Let's talk about income inequality

[Beaker]

(06-02-2015, 09:26 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: People having to degrade themselves publicly to make money is hilarious.

There's that "I'm too good for that" attitude I knew would surface.

That girl is a marketing genius.

[fredtoast]

(06-01-2015, 04:02 PM)Beaker Wrote: We already have government assistance.

How do we make everyone "as productive as possible"? If you're talking government led infrastructure projects like the interstate hwy system and Hoover dam, you can bet there will be plenty of people claiming disability and looking for that government assistance of yours.

So you honestly believe that there are no people out there looking for jobs right now that would be thrilled with a high paying construction job?

I feel sorry for people like you who are so blinded by the rhetoric coming from the right.  The truth is that there are many people working two low paying jobs in order to make ends meet, and people like you just sit back and call them all lazy.

It is disgusting.

[Beaker]

(06-03-2015, 12:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you honestly believe that there are no people out there looking for jobs right now that would be thrilled with a high paying construction job?

I feel sorry for people like you who are so blinded by the rhetoric coming from the right.  The truth is that there are many people working two low paying jobs in order to make ends meet, and people like you just sit back and call them all lazy.

It is disgusting.

#1 you made another typical "fred leap". I never said nobody would want those type of jobs. I implied that those type of programs wouldn't work as well as they did in the 40's because fewer people would be willing to do that type of labor. Fewer isn't nobody. And if fewer people will accept that type of work, then the program will be less effective.

#2 please try to stay on topic and answer the question put to you in our debate. What would you do to make people "as productive as possible"? If you want to talk rhetoric, you surely are doing a good job by answering with PC gray answers that sound really good but don't really mean anything or offer solutions.

You say I am jaded by the right, but I am more than willing to consider any solutions you have to offer. If I think they are good, I will tell you so. If not, I will tell you why I think they won't work and how I think they could be improved.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

Were these fine folks "lazy" or "unwilling to educate themselves for advancement"?



http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0&referrer

[Ben Richards]

Educating everyone for free and for as long as it takes could be a good start. If someone wants to spend their life in a college setting, instead of working dead end jobs they should have the means supplied to do so.

This is all about access. The morons that sit back and say get a job or get an education don't realize that the 'access' is not the same all the way around. People have a hard time with thinking critically.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Most unemployed Americans are unwilling to move to where the jobs are. India.

[SunsetBengal]

[Cure4CF]

(06-05-2015, 08:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote:
And they still would screw up the order.  

[JustWinBaby]

(06-04-2015, 09:53 AM)Ben Richards Wrote: If someone wants to spend their life in a college setting, instead of working dead end jobs they should have the means supplied to do so.

Parents or trust fund, sure.  Not with my money.  That's just a waste and the definition of a free loader.

[fredtoast]

(06-03-2015, 03:17 PM)Beaker Wrote: #2 please try to stay on topic and answer the question put to you in our debate. What would you do to make people "as productive as possible"? 

Provide more free education.  Provide more vocational type programs in high school for those that are not going to college.

Provide more public transportation.  I know it is a popular myth among the silver spoon crowd, but not every poor person has a car.

Provide health care and day care.

Provide birth control.

Basically instead of giving people money for not working give them support for all the things that is keeping them from working.

Raise minimum wage.

Help the people who are working.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-06-2015, 09:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Provide more free education.  Provide more vocational type programs in high school for those that are not going to college.

Provide more public transportation.  I know it is a popular myth among the silver spoon crowd, but not every poor person has a car.

Provide health care and day care.

Provide birth control.

Basically instead of giving people money for not working give them support for all the things that is keeping them from working.

Raise minimum wage.

Help the people who are working.

Everything that you mention, is already in existence.

What else should we do?  Perhaps we (the taxpayers) could also foot the bill for free motivators, cheerleaders and life coaches?  You know, to encourage them to take advantage of what's out there, and give them positive reinforcement that they are doing the right thing.

[Beaker]

(06-06-2015, 09:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Provide more free education.  Provide more vocational type programs in high school for those that are not going to college.

I agree with vocational programs. We already have public education that is not only free, but mandated to all who want it.

Provide health care and day care.

In existence.

Provide birth control.

Available, but needs to be incentivized to use it more. Instead, we pay more for having more children, which has the opposite effect.

Basically instead of giving people money for not working give them support for all the things that is keeping them from working.

Clarify.

Raise minimum wage.

Would only raise the cost of living as employers passed on the wage increase in their products. People in that situation now wouldnt be any better off.

Help the people who are working.

What does this mean?

I responded in bold to your solutions. The problem is, we already have most of those in place. 

On the birth control point, I've thought the idea of incentivizing voluntary long term birth control should be considered. For example, if someone has two kids, instead of giving them more welfare to have more kids, how about giving them more to NOT have more kids? If a woman chooses to get birth control implants that are good for 5 years, she gets a bigger check. If she voluntarily gets her tubes tied, she gets an even bigger check. That way, people on welfare are having fewer children, and the children they already have are provided for better since they are getting more money to do so with the voluntary action. I feel that even though the process could be totally voluntary, some would oppose saying its coercion. I think some lawmakers see a value in a dependent constituency.

Here in my county we have a school called the career center. Students who are not going to college can enter in their junior year and get trained in things like construction, HVAC, and electrical trades. But they also have programs for veterinary assistants, firefighters and police traing, and cosmetology.....among may others. I think a return to more ideas like that are important. But we have misguidedly gotten the idea that all students should go to college. As nice as that sounds, its just not realistic. Not all students are cut out for continued academics.

So those are two of my solutions I think would help.

[Ben Richards]

(06-06-2015, 12:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Not with my money.  

