Monday, July 16, 2018

Left vs Right Distribution

From Chimpanzee
"Laurie, I do agree that Trump is worse than Obama ever was. However as for Tribe Liberal and Tribe Conservative... I see pretty much no difference in their wall building and feces throwing. That is why the bi-modal humps are pretty much equal and opposite." G2A
 
"I would say left and right are not the same. The left is maybe split 50-50 between far left (Bernie supporters) and moderate left (Hillary supporters) If there was a lefty president as bad as Trump most of the left would not support that person.
 
I think the far right makes up 90% of GOP voters and those are the people who continue to support Trump. The moderate right is only about 10% of GOP voters. I would put John in this group in spite of some of his extreme views.
 
I would assign the percentages I mentioned to dem and GOP leaders as well.
  • far left 50% of DEMs in congress
  • far right 90% of GOP in congress
I am very disgusted with GOP leaders who continue to support Trump" Laurie
Now let's look at some graphs of actual distribution data...







89 comments:

John said...

So it looks like Laurie may be correct regarding the House of Representatives distribution.

However I think the Senate and "politically active" citizens look pretty balanced.

Though highly separated...

John said...

Laurie,
Does the data change your opinion?

I personally think you see extremist Conservatives in abundance because of your seat in the Left part of the theater.

Just as my parents see a lot of Liberal whackos on the Left because of their seat being on the right.

John said...

Jerry posted this on the Chimp post.

"Question: "left" and "right" of WHAT? For every serious and well-defined problem, there is a correct answer and a whole lot of incorrect ones. If "tribes" differ from one another, then it is likely that one or the other of them is closer to the correct answer. Whatever happened to the notion that Congress would agree on the problem, consider the "best" solution, and agree to do THAT? Really, does referring to the other side in vulgar terms, or impugning their motivations or character, really solve anything? Entertaining, perhaps, but certainly useless otherwise. "

John said...

Unfortunately the "correct answer" is like "beauty" in that it varies with the beholder.

And with the citizens becoming so polarized... Often they are happy when their Representatives poke a stick in the other tribe's eye even if the problem continues.

Look at the immigration bill issue. The GOP blocked the Senate bill in ~2012. Now the DEMs are blocking the GOP proposal. All in the name of keeping their most polarized voters happy.

Sean said...

"Look at the immigration bill issue. The GOP blocked the Senate bill in ~2012. Now the DEMs are blocking the GOP proposal. All in the name of keeping their most polarized voters happy."

Another Appelen false equivalency. The 2013 Senate bill was a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority but was blocked by partisans in the House GOP. The bills that Democrats refuse to support now are purely Republican proposals. As was pointed out to you less than a month ago, Democrats broadly supported two bipartisan bills that were voted on in the Senate in February (Coons-McCain and the Collins-Schumer "Common Sense Plan".

John said...

Somewhere on my "to do list" is create a chart of what the Left and Right are being so bull headed about...

Maybe someday it will make it to the top of the list.

Seem to me it is simple:
- Build the wall and lock down the border
- Focus legal immigrant requirements around America's needs
- Give all current "border crosser" illegals a path to citizenship
- deport all "visa violater" illegals (ie that behavior has to be stopped)

Now who from the Left or Right is going to sign up for that logical pragmatic solution?

Anonymous said...

Capitalism is losing it's credibility. I think a lot of it has to do with the placing of right wing crazies on the Supreme Court. There is just a sense out there that capitalist-Americans have gone too far.

--Hiram

John said...

Lisa did my work for me...

John said...

Hiram,
You keep saying that and yet you provide no sources.

I think a capitalism leaning mixed economy is still the best alternative.

Remember that things have supposedly gotten worse as we moved Left... Left Link 2

Sean said...

I don't think we've moved to the Left economically. Over the last 40 years, we have slashed taxes on the wealthy, cut the safety net, undergone substantial deregulation (particularly in financial services), and neutered unions -- for starters.

Laurie said...

the data does not change my opinion. Maybe some people on the right (and left) are more highly partisan then ideological. I don't think the left and right are equivalent. It will be interesting to see in the next couple of weeks if Trumps approval rating drops or if his supporters will support his treason.

John said...

