The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

That is a good point- I think something we easily forget is, despite all the things that happen in modern society, actual *full blown* poverty is quite rare these days in most of the developed countries. It's not non existent of course- there are quite a lot of homeless people still, although there are systems in place to help avoid that (the main issue in the UK is timing- once you have no place of residence it's very hard to get back into the system to access the help that is available).

Overall though most people have a lot more wealth these days than past generations.

Poverty is a problem, but the rich aren't a problem. H-okay.

Despite the conditions involved in getting rich outside of hereditary wealth is to profit off of the backs of labourers at some point or another. Apple employs people for a pittance, and delegates physical production to foreign operators.

Money can get you power, and power can get you money. The difficult thing is defining what exactly "power" is as it's a very nebulous phrase.

Inequality is definitely a problem, but rich people enforce inequality by enforcing cost-related strictures on lower (economic) classes. Easy example: voter ID costs in the USA.

It's fascinating, so many ideological groupings (not just "the right" or "liberatarians") love to ignore causes of problems simply because identifying the root cause is problematic for their worldview. Inequality is a problem. Wealth distribution is a problem. Rich people can be a problem, and powerful people can be a problem. Rich and powerful people (normally the same thing) can be even more of a problem.

EDIT

Stuff it, I have a better "tl;dr"

Poverty is a form of inequality.

Yeah, sorry, basically it means that. I dislike the whole "you win . . . <insert way to make other person's argument sound trivial here>", which is what it read like. I appreciate you taking time to clarify.

As for what has been put forward as a proposal; we have the repealing of the ACA that last I checked is definitely going ahead. With no plans for an instant replacement (such a thing is logistically-impossible anyhow, but they're not even confirming replacement details) - there are multiple internal proposals but none that have a majority support amongst the GOP, last I read. That's an easy one to start with. There are others, including the one that they backed away from immediately after representatives being swamped by calls from their voters. I forget what thing that was though.

Nope. That's a lot of money spent that does nothing for anyone.

To be fair, I thought of a better way to run a federal budget, that's not authoritarian, and can empower the rich and still help the poor, and is "proactive" instead of enforced (which people will always fight against).

As the last page of filing taxes, provide a list of donation blanks for every federally funded program, that the government will match the donation 1:1 for, and that will be the program's budget. You'd have to actively convince people to support the programs, and even if half don't, the half that does could be all it takes to fund a program better and more responsibly than it currently is. There's already a blank to donate 1 dollar to a general election open fund.

The point is, we need to be less enforcive with what we do with other people's money, taking it for joyrides, and we need to encourage people volunteering to do good things, because otherwise, they fight the system and act like entitled tightwads. We want people to support social works, but we always do it by taking tax money we don't have, and putting it in a program we question who it actually helps. Everyone questions who does and doesn't Obamacare help, but a lot of people say "not them, not anyone they know".

I got some more on those policies that people might object to:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts

Those are pretty standard types of cuts given the switch of parties (exactly the same as the conservative government have been busy doing in the UK in a bid a 'balance the books').

Those cuts aren't anything unexpected and don't appear related to Trump, but rather a republican victory.

. . . and Trump is leader of that party and President-Elect of the United States.

They're one and the same.

But bear in mind this was in addition to the ACA that I already raised. And regardless of the cuts being "standard", it doesn't mean that that makes them automatically "good". Unless you think cuts to energy and transport are a good thing.

My point is people have been claiming an upcoming 'apocalypse' due to how terrible Trump is and all the crazy, racist, scary policies he was going to usher in. There's none of that with these policies however, as these are run of the mill republican policies that would have happened with any victorious republican candidate. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the US system- the specific roles these departments have and what effect these cuts are likely to have to really comment on the potential repercussions of these changes. We've had exactly the same thing happen here in the UK (which has resulted in a lot of pain for anyone working in the public sector including a number of close friends of mine so I am sympathetic to people caught up in all this). These aren't the 'sky is falling' policies that people have been predicting though.

If your specific issue with Trump is in relation to these type of policies- then your issue is in fact with the republican party as a whole rather than anything to do with the man himself. As someone who sits on the fence when it comes to social and conservative policies (there are good and bad points to both) I'm not going to automatically condemn everything one party upholds. That isn't to say that there aren't specific things (or more often specific, hard line members of a party) that I take issue with (a few big name republicans have some very worrying ideas in relation to things that would destroy gender equality for example), however those aren't party wide policy currently, and unless that changes I don't think it's worth decrying an entire political party for the views of a few extremists.

