Have Democrats Become the Party of the Rich?

What system do you think is thourghally abused?
And as your self proclaimed foreigner status here, who is we?

Yet another slip to show you live in USA. And you deny it. Lol. That is fraudulent.

 

more like the rich do not like Trumpism, they prefer Conservatism

 

Nope, its discimination.

 

I am not for Churches who invest in properties for profit and get exempt

 

What a whitewash that is. Democrats have always been the party of the rich. Always. Always have democrats felt their elitism, and forced it on everyone else. History does show us, why ignore it?

I can see the conflict in your own posting. You seem to feel offended that others in your party are getting a voice. And of course, your solution is more big government which is exactly the same thing your "middle class Progressives" are demanding. How are you different at all?

 

I don't think that's right. In the US, because we're a two party system, both parties have had rich elites in them, but I don't think it's controversial to say that for most of the 20th Century, the Democrats had most of the working class voters, while the Republicans had most of the middle class. That isn't true any longer.

 

Of course they have been. It is a pity that the Democrats are also a party of the rich.

 

Maybe moderate democrats like Manchin.

 

And how would you do better, if you were president?

 

Because they're lying the only people they'll tax are small business people whom they fully intend to ruin.

 

1) The welfare system, obviously.

2) We as in any nation which is a Welfare State (as is mine).

3) It would be 'fraudulent' if I was American. Are you aware that you're the only person here harbouring that particular fantasy?

 

I'm more than offended, Love.

My solution isn't 'more big govt' in anything like the sense they want it. Mine would kick their asses from here to Christmas.

 

Thanks, Mikey.

For much of the 20thC the average working class man voted Left (at least in my country they did) - and policies reflected that lived existence. The wholesale infiltration by elites happened this century.

 

Well I wouldn't be a President, to start. Will a Prime Minister do?

Meantime, I'd overhaul the entire welfare system - ie all forms of 'public assistance'. I've spelled out how I'd do it numerous times, but suffice to say it would be predicated upon significantly tightened criteria for eligibility, and full transparency. It would be very similar to applying for a mortgage - you would need to demonstrate that you are financially responsible and stable, before being approved. Your 'need' would therefore have to be a result of circumstances beyond your control. People who cannot demonstrate financial responsibility and stability, or whose circumstances are a result of their own actions - would not meet the criteria.

The end result of this kind of restructure being that those in need would have access to far more resources than they do now.

 

I don't know how you can make it much 'tighter' it took my handicapped brother 3 months to qualify for SSI, had to jump over numerous hurdles.

I suspect you make a lot of assumptions about how the system is designed. If one is 'financially responsible and stable', it is not likely one would be in a situation where one would need public assistance in the first place. A public assistance program, part of it's function, is to lead them to that place.

A big reform of welfare was done in the 90s under Clinton, it was called Workfare, remember?

 

1) Read that criteria again (but add in the one I forgot - 'no criminal record'). Those eligible would be people whose circumstances are a result of events outside their control. EG a newly arrived refugee. People who lose everything in a natural disaster or similar. Children who lose their parents. Elderly and disabled people who don't have any relatives, and so on. It's entirely possible to be responsible and stable and find yourself in dire straights due to events outside your control. Given that criteria, the money is a great investment - because these people ARE responsible and stable. That means they will end up contributing far more than they ever took, and will produce responsible, law-abiding, hard working future generations.

2) No idea, sorry. Whatever reform happened, it was a token gesture. If it didn't do anything about making sure the funds go to the right people (instead of into the hands of cheats), it was worthless.

 

I don't agree with your 'criteria'. I mean, an individual's life could be the result of a long series of bad luck events, where you could, if you were cruel, assert that 'you should have made better choices', but, thing is, if one made better choices one wouldn't be in a situation to need assistance in the first place.

One thing is certain, the pandemic led to many people losing their jobs and that was definitely out of their control.

However, your criteria is too severe. You are saying that if you are not savvy enough to not need assistance, not making good choices which, you, 'in your opinion', should have been better, not lucky enough to have relatives who can lend or give you assistance, then you don't deserve it.

I don't agree with that at all. It also presents a whole new layer of red tape bureaucracy, for every case has to be subject to a review of circumstances, interviews, and so forth. Not everyone is bless with such talent. It's in the national interest, morally and economically, to give the less fortunate, by whatever reason, a helping hand to get them back on their feet, and so forth.

Your position on this puts you as a moderate or centrist, not a hard lefty.

 

1) Few of us experience a long run of events outside our control - but even if we do, we'd be eligible via my criteria anyway. If however, you've made a series of bad choices .. you're not eligible. If you know from the outset that bad choices will exclude you from assistance, you will have made those choices in full knowledge of the outcome. And if someone doesn't want assistance (which they have made clear in choosing to exclude themselves), it's none of our business - we must respect freely made choices. If people are concerned about their potential need for assistance at some time in the future, they will have the option to live accordingly. This really is the most just and egalitarian possible model.

2) Yes, pandemics qualify as 'events outside our control'.