I consider that undoing some of the "rope stretch". The Liberals really pulled the boat out hard in the 1960's and 1970's... And since then the GOP has been pulling it back somewhat.

Unfortunately some of the actions taken in the 1960's and 1970's have very long term costs and consequences. And unfortunately the GOP is too chicken to take away entitlements once they are granted.

Many citizens were conditioned to be dependent... Not good...

John said...

Laurie,
Of course you do not think the Left and Right are equivalent... You are on the Left...

Therefore you support:
- Robbing Peter to pay Paul while expecting little or nothing from Paul... (ie welfare, healthcare, food, money, union employees, etc)

- Allowing poor low knowledge low skill people to flock to the USA for sanctuary and care, even though we have a lot of our own poor low knowledge low skill people.

So you would see a tribe who seeks to force people to honor our borders, learn, work and achieve improvement as extremists... Or cold hearted...

You would prefer to just keep that self feeder full for all who choose to graze rather than forage / provide for themselves... While welcoming many from outside in to join and not worrying about the costs and consequences... Or who is paying them.

John said...

Some more moving Left Charts

Welfare
Entitlements

Sean said...

"The Liberals really pulled the boat out hard in the 1960's and 1970's... "

That's not even entirely accurate. Congressional Republicans were basically split 50-50 on the establishment of Medicare, for instance.

John said...

This is an interesting piece. NPR GOP's History Of Resistance To Social Welfare Programs.

John said...

Or this...

"From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business."

Anonymous said...


You keep saying that and yet you provide no sources.

Even Fox News is insisting socialism is an increasing force in our politics. They say it every night. And the reasons for it are obvious. One of our two major politics came close to nominating a socialist for president.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

How Do We Fight the Cult of Trump?

John said...

Hiram,
You said "Capitalism is losing it's credibility." I am not sure citizens thinking they can get more free stuff from the tax payers for doing little is quite the same thing.

Remember the old saying. “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

And yes FOX likes to scare the chimpanzees with that type of story. I am not sure that makes it real. Just as Mother Jones and Daily Kos like to scare the orangutans with horror stories of greedy rich people. It is how they charge up the tribe.

I have to wonder how many humans live in strong social democracies versus strong capitalistic countries? I am thinking the social democracies are the minority by far.

John said...

Laurie,
I somewhat agree with Kevin for a change, this hero worship thing is unhealthy. Unfortunately when the tribes cater to the extremes it is likely what we will be facing in the future.

The big question then is how do we pull citizens from both sides back towards the center?

That 10 year PEW graph procession is pretty scary, the folks on the Left and Right have retreated to their respective corners and just want to keep name calling and fighting the other side. I hope they do another one for 2018...

Laurie said...

your ape analogy is annoying and stupid. Most of your other recent posts and comments are annoying too

as for my not seeing the equivalency between left and right because of my seat on the left it is just as possible that you cannot see the false equivalence between right and left because of your seat on the right

Laurie said...

The G.O.P.’s War on the Poor

John said...

Possibly, however since:

- I disagree with both sides half the time...
- Liberals call me Conservative
- Conservatives call me Liberal

I am guessing I am much nearer to the center than most...

And since 63 million people voted for Trump and 66 million voted for Clinton even with all their flaws, it means that the Left and Right distributions are nearly balanced.

Now are you really going to sit there and say that Tribe Liberal is so much more respectable, human and reasonable than Tribe Conservative?

Maybe you can take Clinton's phrase regarding irredeemable deplorables... :-)

Or are you going to start asking what Tribe Liberal is missing?

John said...

Krugman's piece did not impress me... As usual...

I thought putting a gray haired old lady on the front of the piece was surely intentional heart tugging even though the work rules proposed would not apply to people older than 59... Or children either...

As I keep asking... Why are Liberals so adamant that healthy working aged people should not be forced to learn and work?

Do they think they are too stupid or inept to do so?

No one is trying to starve the Kids, Granny or the Disabled.

Laurie said...

liberals elected Obama
conservatives elected Trump
these are not equally honorable presidents

which is a bigger or more likely problem some undeserving person receiving some sort of govt benefit or some deserving person or child going hungry or homeless? I can live with a small amt of fraud.

