Politics

First, USA has the highest single parent household in the world at 25%. If you break it down by race it goes up to 50% for blacks.
We already established several pages ago that fatherless/single-parent homes was the main problem. The debate was about why that occurred, and what to do about it.
I’d submit breakdown of the family unit has more impact on children than parents working.
I'd submit they can be one in the same. Especially if you have a single parent household. When mom is at work, who's watching the kids? If they're younger they'd be in some form of day-care. But as they get older, once they get out of school and ride the bus back home, the house is empty. No parental supervision for many. For whatever reason the parents are working, many kids go unsupervised. I submit that's what happened with the mob of teenagers that someone posted about earlier. One parent staying home is on longer financially viable for the majority of the nation.
 
I guess it depends upon your definition of choice. I suppose they could not work so much, but then again, the impending homelessness, starvation, and financial ruin doesn't feel like much of choice now does it? You don't see some level of coercion in that at all?

I don't know any couples my age that are financially successful on one salary alone other than where one spouse is a doctor.
You managed to respond without addressing his argument at all, while simultaneously adopting a tone and manner in which you clearly believe you’re not just winning this theoretical debate, but that you’ve already won.

In fact, the correct response from him is to simply take your entire post and append “because government taxes on income are too high” and you are now fully supporting the supposed argument you are rebutting. That works because you’ve offered nothing of substance and nothing which actually counters his claim. High taxes suppressing purchasing power is fully in alignment with “impending homelessness, starvation, and financial ruin.” And the government certainly “forces” people into compliance. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. Ironically, I don’t agree with taxes as the root cause, but I’m happy to point out the logical fallacy you make against his point when it’s this obvious.

This is just weak satire at best, trolling at worst.
 
Democrats knew when they created this system the long term effects it would have. It wasn't accidental, it was intentional.
It must be amazing to be able to go through life believing in all sorts of bat-shit crazy conspiracy theories and utter nonsense. Totally untethered from reality. This claim has been debunked more than once. I guess what they say is true...ignorance is bliss.
 
You managed to respond without addressing his argument at all, while simultaneously adopting a tone and manner in which you clearly believe you’re not just winning this theoretical debate, but that you’ve already won.

This is just weak satire at best, trolling at worst.
You've noticed this trolls playbook: 1) post some BS, 2) get called on it with real data, 3) reply with moving goalposts, more lies, and declare these lies proof of how the troll is "winning" the conversation. Usually throw in a few insults, or more when really full of it.

Rinse and repeat, every time.

I don't know what BS you're replying to because I blocked it with the ignore button and improved my life immensely with this move. But I can assure you, you're wasting time responding to that De-gen.
 
How is the "capitalist machine forcing both parents to work 50+ hours a week to survive" a true statement for a measurable portion of the population? At what point are you removing agency from the individual? Is this sarcasm and I'm missing it?
First of all, welcome new member. As you haven't seen my older posts we can rehash some of them here, albeit abbreviated. Do take care to Ignore the personal insult artists on here. Many of them have lost a debate to me, and are still bitter about it.

My hypothesis is such that; a majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Are all of them a victim of circumstance? Probably not. Are they all a victim of their own bad decisions? Probably not again. So some messed-up their own lives, and some simply had bad luck. Difficult to tell which is which sometimes. But assuming the latter in favor of the former (as most folks on here do) is not correct. We only have some degree of free agency over our own lives. It's not unlimited. My greater point would be such that; living in America has gotten so expensive that in most situations it necessitates both parents working full time, or in the case of a single-parent household, one parent working much more than full time.

