GOP pundit: "GOP working class communities deserve to die"

[BurnItDwn]

Seems arrogant to assume you know better than someone else what their interests should be.

I am not going to debate my arrogance, as I believe that I am arrogant as well.

However, I do not want you to imagine that I am trying to assume with peoples interests "should" be. I am merely pointing out that conservative fiscal policy hurts most people and helps a very very small number of people.

The only thing that trickles down is piss when somebody pisses down your back and tells you its raining.

 

[interchange]

I'd venture to say that some of us here on this board aren't constructed that way, but there are plenty of people who are, and who are very unhappy that this type of work that was so ideal for them is going away and they are having a tough time finding a suitable substitute.

I'm still optimistic.

Sure, our culture pushes against this, but everyone knows it feels good to contribute and to be valued as part of a team with a common belief and goal. Everyone knows that feeling like your primary mission needs to be to look out for #1 in life is exhausting, anger-inciting, and depressing. No one likes the feeling of being unappreciated, unrecognized, and taken advantage of.

I'm optimistic because people on both ends feel the same way, and we each have good reason for it. I'm optimistic because we have the possibility as humans to divert our attention from what makes us different to what makes us the same. Effective partnerships are not built on strategically benefiting each other. They are built on shared experience and appreciation of each other's positions.

 

[Brian Stirling]

The question presented to this forum's GOP'ers by the column is: Do you agree with Kevin Williamson, that these working class voters are losers and their communities need to die off?

If you agree, then you are against your party's front-runner in presidential primary.
If you disagree, then your rant against liberals rings hollow.

It appears the GOP'ers on this forum do not seem conflicted at all by whatever position they take (no surprise there), but that is the dilemma that some GOP thinkers are trying to solve. Mindless attacking liberals, sadly, does not get you anywhere when the fight is happening inside the party.

Waste of time, because, .... liberals...


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

I disagree, the very core of the Democratic party nowadays are the urban professionals and $250k and below who were previously loyal Republicans and Democrats are attempting to make headways with suburban "swing voters" in that same income bracket. There's a reason why most Democratic tax proposals set the threshold for being "rich" at that level.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/opinion/campaign-stops/250000-a-year-is-not-middle-class.html

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...heres-why-white-working-class-hates-democrats

Absofuckinglutely!

We have some of them on this very board that talk a good liberal game on social issues but are more than OK with the free-trade and tax deals signed into law by Dems as well as Repubs. The Dems don't have quite as many billionaires on there side but it's not like it's a one sided deal either.

Prior to Bill Clinton and throughout the 80's the Dems were being outspent by the Repubs 2X, 3X, 4x and more at the national level and Bill Clinton realized how to change that. If you promote the policies the 0.001% want and you back that up by signing into law those policies you get an ROI in the from of billions in campaign money. Policies that the 0.001% had been pushing for decades but were thwarted by Dems all of a sudden came to pass.

So, the Clinton era Democrats talk a good game of supporting the middle/working class, but they aren't actually working to support them -- just the opposite. When I see posts on this board by Dems that pretend there side is better for the middle class I want to laugh, but as a former Democrat it only manifests itself as tears!


Brian

 

[michal1980]

The question presented to this forum's GOP'ers by the column is: Do you agree with Kevin Williamson, that these working class voters are losers and their communities need to die off?

If you agree, then you are against your party's front-runner in presidential primary.
If you disagree, then your rant against liberals rings hollow.

It appears the GOP'ers on this forum do not seem conflicted at all by whatever position they take (no surprise there), but that is the dilemma that some GOP thinkers are trying to solve. Mindless attacking liberals, sadly, does not get you anywhere when the fight is happening inside the party.

I don't know if I'd call these people losers. But they seriously need to work harder to better themselves. They might be 'losers'.

I'm against all the illegal immigrants coming into this country taking jobs, and lowering wages. BUT these people traveled tons of miles, from different countries, are willing to break laws, don't speak the language and manage to find work, while poor people in the USA bitch about them? WTF. If that guy can travel all those miles and find work you can find work too.

That said government should enforce immigration laws, and review the H1B visa process, most/all companies that use illegals/H1B workers dont have a problem finding employees. They have a low wage problem, they'd rather pay subpar wages to illegals, then raise their wages to attract employees.

Neither party is addressing the total picture. Neither party wants to fix the problem. The left loves illegal immigrants and wants to convert them to government dependent democratic voters. The right loves illegal immigrants because their big biz buddies want cheap labor. Similar with H1B visas.

