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

[Brian Stirling]

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

It is stunning to me that folks don't get this ... sooner or later the ones that have been fucked will fuck back and they will out number the fuckers 100:1.

We are headed for something akin to the French Revolution and instead of a few thousand being killed it will be millions -- in this country alone and tens of millions the world over.

But, so long as the 0.001% continue to increase there share of the pie the policies will continue to favor them and by an ever greater degree. Until...


Brian

 

[theeedude]

It is stunning to me that folks don't get this ... sooner or later the ones that have been fucked will fuck back and they will out number the fuckers 100:1.

We are headed for something akin to the French Revolution and instead of a few thousand being killed it will be millions -- in this country alone and tens of millions the world over.

But, so long as the 0.001% continue to increase there share of the pie the policies will continue to favor them and by an ever greater degree. Until...


Brian

Or we'll just vote for Universal Basic Income and move on.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

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.

Among narcissist traits is a sense of self-importance. So I could imagine many narcissists may cling to an "Individualist" myth. One thing contains its own taint, and the other thing offers an opportunity to engage in excess when "freedom" becomes "license" or merely a political symbol toward certain agendas.

Overlay on this some basic fundamental of a constitutional social organization. Maybe, start with the long-slog of Supreme Court struggles. Some group wants to perpetuate an inequality or any tradition that is under challenge, and the underlying issue would seem to be this: "To what degree does a decision one way or the other harm secular society, and to what degree does the alternate decision restrict secular freedom or test certain "amendments." Among "secular" freedoms, you'd include the freedom to practice your religion without interfering in the lives of others. And that's a battleground.

The way I see it and contrary to some views from the evangelical peanut gallery, a National Ethic articulated in a country's laws would attempt to find common subsets within different heterogeneous value systems that could be universally tolerated. You may variously allow gambling, prostitution in some places, "murder" if it's a matter of aborting an as-yet non-constitutional entity, any number of things. To what degree those things are allowed, a secularist is more convinced that society is still "safe."

 

[BonzaiDuck]

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.

The notion of a myth is that it can always be partly true. But it's all a matter of degree in many respects, as to whether it's a good thing, or a thing not so good.

Also, and I say as someone with an econ education, there are other aspects of life in society that have value, but they don't have a price -- or if they do, any departure from a purely material optimum in the entire "basket of goods" can be deemed insufficiently significant, or merely insignificant. But you'll never find 100% consensus about those choices, because individual personalities and values vary within any given culture.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Still obfuscating, now with extreme judgmentalism & projection. You're talking about mostly honest christian people who do good work given the opportunity. They've also been the backbone of the Repub base since Nixon & the adoption of the Southern Strategy that turned out to do the trick with working class whites everywhere. When it came time to down size, right size, streamline, consolidate, offshore & automate for higher profit they took the hit just like their minority brothers & sisters but they still believed in everything conservatives are supposed to believe in. They still do, which is why they find Trump appealing. He just puts a different spin on the Job Creator mythos while pandering to their weaknesses & fears.

It's unsurprising that Repub leaders will now turn on them the same way they turned on black people when the Party embraced the Southern strategy.

A person might get the idea that they've been insincere all along, huh?

 

[lopri]

Williamson now decries democracy itself as illegitimate.

Our Government Was Designed to Protect Us from the Trumps of the World

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Where would that $XX,XXX/year land against current measures of poverty?

I'm not seeing any advantages if some recipients live like Bangla Deshis.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Or we'll just vote for Universal Basic Income and move on.

I don't know who came up with this Universal Basic Income, but how does that fulfill any of the tenants of the American way? This UBI is socialism on steroids and even if the people agreed to it the right will never do so. And, what kind of income would that be? Would it be equal to $25/hour? $10/hour? $2/hour?

And what about the smart people that must be used to advance things -- are they going to get $10/hour or are they entitled to, $30/hour? Are some people more equal than others?

This UBI nonsense is a distraction and will never happen. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

It is vastly more likely that we continue down the road were on until the people rise up and take over. This is unlikely to happen next year or even 10 years from now and may not happen for another 40 years, but the 0.001% are never going to give back what they've taken, the politicians are never going to reverse course, and sooner or later the middle class will go into the streets and exact revenge -- it's happened before and it will happen again!