And in doing so has had deleterious effects on our society, and our children in particular. Negative effects which many on here only blame the individual for, rather than offer any meaningful solutions. Once again, they think if they scream "personal responsibility" really loudly that the problems will all just magically go away. Do you think my mortgage lender will accept that as payment?
I lived in the same terrible apartment in the same terrible area for 6 years so I could save money to buy my first home.
I've lived in my fair share of sh!t-hole places myself. Roaches, rats, possums, burglars. Mine was also 6 hours away from home because that was the only full time job available after the great recession; because the republicans rat-f@cked the world economy with their financial deregulation.
When I bought my first home, I rented rooms to three friends who were ecstatic that renting a room from me was hundreds and hundreds of dollars a month cheaper than renting a a studio apartment
I did the same thing with two friends, but there's only so many bedrooms in the house, and I wasn't there to watch over the place so you can only do that so much.
Those same friends, rather than saving the difference in rent money, just inflated their lifestyles.
Yes, but that goes back to was it their fault, someone else's, or just bad luck. Hard to tell which is which with someone unless you know them, and the entirety of their circumstances. The default assumption from the far-right members on this forum is that everyone in a bad financial spot is there due to their own actions and "sucks to be you." Hardly a fact-based opinion.
I have peers who spent as much on a sectional as we did on all of our furniture
I know both, those that over-spend, and those that save every dollar; only to be kneecapped by circumstances beyond their control.
My issue with your post is it's about my peer group--those of child-rearing/bearing age--and presents as victims of circumstance instead of a product of choices we made. My wife stays home. We made that decision and we made it before I started the business and at a much lower income and comfort level.
If that's possible for you than good. But that math doesn't math for everyone in America. Just because you were able to make it work doesn't mean that all 342 million Americans can. Look man, somebody has to flip burgers and mop the floors. And the math of that doesn't work out if only one spouse is working. Like I said in another reply to a different member, the only couples with kids that are financially succeeding that I know of, are the ones with two incomes; aside from the ones where one spouse is a doctor. The capitalist machine demands all of their time, and then blames them for not having enough time for their kids. Pretty sick if you ask me.
We helped my in-laws relocate nearby so we would have childcare support--again, exchanging money for time--and my parents chose to relocate near us as well after retiring.
Back to the; is it them, or something else argument...Now think of a family situation in which none of the grandparents are available, or even alive to help offset the costs of child care, or offer any support whatsoever...Perhaps you have more luck than many out there.
"It takes a village" is a seemingly forgotten aphorism these days.
Careful now, I recall Hillary Clinton saying something like that in the 2016 election and Republicans got big mad over it. You don't want to make any enemies this early on in the thread...(sarcasm)
It also helps I'm married, never divorced, and we live together with our children--which I acknowledge is becoming less common as others pointed out.
Same for me.
Quite literally among my peer group, no one has a spouse who stays home full-time, and many are on second (or third) marriages--if they even ever married in the first place. I wonder if those same peers having the "village" we do might have altered outcomes. And what choices did they make along the way that showed they had other priorities?
I also have plenty of what I call "f@ck-up friends." They're fun to be around, but I don't emulate their life choices. But bad choices alone don't account for the financial difficulties of tens of millions of Americans. Thinking so is just a far-right cop-out for letting big corporations screw over their workers, and then blame them for their own poor economic circumstances. Nobody who works 50 hours a week should be on food stamps.
I got lucky in life,
Ahh, the first person on here acknowledging that luck plays a role, careful now, if you don't buy into this groups "meritocracy only" myth, they may try and digitally tar-and-feather you. Just because someone lost the lottery doesn't mean we should blame them for it.

Back to the point though, what is this "capitalist machine" you're describing? Is this the social pressure placed on fully-grown adults with presumed autonomy?
It could be that as well. The old "keeping up with the Jone's" situation. But I was primarily referring to the capitalist machine that requires one to be on the financial treadmill your entire life, less ye want to become homeless and have to beg for scrapes from passerby's. Big business paying workers as little as possible for their labor, whilst claiming poverty, all the while making record profits. As our country continues the slow separation into two Americas. The haves, and the have nots; because the right-wingers endlessly simp for the corporations. A new Gilded Age if there ever was one.

If so, who are you blaming and how are you going to fix it?
In case you can't tell by now; it's the large corporations, the citizens united ruling, the Oligarchs who buy elections and convince all of these "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" on here that tax cuts for the rich and deficit spending will make our lives better (spoiler alert, it won't). But most of all...it's Shareholder Value Theory. Every single bad economic/fiscal decision this country has made for 50 years can be traced back to this god awful idea. That's what needs to go more than anything else. Sadly its a mindset, so short of electro-shock therapy on the majority of the country I don't see it going away anytime soon.
Or is this just an expression of disgruntled sentiment because actual structural changes have real--and sometimes uncomfortable--tradeoffs?
That's the thing, the negative trade-offs resulting from structural changes are minimal, at least for the median American anyways. Jeff Bezos may have to downsize his Yacht, and Zuck may have to sell a bunker, but if that means more Americans can buy boats, and second homes, then its worth it.