Why does trump message resonant with voters? because even though he goes too far, his basic message rings true. All these other candidates hedge their message, then just sound tone deaf. The want to acknowledge the downsides to illegal immigration and the H1B programs, and that just makes them sound like idiots.

 

[senseamp]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/republican-elites-reign-of-disdain.html?smid=tw-share

Meanwhile, the argument that the social safety net causes social decay by coddling slackers runs up against the hard truth that every other advanced country has a more generous social safety net than we do, yet the rise in mortality among middle-aged whites in America is unique: Everywhere else, it is continuing its historic decline.

But the Republican elite can’t handle the truth. It’s too committed to an Ayn Rand story line about heroic job creators versus moochers to admit either that trickle-down economics can fail to deliver good jobs, or that sometimes government aid is a crucial lifeline. So it ends up lashing out at its own voters when they refuse to buy into that story line.

Krugman nails it again.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

That's right. Social welfare is the ONLY thing that can prevent white middle aged male deaths. Just ignore that blacks and Hispanics stand to suffer worse economic hardships yet do not show the same trend that whites do. Just ignore that drug-related deaths are a major cause behind those white middle aged deaths. Just ignore that we have a war on drugs and that "every other advanced country" does not. Just ignore that "every other advanced country" is not northern/western Europe. Just ignore that Japan and South Korea's social safety nets (before retirement) are weaker than America's.

Krugman is a guy that probably has said smart things before but now rests on his laurels making incredibly simplistic and nonsense arguments.

 

[soundforbjt]

That's right. Social welfare is the ONLY thing that can prevent white middle aged male deaths. Just ignore that blacks and Hispanics stand to suffer worse economic hardships yet do not show the same trend that whites do. Just ignore that drug-related deaths are a major cause behind those white middle aged deaths. Just ignore that we have a war on drugs and that "every other advanced country" does not. Just ignore that "every other advanced country" is not northern/western Europe. Just ignore that Japan and South Korea's social safety nets (before retirement) are weaker than America's.

Krugman is a guy that probably has said smart things before but now rests on his laurels making incredibly simplistic and nonsense arguments.

Those countries have something we don't, a love for family. In most Asian culture the family takes in and takes care of their elders,sick, etc. unlike where in this country they're shipped off to retirement homes and visited once or twice a month like it's a chore.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Those countries have something we don't, a love for family. In most Asian culture the family takes in and takes care of their elders,sick, etc. unlike where in this country they're shipped off to retirement homes and visited once or twice a month like it's a chore.

True. Similar probably holds for Hispanics as well. A common criticism of social welfare is that it destroys the family unit by removing dependence on it. I won't say I totally support that since I'm fairly certain (but not positive) that many European countries are still more family-oriented than America is. There's also the argument that other American policies (felony conviction in the world's largest prison nation making one unhireable, men making the vast majority of felons, men not taking custody in most cases, draconian alimony laws in some American states, etcetc) contribute to the breakdown of American families and the rise of middle-aged male suicide and single-motherdom.

But none of that should argue "Well American families just suck, therefore we NEED a Danish social safety net or we're all going to kill ourselves", it should argue addressing the more direct problems. In the case of rural drug-addicted middle-aged white male West Virginians and Mississippians, I find it a tiny bit difficult to rev up the sympathy engines when there are so many things that went wrong for them to hit the point they're at.

 

[soundforbjt]

True. Similar probably holds for Hispanics as well. A common criticism of social welfare is that it destroys the family unit by removing dependence on it. I won't say I totally support that since I'm fairly certain (but not positive) that many European countries are still more family-oriented than America is. There's also the argument that other American policies (felony conviction in the world's largest prison nation making one unhireable, men making the vast majority of felons, men not taking custody in most cases, draconian alimony laws in some American states, etcetc) contribute to the breakdown of American families and the rise of middle-aged male suicide and single-motherdom.

But none of that should argue "Well American families just suck, therefore we NEED a Danish social safety net or we're all going to kill ourselves", it should argue addressing the more direct problems. In the case of rural drug-addicted middle-aged white male West Virginians and Mississippians, I find it a tiny bit to rev up the sympathy engines when there are so many things that went wrong for them to hit the point they're at.

Well said. I think we in America are far too success motivated to the point of forgetting to enjoy the short time we have. We work and work to get to a point where we "feel" secure and realize we missed so much in our family's life and our own. It's great to have "stuff", but it's even better to have time to share with family, friends, etc.

 

[interchange]

Soundforbjt is on to something, although investment in family I think is only the tip of the iceberg.