I believe Krugman mentioned that nearly all capable poor people are already working. Why make thier lives more difficult.

John said...

"It’s not about incentives. The persistent claim on the right that America is filled with “takers” living off social programs when they should be working may be what conservatives want to believe, but it just isn’t true. Most nondisabled adults receiving aid work; most of those who don’t have good reasons for not working, such as health issues or the need to serve as caretakers for family members. Slashing benefits would push some of these people into the work force out of sheer desperation, but not many, and at a huge cost to their well-being."

How many are most? How many able bodied folks are on the dole?

Should tax payers be paying people to be care givers for their family members?

Work requirements DO NOT APPLY to children. And many Mom's are exempt... (ie care givers)

John said...

And yes I agree that Obama is far more politically correct and honest than Trump.

The Conservatives had had enough of politically correct apparently and wanted action. Well they are sure getting it, for better or worse.

Wouldn't you have liked it if Obama had been a bit more dynamic and forceful for Tribe Liberal?

Sean said...

Those crazy lefties at the Economist are at it again!

American Democracy's Built-In Bias

Anonymous said...

Bear in mind, credibility is all about what people believe, it has nothing to do with true. I think the rise of socialism in America is indisputable. Even Fox News agrees. And I think it's fair to say, that one reason for that is our loss of believe in capitalism. Our capitalist president is widely seen as a crook, and a growing portion of the population sees him as a traitor. We see quite visibly how as a capitalist, he puts his own personal interests ahead of those of the country.

Capitalism has other problems. The wage disparity is a real problem for capitalism. The obscenely high pay packages for capitalist-managers is also an issue, robbing as it does from both shareholders and workers. We see capitalist companies construct entire business models on the savings created from the denial of health care benefits' In a classic case of capitalist overreach, Trump tried to name the CEO of one such company secretary of labor.

I support capitalism myself. Some of my best friends are capitalists. But there are no free lunches for capitalism. If it wants to retain its' position as America's economic system, it has to do a better job of making it's case in the face of rising skepticism. Nobody has a right to capitalism. It's something that needs to be earned.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

First off, I think there may be a considerable difference between how people and their representatives think of themselves (ideologically) and how they actually vote, especially on an issue-by-issue basis. There may be an even greater disconnect between ideology and the way people lead their lives.

And I am still troubled by the notion that there are ideologically consistent positions on every issue. Can I not be liberal here and conservative there? Who decides, and on what basis, what is "ideologically correct"?

Thus, I must strongly disagree when you say there are multiple "correct" answers to any given problem. There is always one good solution, a consensus solution, but these days the problem-solving gets eliminated in favor of poisonous partisan posturing. I don't remember a specific example recently, but I remember being struck by the realization that this completely commonsense and simple solution, proposed by a Republican, was instantly decried and dismissed by every Democrat within a mile of a microphone, when only a short time previous the same idea, proposed by a Democrat, was widely hailed.

Anonymous said...

The consensus solution is not always (maybe not even usually) the one good solution. That should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

Moose

Anonymous said...

Isn't ironic, by the way, that Mr. Trump who might very well be a Russian agent, was so insistent on NFL players standing for the national anthem?

--Hiram

John said...

Sean,
Excellent article. I liked this idea...

"The aim should be to give office-seekers a reason to build bridges with opponents rather than torch them. If partisanship declined as a result, so would pressure on voters to stick to their tribe. That could make both parties competitive in rural and urban areas again, helping to restore majority rule."

The challenge I see is described in core belief difference... As described above...

"Therefore you support:
- Robbing Peter to pay Paul while expecting little or nothing from Paul... (ie welfare, healthcare, food, money, union employees, etc)

- Allowing poor low knowledge low skill people to flock to the USA for sanctuary and care, even though we have a lot of our own poor low knowledge low skill people.

So you would see a tribe who seeks to force people to honor our borders, learn, work and achieve improvement as extremists... Or cold hearted...

You would prefer to just keep that self feeder full for all who choose to graze rather than forage / provide for themselves... While welcoming many from outside in to join and not worrying about the costs and consequences... Or who is paying them."

Sean said...

There you go again.

John said...

Jerry,
Give us one clearly defined problem with a right answer and let's see if we can agree on that one thing.