Your post seems to understand both the concept of context and nuance, something that many of the posts on this thread usually lack...Stay classy Tex.
 
THEY BOTH WORK BECAUSE THE GOV TAKES 50% OF THEIR INCOME IN ALL TAXES COMBINED. THAT makes them both work.
Once again, the median American doesn't even pay federal income taxes in some years. I believe the latest is ~47% don't pay any federal income tax at all. So how are they paying 50% of their combined income to the government?
 
You've noticed this trolls playbook...But I can assure you, you're wasting time responding to that De-gen.
@TX049 You see now why I have to take such a hard line on these guys. Nothing but insults. They don't even try to debate. They insult you, refuse to debate, and then claim that I'm the troll. It's ok, I've been dealing with far-right projection and gaslighting for a while now. I think my favorite insult was that I'm a "Satan worshiping Socialist/Communist that is hell bent on destroying western civilization." I must admit that their fiction writing abilities are quite good.
 
You managed to respond without addressing his argument at all
No, I did address his argument. If you don't work enough, you cant pay for a roof over your head. Hence the homelessness part. If you don't work enough you can't pay for food, hence the starvation part. Thats like saying if I put a gun to your head, you still have a choice to say no. Yeah, I suppose you do. You have the option to say no and possibly get dead real fast. Still doesn't feel like much of an option though. And it certainly feels like there's at least some coercion in such an action.
In fact, the correct response from him is to simply take your entire post and append “because government taxes on income are too high” and you are now fully supporting the supposed argument you are rebutting. That works because you’ve offered nothing of substance and nothing which actually counters his claim. High taxes suppressing purchasing power is fully in alignment with “impending homelessness, starvation, and financial ruin.”
No. Not for the median America. They barely pay any federal income tax. Yet another in a long line of Republican myths. Some years it's 40% of tax filers, sometimes it's 47%, more or less. And if they live in a state with little to no state income tax then what do they pay? Sales tax? Do you really think sales tax is what's keeping the median American down, and not the fact that wages have barely increased for the median American in almost 50 years? Sources say 24%, so <0.5% per year real wage increase? And that the real wages of the top 0.1% increased 350% in that same time period? CEOs have increased almost 1100% in that time period. Plus the tax rates American's pay have decreased over that same time period. Your entire statement above is factually incorrect.

That's the capitalist machine that I'm referring to. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If wages had only kept up with productivity increases the median household income would be ~150k/year, almost twice as much as it is now. But sure, I guess somewhere near the bottom of the list is a small decrease of purchasing power due to taxes, probably in California somewhere.





And the government certainly “forces” people into compliance.
I never said that the government doesn't force tax compliance.
This is just weak satire at best, trolling at worst.
I see it hasn't even taken you a day to jump on the insult bandwagon. You'll fit right in with this crowd.
 
With your vast expertise and understanding of these issues, what do you believe is an appropriate profit margin for a corporation? Those of us with significant actual experience in corporate P&L would be interested what someone like you thinks is an appropriate margin on the balance sheet. Be specific.

Oh boy you have asked him to be specific, I'll be surprised, no shocked, if you get a specific answer that makes any sense.
 
Nepal often gets Flash floods. But if you were standing there looking at that wall of debris coming your way; you would think it’s the end of days.

Water always wins.

Over time nothing defeats water in its solid, liquid or gas
state.
 
Nepal often gets Flash floods. But if you were standing there looking at that wall of debris coming your way; you would think it’s the end of days.

Water always wins.

Over time nothing defeats water in its solid, liquid or gas
state.

Agreed, but I have to say, these most recent floods in Nepal are the most devastating I have ever seen. When I saw the first one I assumed that I was looking at the result of the failure of a very large dam.
 
First of all, welcome new member. As you haven't seen my older posts we can rehash some of them here, albeit abbreviated. Do take care to Ignore the personal insult artists on here. Many of them have lost a debate to me, and are still bitter about it.