There seems to be a belief among millennial liberals that America ought to model ourselves politically after socialized European countries. I don't mean to say that they think that some of their policies and cultural beliefs are right for us. In that vein, I agree that America has a lot to learn from Europe. What I mean is that my perception is that there are many who think we should literally pattern ourselves after a socialized European country.

To that, I really question why it seems so firmly held. Europe has taken enormous blows economically of late (Greece, UK threatening exit of EU, negative interest rates even in Japan). That really gives me pause.

Personally, anyone who denies that governmental social support networks have high potential for abuse and dependency should be immediately discounted. Everyone knows that an honor system of distributing resources is fragile. It doesn't make it inherently the wrong idea. Certainly for at least some period of time, social programs provide clear benefits. Instead of debating whether they are good or not, maybe we should attempt to understand when and why they might go wrong.

Personally, I think the sustainability of socialism in Europe has depended on the cultural backbone of their societies. Largely, these are societies with high traditional values of family unit, cultural history, community organization and support, sustainability, relationships with community businesses, and evaluating others by their contributions to community rather than their ambition or personal wealth. Largely people who traditionally value who provides them service and the quality of the service provided rather than the good itself and the cost associated with that good.

I think many of those European cultures are degrading, and with it their economies. These were never US values, though. We were founded on diversity instead of homogeneity. We were founded on rejection of historical societies who oppressed us as a colony. In most of Europe, the sense of origin and history is palpable when you walk around.

 

[glenn1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/republican-elites-reign-of-disdain.html?smid=tw-share

Krugman nails it again.

I guess red states are realizing what the urban poor did long ago and adjusting their behaviors accordingly. If only Reagan hadn't lowered taxes on the rich then all this dysfunction in the rural white white could have been avoided.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's right. Social welfare is the ONLY thing that can prevent white middle aged male deaths. Just ignore that blacks and Hispanics stand to suffer worse economic hardships yet do not show the same trend that whites do. Just ignore that drug-related deaths are a major cause behind those white middle aged deaths. Just ignore that we have a war on drugs and that "every other advanced country" does not. Just ignore that "every other advanced country" is not northern/western Europe. Just ignore that Japan and South Korea's social safety nets (before retirement) are weaker than America's.

Krugman is a guy that probably has said smart things before but now rests on his laurels making incredibly simplistic and nonsense arguments.

Nice straw man! *Only* doesn't apply. Nobody said it did. OTOH, it seems clear that the Job Creators! have no intention of filling the gap leaving us with the same sort of not so benign neglect that damaged black communities so badly in the 80's.

Alternatively, what would you suggest? The same bootstraps these guys have been pulling on for decades?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Nice straw man! *Only* doesn't apply. Nobody said it did. OTOH, it seems clear that the Job Creators! have no intention of filling the gap leaving us with the same sort of not so benign neglect that damaged black communities so badly in the 80's.

Alternatively, what would you suggest? The same bootstraps these guys have been pulling on for decades?

It's not a strawman. He made an opinion piece that narrowly considered only a couple specific points between a couple specific data sets (America vs West/North Europe).

Jobs being outsourced is a separate issue from a social safety net. Why are you bringing this up?

I already suggested several things implicitly that are important factors to consider when comparing our poor vs Europe's poor, the war on drugs and lack of social rehabilitation for convicted felons being two of them.

 

[michal1980]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/republican-elites-reign-of-disdain.html?smid=tw-share

Krugman nails it again.

no.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's not a strawman. He made an opinion piece that narrowly considered only a couple specific points between a couple specific data sets (America vs West/North Europe).

Jobs being outsourced is a separate issue from a social safety net. Why are you bringing this up?

I already suggested several things implicitly that are important factors to consider when comparing our poor vs Europe's poor, the war on drugs and lack of social rehabilitation for convicted felons being two of them.

I didn't mention outsourcing. I mentioned the simple fact that the Job Creators have no intention of employing any more Americans than necessary which is true for a lot of reasons.

Social safety nets and employment are intimately linked. We both know that.

When I offered that you should offer alternatives I didn't mean obfuscation. How do we achieve gainful employment for more people if not through more govt jobs? How do we see to the needs of America's children, elderly, sick, lame, crazy & even lazy otherwise w/o the welfare state?

Tell us how you'd do it.

 

[BoberFett]

I didn't mention outsourcing. I mentioned the simple fact that the Job Creators have no intention of employing any more Americans than necessary which is true for a lot of reasons.

Social safety nets and employment are intimately linked. We both know that.