3) There's nothing severe about it - on the contrary, it's much easier and more intuitive. Since we would all know, ahead of adulthood, that bad choices will exempt us from future assistance, we have plenty of time to learn not to **** up. It's no more 'severe' than learning as a child that if you put your hand on a hot stove, you'll be burned. If we reach adulthood and still insist on putting our hands on hot stoves, we will have chosen that in the full knowledge of what it will do to us. Just as we can't tell a determined adult to stop putting their hands on stoves, and neither can we turn off all the stoves in the world so these adults won't hurt themselves .. neither can we interfere with that natural attrition when it comes to public assistance. I'm not sure I follow your thoughts on family, meantime. If you start out knowing that family will be a crucial support structure going forward, then you'll have the time and motivation to make sure that happens. Again though, if you **** up family - as a fully informed adult - then you've made your choice according to your preference. None of our business .. just like the stoves. \

4) No more red tape than a mortgage. Very similar criteria, apart from the downpayment, so we already have very efficient 'technology' for this stuff. As for the less 'fortunate', I couldn't agree more. Fortune means luck .. and luck is something outside of our control. But we have no business intefering in freely made choices leading to impecunity. That has nothing to do with luck .. that's deliberate action in line with the individual's life preferences. If someone wants that impecunity (and any action towards that end is only ever done because it's wanted - people don't do things unless there's a payoff for them), we have to honour that. And it has nothing to do with being 'savvy'. Little kids are capable of long term goals and discipline in saving money for something important to them. Intellectually disabled people can do it, too. It's all about will, not smarts or education.

5) On the contrary, my position is about as far Left as it gets. Evidently you're not aware of the fundamentals of this stuff.

6) When we interfere with freely made choices, by removing the natural pathway of those choices, we perpetuate the very behaviours which lead to entrenched poverty. And THAT is deliberate.

 

I'm going to stop you right there, because the rest is premised on that assumption.

Since it is wrong, then the rest must be wrong, as well.

We'll just have to disagree.

You remind me of Christians who tell me I'm going to hell because I didn't have the wisdom of 'accepting Christ as my savior'.

I could have chosen, and been saved, but I chose not to accept Christ as my savior.

Because my life experience gives me the sensibility that theres is a bogus teaching (at least that particular premise is false), but, according to Christians, God is going to throw me to hell forever just because my life experiences and sensibilities led me to another path.

IF that is true then God is one cruel SOB to do that.

So, if someone wasn't savvy enough to make the wise choices in life, in your book, he doesn't deserve help.

Similarly, that's cruel, too, crank.

Some liberal, you are.

 

1) Except that the consequences of bad behaviour are very real .. unlike gods and hells. Besides, you cannot save people from those very real consequences by artificially dulling the appearance of the consequences .. all you do in doing that, is guarantee people will never be able to escape the actions which lead to those very real consequences.

2) Irrelevant. If you are able to learn that the stove burns, you learn not to put your hand on it. If someone (a very ****ing sinister someone) convinces you that they'll protect you from the burning power of the stove with their special magical forcefield, they do NOT have your best interests in mind. They have in mind creating an adult who never learns that stoves burn.

3) See 2), above. A small child can learn consequences. It's not 'savvy', it's basic mammalian survival instincts. The problems arise because The Welfare State manipulates consequences, and in so doing offers a fool's paradise. We end up with adults who have less survival instincts than children. We must do better, because people deserve better.

4) On the contrary, there is nothing crueller than setting adults up to fail. It's the most malicious act against The People conceived of, in the contemporary First World.

5) Again, we differ on definitions. My 'liberalism' refuses to interfere with the freely made choices of capable adults. Yours insists on interference - and an interference which creates a world of trouble for the people you interfere with.

 

Trump got the majority of wealthy voters.

 

zTake it up with thenation.com.

-----------------------

Democrats represented 65% of taxpayers with a household income of $500,000 or more in 2020, according to IRS data, while 74% of taxpayers in Republican districts have household incomes of less than $100,000.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...arty-of-the-wealthy-irs-data-show/ar-BB1g4rb8

 

The point is that the Progressive Left harbours A LOT more elitists. Whether their means match their minds is less important than that mindset.

 

That's neoliberalism, crank.

Besides, who is 'interfering'? Helping isn't 'interfering'. Interfering implies stopping, preventing, suppressing, etc.

Doesn't negate that fact that you are being cruel.

And 'mine' is liberalism, yours is neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is cruel.

they are not the same.

Millions will suffer if your criteria were adapted. You don't care?

Some liberal you are.

 

1) When you hide the consenquences of certain actions, you are absolutely interferring. In a very malicious way! You are acting to ensure that people don't learn how to protect themselves.

2) There is nothing crueller than setting people up to fail.

3) On the contrary, the refusal to help the vastly more massive number of future people who will be negatively effected, just to 'fete' a relatively tiny number today, is orders of magnitude more horrible - from every possible moral perspective. It might 'hurt' your child today to refuse him chocolate cake for breakfast, but it will hurt all his tomorrows if you give it to him. Unbelievable that this has to be explained, but it apparently it does.