My hypothesis is such that; a majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Are all of them a victim of circumstance? Probably not. Are they all a victim of their own bad decisions? Probably not again. So some messed-up their own lives, and some simply had bad luck. Difficult to tell which is which sometimes. But assuming the latter in favor of the former (as most folks on here do) is not correct. We only have some degree of free agency over our own lives. It's not unlimited. My greater point would be such that; living in America has gotten so expensive that in most situations it necessitates both parents working full time, or in the case of a single-parent household, one parent working much more than full time.

And in doing so has had deleterious effects on our society, and our children in particular. Negative effects which many on here only blame the individual for, rather than offer any meaningful solutions. Once again, they think if they scream "personal responsibility" really loudly that the problems will all just magically go away. Do you think my mortgage lender will accept that as payment?

I've lived in my fair share of sh!t-hole places myself. Roaches, rats, possums, burglars. Mine was also 6 hours away from home because that was the only full time job available after the great recession; because the republicans rat-f@cked the world economy with their financial deregulation.

I did the same thing with two friends, but there's only so many bedrooms in the house, and I wasn't there to watch over the place so you can only do that so much.

Yes, but that goes back to was it their fault, someone else's, or just bad luck. Hard to tell which is which with someone unless you know them, and the entirety of their circumstances. The default assumption from the far-right members on this forum is that everyone in a bad financial spot is there due to their own actions and "sucks to be you." Hardly a fact-based opinion.

I know both, those that over-spend, and those that save every dollar; only to be kneecapped by circumstances beyond their control.

If that's possible for you than good. But that math doesn't math for everyone in America. Just because you were able to make it work doesn't mean that all 342 million Americans can. Look man, somebody has to flip burgers and mop the floors. And the math of that doesn't work out if only one spouse is working. Like I said in another reply to a different member, the only couples with kids that are financially succeeding that I know of, are the ones with two incomes; aside from the ones where one spouse is a doctor. The capitalist machine demands all of their time, and then blames them for not having enough time for their kids. Pretty sick if you ask me.

Back to the; is it them, or something else argument...Now think of a family situation in which none of the grandparents are available, or even alive to help offset the costs of child care, or offer any support whatsoever...Perhaps you have more luck than many out there.

Careful now, I recall Hillary Clinton saying something like that in the 2016 election and Republicans got big mad over it. You don't want to make any enemies this early on in the thread...(sarcasm)

Same for me.

I also have plenty of what I call "f@ck-up friends." They're fun to be around, but I don't emulate their life choices. But bad choices alone don't account for the financial difficulties of tens of millions of Americans. Thinking so is just a far-right cop-out for letting big corporations screw over their workers, and then blame them for their own poor economic circumstances. Nobody who works 50 hours a week should be on food stamps.

Ahh, the first person on here acknowledging that luck plays a role, careful now, if you don't buy into this groups "meritocracy only" myth, they may try and digitally tar-and-feather you. Just because someone lost the lottery doesn't mean we should blame them for it.


It could be that as well. The old "keeping up with the Jone's" situation. But I was primarily referring to the capitalist machine that requires one to be on the financial treadmill your entire life, less ye want to become homeless and have to beg for scrapes from passerby's. Big business paying workers as little as possible for their labor, whilst claiming poverty, all the while making record profits. As our country continues the slow separation into two Americas. The haves, and the have nots; because the right-wingers endlessly simp for the corporations. A new Gilded Age if there ever was one.


In case you can't tell by now; it's the large corporations, the citizens united ruling, the Oligarchs who buy elections and convince all of these "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" on here that tax cuts for the rich and deficit spending will make our lives better (spoiler alert, it won't). But most of all...it's Shareholder Value Theory. Every single bad economic/fiscal decision this country has made for 50 years can be traced back to this god awful idea. That's what needs to go more than anything else. Sadly its a mindset, so short of electro-shock therapy on the majority of the country I don't see it going away anytime soon.

That's the thing, the negative trade-offs resulting from structural changes are minimal, at least for the median American anyways. Jeff Bezos may have to downsize his Yacht, and Zuck may have to sell a bunker, but if that means more Americans can buy boats, and second homes, then its worth it.

