities be responsible for taking care of their old, disabled, sick, injured, addicted, or otherwise needy people. Why can we not allow families, friends, and communities to take care of people in need? We could mandate the tax level to force people to still give back, but allow them to direct these funds to those in need rather than to bloated and unsustainable federal programs.

Someone will probably have to quote this for nath since I think he has me on ignore, but I will answer this.

I don't think reducing inequality and raising the standard of living for the worst among us are at all equivalents or even similar.

I don't at all want a society where inequality is squashed. I think a lot of what motivates people on a personal level (and thus helps the economy through rising GDP and society through increased tax revenue) is to be able to get ahead of others and obtain financial flexibility to buy things and experiences that go beyond what the average person will ever experience or to make extraordinary experiences for others a routine part of life.

I know I get pleasure out of being able to afford to go to a dinner that might cost what someone else spends on two or even four weeks of food. Is that right? Only you can decide if that's ok with you, but it is not an uncommon feeling and I suspect most other posters have eaten at least one meal like this and likely enjoyed it.

As for raising the standard of living for the worst among us, I do think that we should do that. However, I do not agree with doing it through nationalized programs or even state run ones. I think this should be done through direct transfer payments to those below the poverty line. I suspect that we have the technology to add funds to prepaid cards on a weekly basis and think this would be the best way forward. End all the crap like food stamps and just give the people in need some money.

CDL,

You're allowed to enjoy eating a meal that costs more than what a poor family can spend in a month to feed their starving children who did nothing wrong other than being born poor. Nobody doesn't understand that's how you feel. I don't even think there's any point in trying to change your mind.

And like you said, a lot of us are probably "guilty" of getting that same pleasure out of things.

However, don't complain or be shocked then when the poors eventually get sick of it and rise up against you. Because rest assured they'll take just as much enjoyment in taking away your ability to have that meal. And they'll have every right to. By your own rules that you've set you should be completely understanding of their mission.

What do you mean by "rise up against" me?

One of the most important characteristics a society can have with regard to fiscal policy is for it to be predictable long in advance so people can plan. Things like whether to go to college, what state to live in, which job to take, how much to save, whether to buy a house, how to finance things, how levered you should be, etc. all rely on knowing that fiscal policy is predictable. Regardless of what fiscal policy is, people can adapt as long as the policy is consistent and announced years (or if its radical enough, decades) in advance. All I want is for us to have consistent fiscal policy.

Also, can you give me some background on what specifically gives people who are net economic drains on society the "right" to take more from those who are net contributors?

Clark has come to post in politics about Sanders, and the only time he has really was to make some extremely uninformed posts about Bernie Sanders' health care plan and the budget. It ended with him straight up denying projections... and it later came out that those 3rd party projections were really close to Bernie's own projections.

Clark's voting position seems to be that he's voting for HRC, but according to him HRC is a 'lying scumbag'. His main reason for voting for hillary is that 'she's still better than a Republican president appointing up to 4 justices and green-lighting all sorts of really heinous Tea Party legislation.' He's clearly worried that Sanders would not win an election, not that his positions are incorrect.

Clark also claims to be worried about the poor, but we're only going to worry about the poor behind some arbitrary line. I think that's horse****, but I can understand the rebuttal of 'well we represent only one country'.

The problem with that is, free trade is still great for American poor. Shockingly, protecting local industries and keeping more expensive, less quality goods on the market isn't good for anyone. Free trade is good for everyone that doesn't have a job that can be done by someone a half world away at half the price with no education. Even then, those people should be able, and have been able to take advantage of the massive opportunities that comes with living in a developed nation. Free trade is good for the nation as a whole, and the poor as a whole.

As to you Nath-

I've actually done a lot work with the poor. I worked to directly expand health care access in a neighborhood for a year by expanding clinic services and pounding the pavement so that people knew about it. ****, while it's required work now, I mostly work in a charity hospital and take care of basically nothing but poor people.

The difference between you and me is that I actually care if the policies I'm pushing have a record of working, instead of making me feel good about myself. There are arguments that a lot of Bernie's plans could do some good for the poor. I don't think that he's right about a lot of those, but he has something to stand on. His free trade stances, however, have no such foundation and should automatically disqualify him from being president (just like Trump). There is no rational defense of his attacks on trades, only simple reactionary protectionism.

The reason that is so bad is that was a large part of what led to the Great Depression. That kind of downturn in a world with nuclear weapons is basically the last thing I want to see in this world.

I've bought into this as a fairly big deal. Democrats would never have the balls to take this risk. The risk is huge, BTW. Look at the reactions to Ron Paul on blowback. Always capped his ceiling very low in that party.


LOL


"Preferential treatment" is not how AA works. You're making this up.


Racialism and racism are two entirely separate concepts.


This.

AA discussions are fairly antiquated. It's really just a red herring to avoid discussions on the value of diversity among civil servants, within educational environments, etc.

Black kids getting into Yale aren't dummies and the white kids who just missed the cut at Yale made the cut into Brown or Harvard or Princeton or whatever other elite second choice.

Take every step possible to literally make you have less personal wealth and they have more.

It's important to people with resources to plan and execute that plan. There's nothing inherently important about consistent policy. I'd actually argue that chaos is much more fair.

