This is how we will defeat Trump

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,

Louisiana, with the port and the Mississippi River, and the oil wells, has lots of work. They have been under exclusive Republican control since the Civil Rights Act. And for most of the people there, with all those great jobs, including all that economic mobility, that is one of the poorest states. What's going on?

Louisiana didn't truly switch over to the Republican party in most offices until the 1990s. Before that, they had conservative Democrats, mostly. So you can't really say it has had exclusive Republican control since the CRA. It has had mostly conservative rule, but this is with regard to social issues more than economic ones. Louisiana is more populist than conservative in the standard Republican sense. This is part of why Trump has so much support there.

Louisiana has always been pretty poor. Some of this dates back to slavery, but it's certainly not due to free market economics. Louisiana has long had a lot of corruption, and the work force is heavily unionized in a lot of industries. I would argue a lot of the poverty is tied specifically to the black community's disenfranchisement in previous decades. They're better off there now than they have been in the past, but there's a wide gap in prosperity between whites and blacks there.

Jim Crow laws are probably the biggest historical factor, which were certainly a blatant case of government interference. Granted, they did receive strong support from most of the white population for a long time. So, poverty can sometimes be a result of cultural and racial conflict.

Right. But there is more to advancing our society than innovation. Innovation is important, but not everything. Part of the purpose of this nation is to ensure domestic tranquility. That means we want as many happy people as possible. Extreme and growing wealth inequality impairs part of the purpose of our nation. Just as we are, and need to be, a hybrid balance of capitalism and socialism, we need a balance of innovation and government management to ensure domestic tranquility.

I suppose that depends on what the people focus on. Much to the chagrin of many liberals, working class people don't tend to care as much about how much the 1% gets taxed as much as they care about how much they themselves get taxed and what they get in return for it.

I think this is part of why the Democrats often miss the boat on economics. Scapegoating the 1% only appeals to certain working class people -- not the majority of them.

[Saudade]

If everything is equal, as PoliTalker wants it to be, then where's the incentive for trying to better oneself; because eventually everyone just become the lowest common denominator, while expecting the most they can get.

That is kind of the problem that is present in parts of Scandinavia. There is something called the "Law of Jante." It's a form of cultural pressure that discourages people from standing out in the crowd. It has a negative effect on ambition. It also seems to be a form of wealth envy.

[Saudade]

So basically anyone who doesn't WANT to work, can just lay around, get paid by those who are working, and "enjoy" their lives!!

That is what tends to happen. There are considerably more freeloaders in most European systems as compared with us.

I remember reading about how Europe has something like 18% of the world's population but 55% of the world's welfare spending. It's pretty appalling.

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,



I agree that every able-bodied person should endeavor at something. I simply see us as transitioning into a future where the requirement to work goes away because of our technology. Whether or not the technology is restricted at first because of cost, it will eventually get out and change us. Working would likely be nearly as big a part of the people's lives as it is now, but not all of it would be for profit. Masses would be freed up to do volunteer work. Our society would become even more advanced with many issues dealt with that are currently overlooked. People will work because they want to, not because they have to. It will be fabulous. Art will be incredible then. I doubt either of us will live to see that world. That level of sophistication is probably too far off for us to visualize very well. We can't even grasp the concept of a UBI right now.

I'm familiar with things like "post scarcity" economies, but we're a long way off from those. Automation is advancing quickly, but I believe it's being somewhat overstated in its potential currently.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Woko Haram,

While I disagree with a few of the details here, I agree with your general sentiment.

When it comes to government helping people find work and acquire skills for work, I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is encouraging people to be dependent on government for the long term.

Like it or not we are all dependent on our government for our very country. No government, no country.

[USFREEDOM911]

I'm familiar with things like "post scarcity" economies, but we're a long way off from those. Automation is advancing quickly, but I believe it's being somewhat overstated in its potential currently.

There's an old story about the first steam shovel.

The man using it was approached by another man, who proceeded to berate the operator by telling him that he had just put 100 shovel men out of work.

The operator was supposed to have replied with, why not 1000 men using spoons.

As automation increases, people need to be proactive and learn how to either use the machines or how to keep them running; as it's always been.