When I offered that you should offer alternatives I didn't mean obfuscation. How do we achieve gainful employment for more people if not through more govt jobs? How do we see to the needs of America's children, elderly, sick, lame, crazy & even lazy otherwise w/o the welfare state?

Tell us how you'd do it.

Libertarian preferences aside, I believe society is heading toward a basic income. $XX,XXX/year for every citizen, with no means testing. This would eliminate the need for a minimum wage, a guaranteed income replaces it. If companies can convince someone to work for $1/hr, good for them. Because somebody's ability to eat isn't dependent on having a job, it becomes a truly even position of bargaining. Our industry could become competitive globally again. Heck, if the basic income was only for citizens, I wouldn't even have a problem with illegal immigration; anybody can compete for those jobs because there's no such thing as illegal wages. The illegal immigrant would just have to make do without that basic income.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Soundforbjt is on to something, although investment in family I think is only the tip of the iceberg.

There seems to be a belief among millennial liberals that America ought to model ourselves politically after socialized European countries. I don't mean to say that they think that some of their policies and cultural beliefs are right for us. In that vein, I agree that America has a lot to learn from Europe. What I mean is that my perception is that there are many who think we should literally pattern ourselves after a socialized European country.

To that, I really question why it seems so firmly held. Europe has taken enormous blows economically of late (Greece, UK threatening exit of EU, negative interest rates even in Japan). That really gives me pause.

Personally, anyone who denies that governmental social support networks have high potential for abuse and dependency should be immediately discounted. Everyone knows that an honor system of distributing resources is fragile. It doesn't make it inherently the wrong idea. Certainly for at least some period of time, social programs provide clear benefits. Instead of debating whether they are good or not, maybe we should attempt to understand when and why they might go wrong.

Personally, I think the sustainability of socialism in Europe has depended on the cultural backbone of their societies. Largely, these are societies with high traditional values of family unit, cultural history, community organization and support, sustainability, relationships with community businesses, and evaluating others by their contributions to community rather than their ambition or personal wealth. Largely people who traditionally value who provides them service and the quality of the service provided rather than the good itself and the cost associated with that good.

I think many of those European cultures are degrading, and with it their economies. These were never US values, though. We were founded on diversity instead of homogeneity. We were founded on rejection of historical societies who oppressed us as a colony. In most of Europe, the sense of origin and history is palpable when you walk around.

I'll use the bolded text as a sort of pre-amble to another proposition.

Those "values" all seem progressive in the best sense, and very positive. [Maybe -- you're "European." ]

In order for societies to adapt for survival or increased prosperity, it would only seem logical for an "advancement" in value systems, no?

I'll posit that there are mass psychologies and mythologies afoot and common to many nations and regions in different degrees.

Narcissism bolsters the "rugged individualist" myth, or the myth encourages the narcissism. The growth in narcissistic behavior follows the technological path of mass media.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I didn't mention outsourcing. I mentioned the simple fact that the Job Creators have no intention of employing any more Americans than necessary which is true for a lot of reasons.

Social safety nets and employment are intimately linked. We both know that.

When I offered that you should offer alternatives I didn't mean obfuscation. How do we achieve gainful employment for more people if not through more govt jobs? How do we see to the needs of America's children, elderly, sick, lame, crazy & even lazy otherwise w/o the welfare state?

Tell us how you'd do it.

I'm pretty sure that increased unemployment benefits and employment are inversely related if anything, for one example. I'd be skeptical that pension systems encourage employment as well, at least in the long term. Elaborate on the link and kinds of benefits you're talking about.

Our unemployment rate is already fairly low and real income (including work benefits) has been relatively flat for a number of decades, so I'm wondering where specifically we need jobs and why. How do we get the high school dropouts, the drug-addicts, etc to get jobs? That's a good question. I'm a libertarian idealist but I don't deny that the majority of people that use welfare services do so briefly and in between jobs. The white middle-aged men Krugman and others are referring to are the worst of our white middle-aged men. They come from a culture that doesn't value education, from a culture that feels entitled to jobs and/or free shit because "We wuz heer first, ya'll colored folk best leave", from a culture where getting shit-faced and/or methed-up is a perfectly normal recreational fun.

 

[senseamp]

It's going to get more fun for the GOP establishment moralizing against poor people.

https://medium.com/basic-income/dee...jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.3lxbx2o7u

All of this is why it’s those most knowledgeable in the AI field who are now actively sounding the alarm for basic income. During a panel discussion at the end of 2015 at Singularity University, prominent data scientist Jeremy Howard asked “Do you want half of people to starve because they literally can’t add economic value, or not?” before going on to suggest, ”If the answer is not, then the smartest way to distribute the wealth is by implementing a universal basic income.”