Some refer to it as the Day of the Rope (we're gonna need more lampposts)

What gives you the right to have more than them? We're all just living creatures without much purpose other than surviving and possibly procreating. You should consider yourself luckily you don't have to actively live in fear of someone bigger and stronger coming along and literally murdering you and taking all of your resources.

The fact you not only don't want to personally contribute to making people's lives better, but that you also don't even want a small portion of your relatively miniscule amount of tax dollars makes you a pretty unsympathetic figure regardless of what misfortune finds you.

Trump's pandering to veterans seemed a little phony at the beginning to me, but it all makes sense now. He positioned himself as the veteran-friendly candidate so he could rain down hell about GWB/the Iraq War and not come off as anti-military. It's genius, and I'm not sure anyone else could have credibly pulled a similar move. More evidence that Trump is an immensely talented politician who thinks five moves ahead.

He supports the troops because that's what's popular with his base. He's calling out GWB/Iraq because everyone knows Iraq is/was a mess, but no career Republican politician has the balls to say it because the Bushes have friends/clout/ties in DC and it could be detrimental to their career/connections. So, it's a populist position that the other candidates can't really say but Trump can.

And then, for his first trick, he's going to un**** the VA because it's a populist position that the other candidates can't really accomplish but Trump can.

I don't have any right to have more than them. The people that have the right to retain most of the wealth are the people who earn it. If you receive a paycheck then someone has determined that you are worth at least that amount of money for the work you do. Other people aren't doing that work for you. If they were then they should obviously share in the success; but given it is your time, effort, and skills being put to use, you should retain a huge amount of the financial gain.

I am not given charity (beyond the use of public goods which are, by definition, public) nor do I want it from anyone. I don't want people richer than me to give money to people in my financial situation. I want people who want money to go out and take the steps necessary to make that money. There are millions of jobs available in the United States at any given time. If there is one that you want then it should be your responsibility to figure out a way to get it.

If you want $100MM by age 30 then go create a company, become an international music/movie star, become an all-star athlete, or find some other route. If you want a stable life of $35-60k/yr + small annual raises and a pension then figure out what you have to do to get a government or teaching job and do it then apply for and get that job. If you want to move around the country seeing sights and living a low pressure lifestyle and don't have many material desires then learn how to wait tables or bartend or do any number of other service jobs and go out and do it. If you want to raise a family then figure out what sort of support system and financial means you need to do that and make it happen.



You go on to say that I should consider myself lucky that I don't have to live in fear of someone murdering me and taking all of my resources, but you just suggested that the poor would "take every step possible" to make sure I have less personal wealth which seems like quite the unfortunate situation rather than "lucky."



With your last paragraph you go on to completely make things up. I want a large portion of the money I earn to go to making people's lives better. I have family who could use my money and I would like to be able to provide them more. It should not be the government's responsibility to provide for these people, but rather their own and the responsibility of people who care for them. I would rather divert my tax dollars to my grandmother or my mother or my niece's education fund or the homeless people living down the street from me than to the government coffer.

You can lecture me about not caring for people all you want, but I find it appalling that you think I should be forced to spend my tax dollars to fund the military budget, whatever healthcare plan, social security, etc. rather than spending these same dollars on my grandma's medical bills or retirement or making sure my niece can grow up without facing hardship.

Oh right! Just create a company!

The regulatory burden is crippling!

CDL,

You're missing the point. You want things to be fair when fairness benefits you. You don't seem to actually want real fairness. If a bunch of poor people can get together and rally up enough support to change policy through the proper process (a process that you're aware of and would have had every opportunity to plan for) then their skill/effort/etc should deserve to payoff too.

Why is your skill and effort such a precious thing so that you deserve any wealth you happen to accumulate but it's unfair if a majority of people in the Democratic Republic that you live in decide to take some of your money?

You always have the option to do what Thayer did and geeeeeeeeet out.


Otherwise the game is out there. So either play or get played.

LOL at saying the game is out there so play or get played. You seem to be taking huge issue with the fact that some people have played the game very well and are now rich as **** and in control of business and government. It appears that you are not the one that likes the way the game is played.

I want completely open competition with as little government interference and regulation in public and private enterprise as is possible within a 1st world economy. This is anything but unfair.

Also, I had no desire for "fairness" when it benefited me in the past. I didn't want free lunches at school when I was a kid even though I qualified for them and thus I didn't take them. I don't like handouts to anyone even if that person is myself or my family.

one of these people will be your next president:



MURCA

Apple v. gubmint, TRUMP siding with gubmint of course

CDL working hard at the firm this morning I see

CDL,

In your idealized fair society, what would you expect the probability to be of a child born to parents in a certain wealth decile to find themselves in that same decile?

in your idealized fair society, should everybody have the same odds of making the NBA?

(not taking a stance here, just saying - the genetic lottery is a massive determinant of lots of things, including factors which would influence somebodies ability to climb a wealth decile. there is a massive "unfairness" there that we're not gonna change anytime soon)

Not really. I still have to pay US Income taxes unless I renounce my citizenship(and they could still make a case for the next 10 years - and I wouldn't ever be allowed back in USA#1)