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

Where would that $XX,XXX/year land against current measures of poverty?

I'm not seeing any advantages if some recipients live like Bangla Deshis.

I don't often agree with you but in this case you're spot on. If we have a two class society with the very small but very wealthy and powerful 'haves' and 99.99% 'have not', why would the 'haves' decide, finally, to make the lives of the rest comfortable. Not going to happen!


Brian

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't know who came up with this Universal Basic Income, but how does that fulfill any of the tenants of the American way? This UBI is socialism on steroids and even if the people agreed to it the right will never do so. And, what kind of income would that be? Would it be equal to $25/hour? $10/hour? $2/hour?

And what about the smart people that must be used to advance things -- are they going to get $10/hour or are they entitled to, $30/hour? Are some people more equal than others?

This UBI nonsense is a distraction and will never happen. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

It is vastly more likely that we continue down the road were on until the people rise up and take over. This is unlikely to happen next year or even 10 years from now and may not happen for another 40 years, but the 0.001% are never going to give back what they've taken, the politicians are never going to reverse course, and sooner or later the middle class will go into the streets and exact revenge -- it's happened before and it will happen again!


Brian

I'll agree wrt UBI. The rest not so much. The Progressive/trustbuster era & the New Deal in particular forced enormous concessions from the financial elite. Neither required revolution except at the ballot box.

 

[BoberFett]

Where would that $XX,XXX/year land against current measures of poverty?

I'm not seeing any advantages if some recipients live like Bangla Deshis.

You're an extremely negative person. You hate everything but Hillary. Are you in love with her?

 

[BoberFett]

It is vastly more likely that we continue down the road were on until the people rise up and take over. This is unlikely to happen next year or even 10 years from now and may not happen for another 40 years, but the 0.001% are never going to give back what they've taken, the politicians are never going to reverse course, and sooner or later the middle class will go into the streets and exact revenge -- it's happened before and it will happen again!


Brian

And how will the masses distribute the seized wealth after the uprising? Ah, I'm sure they'll find a way to make it fair. Nobody will have too much wealth, everybody will have all their worldly desires fulfilled. I mean, look at Russia, it worked for them.

I don't know who came up with this Universal Basic Income, but how does that fulfill any of the tenants of the American way? This UBI is socialism on steroids and even if the people agreed to it the right will never do so. And, what kind of income would that be? Would it be equal to $25/hour? $10/hour? $2/hour?

And what about the smart people that must be used to advance things -- are they going to get $10/hour or are they entitled to, $30/hour? Are some people more equal than others?

This UBI nonsense is a distraction and will never happen. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

I don't think you understand the concept. Basic income means everyone gets a check each month that amounts to a basic living, enough to put a roof over your head, clothes on your back, and food in your belly. It's like welfare, but everyone gets it. You want more than that? Go earn it by getting a job. You're confusing basic income with some weird form of mandatory salary per job.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're an extremely negative person.

I'm not a pessimist. I just try to be realistic. I think we can do better for each other when we remember that the purpose of govt is largely to protect the weak. That extends into the economic realm as well & we haven't been doing a very good job of it, of protecting ourselves. In that realm, working individuals & families are weaklings. Whether we want to see it or not the only way working people can gain any leverage is through the agency of govt.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

"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.

Ah, gotcha, my bad. I can kind of see the value then, but even in that case, it means you have a significant portion of the population living on the absolute minimum. There is still going to be inequality/unrest/jealousy. It doesn't change the fact that a small percentage of the population is on the cutting edge of human evolution, the inventors and scientists and other intellectuals with most of the wealth and power, and then a whole lot of cogs.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm not a pessimist. I just try to be realistic. I think we can do better for each other when we remember that the purpose of govt is largely to protect the weak. That extends into the economic realm as well & we haven't been doing a very good job of it, of protecting ourselves. In that realm, working individuals & families are weaklings. Whether we want to see it or not the only way working people can gain any leverage is through the agency of govt.

False

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Still obfuscating, now with extreme judgmentalism & projection. You're talking about mostly honest christian people who do good work given the opportunity. They've also been the backbone of the Repub base since Nixon & the adoption of the Southern Strategy that turned out to do the trick with working class whites everywhere. When it came time to down size, right size, streamline, consolidate, offshore & automate for higher profit they took the hit just like their minority brothers & sisters but they still believed in everything conservatives are supposed to believe in. They still do, which is why they find Trump appealing. He just puts a different spin on the Job Creator mythos while pandering to their weaknesses & fears.