Are you 60?  Maybe we can have whomever is in charge put your money in a separate pile....  JFC

[SunsetBengal]

(06-06-2015, 10:29 AM)Beaker Wrote: I responded in bold to your solutions. The problem is, we already have most of those in place. 

On the birth control point, I've thought the idea of incentivizing voluntary long term birth control should be considered. For example, if someone has two kids, instead of giving them more welfare to have more kids, how about giving them more to NOT have more kids? If a woman chooses to get birth control implants that are good for 5 years, she gets a bigger check. If she voluntarily gets her tubes tied, she gets an even bigger check. That way, people on welfare are having fewer children, and the children they already have are provided for better since they are getting more money to do so with the voluntary action. I feel that even though the process could be totally voluntary, some would oppose saying its coercion. I think some lawmakers see a value in a dependent constituency.

Here in my county we have a school called the career center. Students who are not going to college can enter in their junior year and get trained in things like construction, HVAC, and electrical trades. But they also have programs for veterinary assistants, firefighters and police traing, and cosmetology.....among may others. I think a return to more ideas like that are important. But we have misguidedly gotten the idea that all students should go to college. As nice as that sounds, its just not realistic. Not all students are cut out for continued academics.

So those are two of my solutions I think would help.

I can agree with what you say, to a point.  However, I'm not for rewarding people to not help themselves become productive members of society.

Rather than increase the amount of money given to just sit idle, how about the incentive comes in the form of free tuition at Community College or Vocational Training, along with free or subsidized child care?  Raising the amount of assistance given to people not working, only increases the "comfort level", without providing any incentive to do better than just sitting around and taking whatever the government is giving, for doing nothing.

[SunsetBengal]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/05/oreilly-income-inequality-play-giant-ruse-designed-get-votes-dems

Bill O’Reilly tonight charged Hillary Clinton with selling the myth of income inequality to gullible voters.

O’Reilly said that the 2016 contender’s strategy is to tell minorities that they’re treated unfairly and to tell working class Americans that the deck is stacked against them.

“That is the play here – to convince Americans that market competition is bad, unfair, it’s a rigged deal. Sadly, that message is gaining currency,” O’Reilly said.

“The Factor” host cited a CBS News/New York Times poll which found that 61 percent believe that only those on top can get ahead economically, while only 35 percent think that anyone can get ahead. The poll also found that 66 percent think money should be distributed more fairly, and 50 percent favor government limiting the amount earned by top executives. Of those polled, 71 percent want to raise the minimum wage to $10.10, which O’Reilly said he also favors.

O’Reilly said that Americans are buying into a “dangerous vision” that the government should control the flow of money.

“That goes directly against how America was founded,” he said.

O’Reilly said that the capitalist system is tough, but it’s not rigged. He stressed that Americans must get educated and be good at their trade to make money, adding that technology – not labor – is driving the economy.

“What the left will never, never tell you […] is that it is largely up to you, the individual American, to do what’s necessary to make money,” he said.

O’Reilly said that Clinton “is selling a myth to gullible voters, people who are frustrated about their own lack of success.”

“The entire income inequality play is a giant ruse designed to get votes for the Democratic Party,” he said.


O'Reilly makes a good point about Income Inequality being a ruse to gain votes.  I wish that he would have expounded further into what happens when government controls the flow of money.

[Belsnickel]

(06-06-2015, 03:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: O'Reilly makes a good point about Income Inequality being a ruse to gain votes.  I wish that he would have expounded further into what happens when government controls the flow of money.

I don't think it is a ruse. I mean, there have been studies done showing upward mobility is extremely difficult in the U.SS, and income inequality is a result of that. That intergenerational mobility especially is all but lost to us, and it was once a part of the American Dream.

[Beaker]

(06-06-2015, 12:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I can agree with what you say, to a point.  However, I'm not for rewarding people to not help themselves become productive members of society.

Rather than increase the amount of money given to just sit idle, how about the incentive comes in the form of free tuition at Community College or Vocational Training, along with free or subsidized child care?  Raising the amount of assistance given to people not working, only increases the "comfort level", without providing any incentive to do better than just sitting around and taking whatever the government is giving, for doing nothing.

My bad. My ideas go along with welfare reform in general...addressing some specific areas. I do not think paying more to sit idle is a food idea either....or what I meant. But I didnt specify further, so my bad. Yes, welfare should be a helping hand to get people productive again, not a handout.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-06-2015, 11:07 AM)Ben Richards Wrote: Are you 60?  Maybe we can have whomever is in charge put your money in a separate pile....  JFC

Huh?  The whole point of educating people is so they can put that productive knowledge to use and, you know, do something with their life that provides a return on that investment and contributes to our society.  You said if a person wants to spend their whole life being a student, we should fund that.  That's idiotic, that would just create someone who's really educated (and not necessarily smart) and entirely useless.

I mean, why limit free riders to people who can only do dead-end jobs, why not include everyone that hates their job or just doesn't want to work? Go to a few classes and spend half your life creeping on drunk college babes, all on the taxpayer dime. I bet you'd have plenty of takers. And don't worry about the 99% tax rate on people actually working to fund all this because they love their job and would do it for free!

[Ben Richards]

(06-06-2015, 10:27 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote:  You said if a person wants to spend their whole life being a student, we should fund that.  

School should be free to all, I didn't say 'we' should fund it.  You seem like you could use a few more years yourself.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-07-2015, 12:04 PM)Ben Richards Wrote: School should be free to all, I didn't say 'we' should fund it.  You seem like you could use a few more years yourself.

How about free for those making substantial academic progress?  Would seem pointless to let those without the aptitude or drive to succeed take up space and waste time and money.