Personally I think it will be difficult given our very different priorities, viewpoints and values.


As noted above:

tax payer payment to citizens
expectations from citizens
rewards, roles, responsibilities, accountability

John said...

Sean,
I would think you must even admit that

personal property rights and
government mandated wealth transfer

are big differences between the Left and Right...


Hiram says America is RICH so we can pay for...

Jerry says American people are wealthy and should be free to determine what they want to spend on...


These are pretty diverse views.

Sean said...

"personal property rights"

What are you even talking about?

"government mandated wealth transfer"

You're talking about the government policies that work to concentrate wealth in the hands of the wealthy? Because they're the only ones accumulating wealth under the current system.

jerrye92002 said...

John: "Jerry says American people are wealthy and should be free to determine what they want to spend on..." Should be "Jerry says American people are wealthy BECAUSE THEY ARE free to determine what they want to spend on..."

"The consensus solution is not always (maybe not even usually) the one good solution. That should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain." -- Moose

The consensus solution is the one which EVERYONE with a "functioning brain" agrees is the best. Or it used to be. It should never be confused with "bipartisan" or "compromise."

John said...

G2A Causation vs Correlation

Now you seem to be saying that the wealthy are wealthy because of the government. Even though the US tax system is somewhat Progressive.

Or could the successful be wealthy because they are passionate about learning, working, saving, investing, etc?

And are the poor who get back more than they pay in still poor because?


In my family we are wealthy because my older relatives lived to work, save and invest... There are many other families who received land grants long ago, same as my relatives, and then lost the wealth... That is why my family was able to buy their land.

My point: There is a lot more to wealth building and retention than government intervention and policies.

John said...

For a reminder... I am actually on getting some old duffers to spend a bit more of that wealth in their golden years, however life long habits of working, saving and investing are hard to break.

John said...

Jerry,
Do you have a problem / solution we can review?

jerrye92002 said...

You've already proposed a pretty good one, on immigration, above. Needs a couple of tweaks to get conservative votes, my guess is it will get zero Democrat votes because Republicans propose it. Look at the Goodlatte bill, for example.

Anonymous said...

"The consensus solution is the one which EVERYONE with a "functioning brain" agrees is the best."

But you said that there is always one good solution, the consensus solution. By what objective measure can it be determined that the consensus solution is always a good solution. It simply means that it's the one that is agreed upon to be best.

e.g. Our founders came to a consensus on the idea that slavery should not be abolished in the Constitution. Since it was agreed upon to be the best solution does that mean it was the best solution?

Sometimes, many times, the consensus is simply wrong.

Moose

Anonymous said...

"In my family we are wealthy because my older relatives lived to work, save and invest..."

After having been given a big chunk of land by the government. Let's not forget that essential tidbit.

Moose

Anonymous said...

My point: There is a lot more to wealth building and retention than government intervention and policies.

But of course they help. A stable political environment is essential to wealth creation.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

The fairest of them all: why Europe beats the US on equality

Sean said...

"My point: There is a lot more to wealth building and retention than government intervention and policies."

Of course. But if we look at the first 30 years of the post-WW2 period, a rising tide really did lift all boats. For the last 40 years, that hasn't been true. In a time of "record low unemployment", wage growth for production and non-supervisory employees adjusted for inflation is negative over the last 12 months.

A major reason for these trends are the policy decisions we have made over that time -- we have slashed taxes on the wealthy, cut the safety net, undergone substantial deregulation (particularly in financial services), and neutered unions -- for starters.

John said...

Moose,
Please note that I did note the land grants in my above comments.

And remember that those folks did have to perform some pretty stressful tasks to earn that land.

- Move to undeveloped location
- Plant and farm the land without modern equipment
- Build a home
- Survive MN winters
- etc

John said...

Moose,
Maybe allowing slavery to continue at that point in time was the best decision for the country. Judging people for what they chose hundreds of years ago in a different world seems very egotistical.

Hiram,
The wealthy and poor in America both benefit from the same stable government.

Jerry,
Immigration may work, but we may need to focus on just one issue... Maybe.

Problem: US Southern Border allows ~400,000 people to enter the USA without back ground checks, permission or searches.

Solution: Build walls and use technology to eliminate these transgressions.

John said...