Your post seems to understand both the concept of context and nuance, something that many of the posts on this thread usually lack...Stay classy Tex.

You are clearly educated. From your posts I understand that you have worked your way up from some level of poverty. You are married and you run several businesses with your wife. It seems that you have prospered in your country and maintain a healthy social life. I suspect that this probably puts you in the top 1% of the world, as most educated, successful people are. Despite this success, you fall back on studies and reports to show that the American system is flawed and causes poverty. I am having a hard time reconciling your personal experience from the statistics you support. Has anything in your personal experience supported the arguments you make?
 
You are clearly educated. From your posts I understand that you have worked your way up from some level of poverty. You are married and you run several businesses with your wife. It seems that you have prospered in your country and maintain a healthy social life. I suspect that this probably puts you in the top 1% of the world, as most educated, successful people are. Despite this success, you fall back on studies and reports to show that the American system is flawed and causes poverty. I am having a hard time reconciling your personal experience from the statistics you support. Has anything in your personal experience supported the arguments you make?

Educated enough to have A.I. Write his responses for him.
 
Shocking, it's almost like the capitalist machine forcing both parents to work 50+ hours a week to survive has very poor outcomes for society, and especially children. But hey, gotta keep up those corporate profits at all costs!
Interestingly I think J.D. Vance totally agrees with you on that point.
 
I understand that part of it but RLD made a big point about calling himself a CONSERVATIVE PROGRESSIVE. He is a left libtard by any measure. Just like, here in US, with most of the commie Dems calling themselves Democratic Socialists while being concerned about saving Democracy from Hitler reincarnate. Sorry, I ain’t buying the linguistic gymnastics and facade by RLD or anyone else. He might be spoiled by baffling them with BS in a courtroom drama but not with me. ;)
Your problem is twofold.

Firstly that you seem to believe the American political spectrum is the only one that exists or matters. No surprise there.

The second is that you really don't have a clue about my political views or philosophies. Ignorance is bliss.

The good news is that it really doesn't matter what childish label you to try to affix to me to make the delusions of your worldview work.
 
A “red Tory” known more than a few of those around Wayne Gaudet was one for years only he run liberal instead of Tory ( easier for him to get elected) in my experience a red Tory likes to spout off about social issues while only really being concerned with his own fiscal situation. They also seem to come from academia or legal backgrounds. Gaudet was a high school principal before a politician.

Old man used to say you can’t ride two horses with one ass…
The conservative party (of which I have been a participating member for more than 40 years) ruled Ontario for 42 years straight. They did a fine job. Good economy, and didn't have to shit on minorities to succeed.

Wayne Gaudet, of course, was a member of the Liberal Party. Not a Tory.

And let me suggest that being a lawyer is an excellent background for a politician. Since the purpose of the legislature is to draft laws those skills can come in handy.

I also worked for John Gamble, quite directly, and also with Jim Flaherty.

People doing good work for their constituents.

It takes some time and effort but provides more real returns than raging away on the internet about how well we treated mentally ill people centuries ago.
 
You are clearly educated. From your posts I understand that you have worked your way up from some level of poverty. You are married and you run several businesses with your wife. It seems that you have prospered in your country and maintain a healthy social life. I suspect that this probably puts you in the top 1% of the world, as most educated, successful people are. Despite this success, you fall back on studies and reports to show that the American system is flawed and causes poverty. I am having a hard time reconciling your personal experience from the statistics you support. Has anything in your personal experience supported the arguments you make?
I do not believe for a minute that is his personal life experience.
 
I do not believe for a minute that is his personal life experience.

Agreed. A perpetual college student living off his parents who has never held down a real job.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
69,730
Messages
1,555,294
Members
164,625
Latest member
HaroldN071
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

Member of the South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association
supergrizzly wrote on AZDAVE's profile.
Dave, I could use both of them if still available. I just picked up a new .22 mag and a .22 pump that they would be perfect on.
MHYOUNG 375 wrote on DLSJR's profile.
Dan who is C. W. Richter? He seems to not be a fan of myself!
MHYOUNG 375 wrote on DLSJR's profile.
Who's this C. W. Richter? Seems to have a chip on his shoulder.
 
Top