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,



Like it or not we are all dependent on our government for our very country. No government, no country.

It's one thing to depend on government for police and the military. It's quite another to depend on government for your income. The former is a normal expectation. The latter is just a pathway to slavery, unless you're a government employee.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Woko Haram,

It's one thing to depend on government for police and the military. It's quite another to depend on government for your income. The former is a normal expectation. The latter is just a pathway to slavery, unless you're a government employee.

The two dependencies (security and money) are not really so different. Failure of one and you're dead. Failure of the other and you're destitute. For someone who cannot hold down a job, dependency is not a choice, so that is not an issue for them. Besides. We depend on our government for far more than security and money. It is the one organization which bonds us, makes us citizens of this great nation. It give us an identity. Our Constitution describes far more than how our government operates. It establishes the reason we have this country, it's purpose. I know conservatives don't place much importance in the preamble, but I see it as defining. Because it is. It says who we are as a people.

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,



The two dependencies (security and money) are not really so different. Failure of one and you're dead. Failure of the other and you're destitute. For someone who cannot hold down a job, dependency is not a choice, so that is not an issue for them. Besides. We depend on our government for far more than security and money. It is the one organization which bonds us, makes us citizens of this great nation. It give us an identity. Our Constitution describes far more than how our government operates. It establishes the reason we have this country, it's purpose. I know conservatives don't place much importance in the preamble, but I see it as defining. Because it is. It says who we are as a people.

Not many people "can't hold down a job." People who medically are incapable of working are a small portion of the population. Everyone else can work.

The Constitution is indeed important, but the meaning behind it is to limit government for the sake of individual freedoms. The reason this country was formed was to have limited government. Unfortunately, we've strayed pretty far from that ideal ever since the New Deal.

[PostmodernProphet]

Nah, I like irritating you

By the way Impeachment is forever so it’s hardly nothing. He will go down in history as being impeached.

Nancy will go down in history as dumber than shit......
*impeachment
*unpeachment
*repeachment

[PoliTalker]

Hello Woko Haram,

Not many people "can't hold down a job." People who medically are incapable of working are a small portion of the population. Everyone else can work.

The Constitution is indeed important, but the meaning behind it is to limit government for the sake of individual freedoms. The reason this country was formed was to have limited government. Unfortunately, we've strayed pretty far from that ideal ever since the New Deal.

Just as I stated, Conservatives don't have much respect for the preamble. It describes the purpose of our nation and our government, the reasons we are a people. It doesn't say anything about limited government.

[USFREEDOM911]

Hello Woko Haram,



Just as I stated, Conservatives don't have much respect for the preamble. It describes the purpose of our nation and our government, the reasons we are a people. It doesn't say anything about limited government.

Except liberals want to redefine "We the people", to mean We the liberals.

[Nordberg]

Except liberals want to redefine "We the people", to mean We the liberals.

Don't do that. Speak for yourself. That is not what the left wants. However, it is true the Dems and the Reds are trying to win elections. Is that what you mean? Is that bad?

[USFREEDOM911]

Don't do that. Speak for yourself. That is not what the left wants. However, it is true the Dems and the Reds are trying to win elections. Is that what you mean? Is that bad?

BS; because that's exactly what the liberals mean, when they start talking about "We the people".

[Saudade]

Hello Woko Haram,

Just as I stated, Conservatives don't have much respect for the preamble. It describes the purpose of our nation and our government, the reasons we are a people. It doesn't say anything about limited government.

If that's your argument, then the courts must not either. In the various cases that the federal government has been taken to court over interpretations of the Preamble, most rulings have tended to side with limiting government.

United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co. is an example of this. The government tried to argue that interstate commerce included fixing the price of what cars could be sold at, but the courts struck down this interpretation.

The courts have upheld somewhat broad interpretations of things like eminent domain (like the Supreme Court ruling for Kelo v. New London), but most of the time, federal courts err on the side of limiting government. Now, state governments typically have a lot more latitude than the federal government to intervene on various things. This goes back to the principle of federalism. Not surprisingly, eminent domain is usually applicable to state or city governments, not the federal government.