Sean,
I think you are claiming causation where only correlation may exist.

It is true that many changes have occurred over the past 60 years, including:
- consumers preferred higher value products and services from over seas
- environmental regulations were increased greatly
- cost of global shipping, communication and travel dropped greatly
- the rest of the world recovered from WW II
- free trade and globalization proliferated

The reality is that smart, skilled and educated Americans are doing fine for the most part. The questions are:
- how to encourage more Americans to be smart, skilled and/or educated?
- how to encourage more American consumers to "Buy American"?

Remember that investors like me are indifferent to where things are made...

It is America's workers who have suffered due to the American consumers choosing to "Buy Foreign".

Sean said...

"Judging people for what they chose hundreds of years ago in a different world seems very egotistical."

Can't wait for your post on how Genghis Khan wasn't genocidal, just misunderstood by modern standards.

Sean said...

Americans are smarter, more skilled, and more educated than at any point in history. Far more Americans attempt to participate in the workforce than decades ago, and Americans work more hours and take less vacation than anywhere else in the first world. We have no guarantee of family or sick leave, unlike just about everywhere else in the world. The notion that you try to propagate that Americans are just lazy isn't true.

40 years ago, the ratio of CEO pay to median worker pay was about 30:1. Today, it's about 270:1. Are CEOs 9x better than they were 40 years ago? There's no real evidence of that. But we have policies and regulations that have encouraged out-of-control CEO pay and policies that have encouraged suppressing worker pay.

In the mid-1950s, the top 1% paid an effective combined federal, state, and local tax rate in the low 40% range. Today, it's around 36%. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% paid a combined effective tax rate of around 15% back then, and about 25% today. When you combine that with the massive shift in how the wealth is distributed, those relatively subtle shifts in tax policy have moved trillions of dollars in wealth around over that time.

Are the factors you cite part of it? Sure, but you also need to acknowledge that the factors I cite are part of it, too.

Anonymous said...

"And remember that those folks did have to perform some pretty stressful tasks to earn that land."

Would they have done that without the government handout? How would they have secured that land that ultimately led to their wealth?

Moose

Anonymous said...

"Maybe allowing slavery to continue at that point in time was the best decision for the country. Judging people for what they chose hundreds of years ago in a different world seems very egotistical."

My point, of course, is that it is not objectively the best solution, or even a good solution, because involves the continued subjugation of an entire race. We can not say that a consensus solution is necessarily good.

Moose

Laurie said...

Get ready for the welfare wars

Sean said...

About 10% of the land in the U.S. went to homesteaders, 1.6 million of whom were white. By most accounts, the number of African-American homesteaders were less than 10,000. In 2000, a study showed that one-quarter of the adult U.S. population was descended from homesteaders.

After the Civil War, who got compensated? Not the former slaves. No, the federal government paid $300 per slave to slave owners.

John said...

Sean,
I did not agree with your factors because they were stated in a biased form.

I do agree that tax codes have changed, however so have social services, food programs, healthcare, etc. Please remember that most of the entitlements were a shadow of what they are today.

I do agree with you that executive compensation policy does seem flawed. Especially when they get payouts while the company tanks.

I don't think Americans are lazy... I think many Americans who struggle have limiting belief systems, make BAD choices, are lazy or truly unfortunate. Most of them control their own destiny.

John said...

Moose,
That deal between the government and private citizens helped the settlers and our country. I do not know if the settlers would have paid more for that land? Money + 5 years of a family's life is significant.

I am fine with tax payers investing in citizens, as long as the citizens are required to learn, work and become independent. It is the Liberal view that citizens are owed hand outs with no expectations is where I disagree.

As for slavery, let's say the US had formed as 2 countries instead of one because the North had insisted on abolishing slavery immediately... How would that have worked for the USA as a country or for the slaves?

Sean,
Yes Black Americans have been screwed over time and time again... Now that things are better, when are they going to start forming functional families and raising their children well?

John said...

Moose,
One more thing to stress, many people / families have lost the "wealth" their ancestors created by settling the land... Some people can manage money well and some lose it.

Just like why many lottery winners are broke 5 years after winning.

If it were mostly government benefitting the wealthy... all of those lottery winners should still be living large.

Sean said...