They're unsustainable. Debt is debt. Something had to give, whether it was now, or when the government defaults and goes Greece except on a global scale, taking everyone everyone else's social works with them once their governments can't afford it either.

We're not even sure if the Republicans can balance the budget. Libertarians would have been a more sure shot at it.

Your point is confusing Trump's personal problems with the policies his platform represents.

If his platform repeals ACA, he is complicit in that. As such, criticism of Trump is accurate. Much like the Democrat Party's involvement in, say, the strikes authorised on Syrian territory come back (partially) to Obama.

Trump is terrible. Or have you forgotten the diplomatic mess that he already caused with China r.e. Taiwan?

The man himself is capable of gross mistakes, and is already proving that to an extent (and that's not touching on his business interests or his family members' involvement in his official duties as PEOTUS). The platform he is leader of, and will represent for the next four years, is what is capable of the policies that people are so worried about.

What you call "run of the mill Republican policies", other people call "destroying the protections the Democrats built up for them". Bearing in mind they've also given confirmation that they want to repeal LGBTQ protections (put in place during Obama's time as POTUS).

Trump represents his party, and his party's actions speak for him.

How about cutting military spending? I mean, the Republican platform is very keen to not carry on all the strikes Obama has authorised in his time as President, so, surely, if you want to priotitise cuts, hitting areas that aren't necessary for the new foreign policy (policies) makes more sense than something like transportation.

Or, y'know, the ethics and oversight committee (that was the one I forgot about when talking to cdrkf. Which has been shelved - for now).

So to translate that whole lot- you are in fact anti the republican party and their policies. That's fine, however it's not a discussion I'm going to get involved with because the debate of Republican vs Democrat in US politics is far too far reaching and I don't know enough about it to form a well thought out argument on it either way. I don't after all live in the USA.

I don't really understand this need people have to boil an entire party down to one person though- the Conservatives in the UK are *headed up* by Theresa May, but it's the party as a whole who are in power. The PM isn't solely responsible for every single action or policy the entire party takes (most policies in fact stem from MP's who are put in charge of specific jobs like foreign policy, education and so on). These policies are then voted upon within the party and later usually by the entire house including MP's from all parties- which is why holding a majority is so important if the government has any hope of making any changes at all. As far as I'm aware the system in the USA is very much the same.

I think you confused me with someone who is blaming Trump and Trump alone for his party's policies.

You also completely ignored my pointing out of his personal failures since becoming PEOTUS. Why?

Also here's a Tweet summing up my opinions on the budget cuts:

https://twitter.com/bobproehl/status/822266227909398535

Perfect reasoning?!
So, how do the rich oppress the poor, Colin? The economic entrepreneurs provide voluntary employment at competitive wages. No one forces the poor to do anything - except the government.

So, you wouldn't improve the lot of the poor if it included giving the rich some more dough?
Looks like you guys are way too concerned with rich folk. You gonna start caring about the poor at some point?

I mean...they did have to make work choices for their kids in order to survive, so I don't really see what your problem here is. It's not an idealistic opinion, it's the truth. You think I pull this out of my ***? I was homeschooled with three different history books, one of which was heavily left leaning. I've seen the stark differences in worldview.

And yes, poor people are better off when adjusted for inflation and relative to living costs. That's a really basic metric that I thought everyone implicitly understood because we're all older than the age of 15 and can think with our brains instead of our balls.

I really don't want to discuss this anymore- I don't know what more I can say than 'I don't know enough about the subject'... my mistake for commenting I guess. I really don't understand what you want / expect me to say?

Sorry I'm not liberal enough. Perfect reasoning though, proud of you.

You literally said:

"Parents wouldn't send their beloved children to go work in a sweatshop or a factory for weeks on end if there were plentiful examples of poor and unsafe working conditions."

This is false. Flat-out incorrect. Factually incorrect.

And no, I'm not seeing any statistics to support your point on poverty. I'm simply seeing condescension topped with an insult.

I won't press you on something you don't want to be pressed on, then, sorry.

My aim was to convince you that there are already harmful policies out there, and active mistakes being made. To contrast to your "wait and see" post that kicked this off. That was all.