It's unsurprising that Repub leaders will now turn on them the same way they turned on black people when the Party embraced the Southern strategy.

A person might get the idea that they've been insincere all along, huh?

I'll repeat: how is unemployment a serious problem right now? You're talking about all these good honest people that can't find jobs, and I'm wondering why they're having such issues when other people (including minority groups that face worse discrimination) aren't stagnating in the same way.

 

[michal1980]

"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.

how do you sustain an economy with that many not working? where is this magical free money coming from? your asking the federal government to more then double the amount of taxes it collects (@basic income of 12,000/yr/person) or about 22% of the gdp just for your scheme. and this tax money would be paid by an even smaller chunck of the population?

this is a fairy tale idea.

 

[michal1980]

I'll repeat: how is unemployment a serious problem right now? You're talking about all these good honest people that can't find jobs, and I'm wondering why they're having such issues when other people (including minority groups that face worse discrimination) aren't stagnating in the same way.

illegals are willing to move hundreds or thousands of miles to another country but, you cant expect the poor white dude to leave his dead town. The man must be preventing them from moving

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll repeat: how is unemployment a serious problem right now? You're talking about all these good honest people that can't find jobs, and I'm wondering why they're having such issues when other people (including minority groups that face worse discrimination) aren't stagnating in the same way.

It's still a huge problem in some parts of the country. If it weren't, Trump supporters wouldn't up in arms about it & they're largely the demographic being berated.

Other groups have been stagnating the same way for longer, particularly inner city blacks. That's how their white cousins could be led to view it in racial rather than class terms for decades.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I don't know who came up with this Universal Basic Income, but how does that fulfill any of the tenants of the American way? This UBI is socialism on steroids and even if the people agreed to it the right will never do so. And, what kind of income would that be? Would it be equal to $25/hour? $10/hour? $2/hour?

And what about the smart people that must be used to advance things -- are they going to get $10/hour or are they entitled to, $30/hour? Are some people more equal than others?

This UBI nonsense is a distraction and will never happen. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

It is vastly more likely that we continue down the road were on until the people rise up and take over. This is unlikely to happen next year or even 10 years from now and may not happen for another 40 years, but the 0.001% are never going to give back what they've taken, the politicians are never going to reverse course, and sooner or later the middle class will go into the streets and exact revenge -- it's happened before and it will happen again!


Brian

You should read the article linked a few posts back:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38108010&postcount=95

 

[Jhhnn]

False

Of course one of the purposes of govt is to protect the weak. That's why we have police, fire protection, paramedics & a lot of other stuff. I could go on but I figure you're just being deliberately obtuse.

 

[theeedude]

how do you sustain an economy with that many not working? where is this magical free money coming from? your asking the federal government to more then double the amount of taxes it collects (@basic income of 12,000/yr/person) or about 22% of the gdp just for your scheme. and this tax money would be paid by an even smaller chunck of the population?

this is a fairy tale idea.

Why would a business pay a worker if a computer will do something cheaper and/or better?
If those former workers aren't getting paid, how are they going to spend money?
If an average former worker doesn't have money to spend, how much will the GDP crash?

 

[sandorski]

Why would a business pay a worker if a computer will do something cheaper and/or better?
If those former workers aren't getting paid, how are they going to spend money?
If an average former worker doesn't have money to spend, how much will the GDP crash?

Is the Worker too lazy to pick a new and better Job off the Job Tree?

 

[Zorkorist]

They may be hampered by Government Pigs.

-John

 

[glenn1]

Of course one of the purposes of govt is to protect the weak. That's why we have police, fire protection, paramedics & a lot of other stuff. I could go on but I figure you're just being deliberately obtuse.

You think their purpose is to "protect the weak"? Let's try an experiment to test this hypothesis then; have some wealthy suburbanite call the police and say some impoverished gang banger was breaking into their house. Then have another "weak" person call and say that a rich white person was in the process of violating their civil rights. Who do you think will get a police unit or two dispatched to help?