"I do agree that tax codes have changed, however so have social services, food programs, healthcare, etc. Please remember that most of the entitlements were a shadow of what they are today."

That's not exactly true. Over the last 20 years, the inflation-adjusted value of nearly every major welfare program (TANF, SNAP, etc.) has fallen. In a study that looked at the years 1996-2012, 99% of 2012 TANF recipients had real benefit levels less than what they would have received in 1996. In Minnesota, for instance, the nominal dollar amount didn't change over that time period. A single-parent family of 3 got $532/month in 1996, and $532/month in 2012 -- a reduction in buying power of 1/3.

Compounding things, only 25% of families below the poverty line actually received TANF benefits in 2012, versus 68% in 1996.

Again, the notion you present that we have this all-encompassing welfare state just ain't supported by facts.

Sean said...

"Now that things are better, when are they going to start forming functional families and raising their children well?"

1.) Things are less bad than before, but "better"? Nope. Especially when your party is systematically trying to disenfranchise them from exercising their voting rights, led by the racist-in-chief.

2.) The dysfunction that you can see in certain areas of African-American communities weren't created overnight and won't be fixed overnight.

3.) We are seeing now that same dysfunction rapidly increasing among white families across the country. Yet, we are responding differently. How do we handle opioids versus how did we handle crack, for instance? Who's going to stand up and shame the white, rural communities in the same way that black, urban communities have been shamed for decades?

Anonymous said...

John, as you have show time and time again, you are simply incapable of seeing your privilege and the huge advantages you have been given that MANY people in this country have never received.

Moose

John said...

Sean,
Please remember that I see the left's "boat pulling" called the "war on poverty" as one of the reasons so many people have become dependent citizens and questionable parent(s). And why so many children are being raised in single parent homes and failing in school / life.

So 50+ years ago we went far Left, and 20 years ago we corrected somewhat right. And yet we are still far left of where we were in 1960... Seems to make sense to me.

The boat is pulled out hard and the rope stretches... Then the rope pulls to boat back somewhat...

John said...

The non-Hispanic White families have a long way to go to get as screwed up as the others.

Most of their children are still raised in 2 parent households...

Now we know that 2 parent households with strong extended family ties is the most cost effective lifestyle and the best way to ensure the child(ren) get the parental or grand parental support they need.

To live otherwise is expensive and bad for the kids, unless one of the parents is abusive.

John said...

So if poverty is the reason these family structures failed that seems counter intuitive doesn't it?

In the history of the USA, many families have been poor and under tough circumstances. The challenge often pulled the families together. Instead something about what happened during the war on poverty ripped these families apart.

And something happened to require "a war on drugs".

The causation of this family structure disaster is very complicated.

John said...

Moose,
Do you remember this video and discussion?

I do realize that I am very fortunate to be born into what I consider should be a normal home. Not a "privileged" home...

I was born into a home with 2 parents who:
- had successfully completed High School
- worked for a few years before having me
- made me learn, behave, etc
- stayed married

To me this is what we as a society should expect from every family.

Not consider those who have these basic things to be privileged...

Anonymous said...

Tone deaf

Moose

John said...

Moose,
Why do you want to set the baseline at very dysfunctional and claim that kids with normal healthy responsible functional families / parents are privileged?


Privilege defined: "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people. (education is a right, not a privilege)


Do we really want to think of good families / parents as a special right / advantage?

Or do we want to demand that every child have this basic right?


In sports we consider an athlete who is missing a leg to be handicapped or special. We don't consider the athlete with both legs to be privileged.


What is your rationale for wanting to claim dysfunctional families as normal, and functional 2 parent families as privileged?


Anonymous said...

Nah. You don't get to re-frame the debate and expect me to play along.

Moose

John said...

Actually this post is about Tribal Polarization...

Somehow Sean and you took down the rabbit hole...

However I am happy to follow these conversation where ever they lead. :-)

It gives me ideas for future posts.

John said...

And I think this one will make the main stage soon.

Anonymous said...

"However I am happy to follow these conversation where ever they lead. :-) "

You're clearly joking. Especially considering that you're always telling us what we think and believe.

Moose

Sean said...