Get ready for Universal Basic Income.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'll use the bolded text as a sort of pre-amble to another proposition.

Those "values" all seem progressive in the best sense, and very positive. [Maybe -- you're "European." ]

In order for societies to adapt for survival or increased prosperity, it would only seem logical for an "advancement" in value systems, no?

I'll posit that there are mass psychologies and mythologies afoot and common to many nations and regions in different degrees.

Narcissism bolsters the "rugged individualist" myth, or the myth encourages the narcissism. The growth in narcissistic behavior follows the technological path of mass media.

There's probably a little bit of truth to this, but individualism is hardly a myth. South Korea and China, adopting a mixture of hyper-capitalist/corporatist values, have transformed from rather poor nations to incredibly successful and booming ones nearly overnight. Yes, suicide is much higher in those nations (and Japan, but they've been squandering under a massive elderly welfare burden (plus protectionist trade policies of course)), and life definitely isn't as comfortable on the whole for people that don't work their butts off, but individualism in the marketplace combined with community at the local/family level is a pretty strong combination. China has the fastest growing middle class in the world iirc, or at least close to it, and quality of life for them will only continue to improve as long as the rest of the world continues to consume their goods.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It's going to get more fun for the GOP establishment moralizing against poor people.

https://medium.com/basic-income/dee...jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.3lxbx2o7u



Get ready for Universal Basic Income.

A universal basic income is ridiculously expensive. We're talking three trillion a year for just $10,000, and ignoring the problems that come in when people begin having more children for that extra government money. I don't understand that quote about half of the population not understanding economic value. Are they saying the average (and below) American is not intelligent enough to budget things correctly and needs to be supported to not starve and blow their income too fast? If so, then why in the hell would you just give them money up front rather than in the form of food stamps, free housing, etc?

 

[senseamp]

A universal basic income is ridiculously expensive. We're talking three trillion a year for just $10,000, and ignoring the problems that come in when people begin having more children for that extra government money. I don't understand that quote about half of the population not understanding economic value. Are they saying the average (and below) American is not intelligent enough to budget things correctly and needs to be supported to not starve and blow their income too fast? If so, then why in the hell would you just give them money up front rather than in the form of food stamps, free housing, etc?

"can’t add economic value" not "not understanding economic value"
They won't be able to add value in excess off what computers and machines can add at a lower cost, and will be unemployable at income levels needed to sustain themselves.
It will be expensive, but without it, the economy will collapse because people won't have money to spend.

 

[soundforbjt]

"can’t add economic value" not "not understanding economic value"
They won't be able to add value in excess off what computers and machines can add at a lower cost, and will be unemployable at income levels needed to sustain themselves.
It will be expensive, but without it, the economy will collapse because people won't have money to spend.

Then you'll see s**t that makes a riot look like a bible group.

 

[interchange]

I'll use the bolded text as a sort of pre-amble to another proposition.

Those "values" all seem progressive in the best sense, and very positive. [Maybe -- you're "European." ]

In order for societies to adapt for survival or increased prosperity, it would only seem logical for an "advancement" in value systems, no?

I'll posit that there are mass psychologies and mythologies afoot and common to many nations and regions in different degrees.

Narcissism bolsters the "rugged individualist" myth, or the myth encourages the narcissism. The growth in narcissistic behavior follows the technological path of mass media.

I'm having a bit of trouble putting together your comments into a clear assertion or question for me, but I think I know what you are saying.

Firstly, I'm not European. I hold many of those values, but I am not trying to state that one value system is correct and functional in society over another. Your assertion that the values are progressive is interesting, and I can see how they match, but when you talk about traditional values of family, small business, community organizations and institutions, you can argue that it is at the heart of the most conservative.

I think that it is not necessary to have a specific value system for society to succeed, although clearly there are some common threads among good systems and some values that are destructive to any culture. Although America has never been homogenous in the sense that Europe was, it has had a core set of values that have spurred it as a society.

It's hard to abstract out what a good value system is, but I don't believe it's hard to test. If the value system provides social incentive for individuals to work together and trust each other, then it is good.

Clearly, pure narcissism has no role in that. I don't equate "rugged individualism" as narcissism, although going too far in devaluing reliance on community is clearly contrary to progress. However, it is not wrong to value self sufficiency and accountability either.