"Please remember that I see the left's "boat pulling" called the "war on poverty" as one of the reasons so many people have become dependent citizens and questionable parent(s). And why so many children are being raised in single parent homes and failing in school / life."

I know that's how you see it. But as I've countered on many occasions, with actual, you know, facts:

1.) Republicans played a role in creating these programs, sustaining them, and expanding them. Republicans voted 50-50 in favor of their creation. It was a Republican President that expanded Medicare solely on the credit card. And, today, even while controlling all branches of government -- they refuse to cut them. They could have done this via budget reconciliation and only need 51 Senate votes.

2.) The notion that there are huge numbers of dependent citizens is bogus. As I pointed out above (and you agreed with): Americans are smarter, more skilled, and more educated than at any point in history. Far more Americans attempt to participate in the workforce than decades ago, and Americans work more hours and take less vacation than anywhere else in the first world. We have no guarantee of family or sick leave, unlike just about everywhere else in the world.

3.) Single-parent homes are part of broader cultural shift that began before the War on Poverty and they are not strictly an American phenomenon.

Anonymous said...

I mean, the list of things that you don't think people deserve is astonishing:

Health care
Housing
Food

Libertarianism is far worse than Democratic Socialism.

Moose

Sean said...

"The non-Hispanic White families have a long way to go to get as screwed up as the others."

They weren't held down for centuries.

jerrye92002 said...

We're back to that huge problem of welfare/wealth distribution which is too multi-faceted for a simple single solution.

How about going back to that part of the illegal immigration problem that is the act of illegal immigration itself. Is not the simple solution to that to gain control of our southern border and prevent illegal border crossings? And isn't a "wall," physical or technological, the obvious way to accomplish that? It won't be a consensus solution, nor bipartisan nor a compromise because Democrats won't permit it. But the correct solution exists.

Sean said...

"In the history of the USA, many families have been poor and under tough circumstances. The challenge often pulled the families together. Instead something about what happened during the war on poverty ripped these families apart."

You're romanticizing the past. The guy yesterday who was talking about how we shouldn't blame people for choices they made years ago now ignores the fact that it was a heck of a lot harder for women to flee from abusive situations and be able to support themselves independently.

John said...

Sean,
Are you now saying that 70% of Black Males are abusive of their wives?

Now lets look at the graph once more... And compare the family demise to the introduction of the war on poverty ~1965 and the Personal Responsibility Act 1996.

It may just be correlation, but it looks pretty suspicious.


John said...

Jerry,
If you can give me a clearly defined:

problem statement on a topic of small scope

a correct solution for that problem.

I will post them and we can discuss there.

John said...

As for "They weren't held down for centuries."

Please remember that the African American family system did not implode until they were set free and lifted up...

And now 50 years later is worse than ever...

It is quite the puzzle.

John said...

Sean,
Did you read this piece?

Sean said...

"Please remember that the African American family system did not implode until they were set free and lifted up.."

You're suggesting that during the time of slavery, African-Americans had a typical family structure? And that it was only the War on Poverty that broke it? Dude, you need to crack open a history book.

"Did you read this piece?"

Sure, it's true that Republicans love to talk about their opposition to these programs. But, the piece itself even notes that when push comes to shove they don't do much about it.

John said...

Well, slavery ended in ~1865 and the family structures seemed okay until ~1965...

I do agree with you that entitlements are hard for politicians to take away. People on them and Liberals get very angry. That is too bad for our kids.

Sean said...

"Well, slavery ended in ~1865 and the family structures seemed okay until ~1965..."

Your own sources show that there was always a significant delta between African-Americans and whites? What do you suppose the cause of that was?

Sean said...

"That is too bad for our kids."

Yes, we should take away their food stamps. That will show them!

John said...

Yes in 1960 only 80% of Black families were healthy and normal... That is true.

Now it is down to 30%. The good news is that it plateaued around 1996...

Please remember that I support:
- work and training requirements
- promoting people having only the children they can care for
- promoting 2 parent households

I am in no hurry to starve children...

John said...

I moved your Berstein comment to a new post.

jerrye92002 said...

John, I thought I had done that:

Problem, people are breaking the law and crossing over the Southern border, at other than the legal checkpoints.

Solution: Put up some sort of wall to prevent them from doing so.