Reply With Quote
America's middle class is also better off than our European counterparts.
I'm making the exact opposite point.
Wealth across all socioeconomic classes has risen substantially in the US.
America's middle class is also better off than our European counterparts.
if they are wearing Air Jordans then your wife has no need to feel bad.
I'm not so sure that's accurate though. Cost of living in the US is also far more expensive than other countries.
Not to mention that using technology (something that constantly depreciates as time goes on) to gauge relative wealth is fairly close to a strawman, IMO.
not if you count paid vacation, paid maternal leave, child daycare support, healthcare, retirement plans,etc,etc,etc. No, America's working middle class is not better off. Quite the opposite actually.
"America's middle class is also better off than our European counterparts."
really? I'd say it's very close, insignificant differences.
we don't even have to go to europe to see how bad it's here in america for middle class/poor class. Let's compare with Canada.
My wife's cousin is considered "poor" in Toronto. Amount of healthcare money spent in having her recent child = $0. Amount of money she is spending on daycare for the child = $1 per week. (goverment pays the $1999 rest) Time she got paid leave: 6 months. Amount of $ she is getting from the govmt to help with the child= $400/month
I'm not saying that is a good thing that the govmt takes care of you like this. But let's get out of this bubble of ignorance that makes us think USA middle class/poor class lives better than the rest of the world.
Yup. You got it.
This would have been more accurate than my statement about flawed underlying assumptions.
It is more of a case of a half-truth being used to make a flawed conclusion.
The half-truth:
Being poor in the US is better than being poor elsewhere.
The other half of that truth that is specifically left out:
Being poor in the US still sucks
The half truth is used in the following way to imply a desired conservative policy aim:
Being poor in the US is better than being poor elsewhere, so therefore we don't need all these socialistic wealth transfer schemes.
I don't think that is an unfair charactorization of the argument being made here. If anyone does, please say so and why it is unfair.
What this argument also misses, is that being poor in the US sucks a LOT less because of the social safety net we have in this country.
Get rid of that, and I highly doubt being poor in the US will be "better than X" for very long.
If it were not for the sheer scale of human misery that getting rid of all welfare programs would entail, I would be happy to let conservatives have *their* social experiment, so we can see how shockingly immoral and inhumane that would be, and finally be able discard the ty idea that we don't need to use government to provide some social safety net for those who really need it once and for all.
"being poor in the US sucks a LOT less because of the social safety net we have in this country."
UCA's safety net is the crappiest of all industrial countries, from non-universal health care, to %age of salary as unemployment pay and how long it lasts, to quality, amount of public housing, to 40% of America not getting paid sick days and no holiday, to no paid maternity leave, to rampant wage theft on the low-end, to no benefits, to level of public pension payout, etc, etc.
Then don't forget the usual 2 weeks UCA holiday vs 5 weeks in Europe.
lol @ conservatives wanting to get rid of all welfare programs.
lol @ shockingly immoral. Really?
lol @ the implied conservative postion that we don't need the government to provide some social safety net.
Seriously, RG. That's about the worst string of outright straw-positions I've seen you make, period.
As I said, I don't think it was at all a strawman, that is the sad part.
Is it, or is it not, a commonly held belief among conservatives that "welfare should be left to charities and the private sector"? Commonly held as in more than 50% would agree to the statement.
Should I start quote mining for conservatives saying just that? Do you doubt I would find a lot of them?
I do not think that private charities would be capable of doing what the government does. This would mean that getting rid of the social safety net provided by TANF and so forth would throw a lot of people on the streets and quite potentially into real starvation. Is this, or is this not shockingly immoral?
It is not.
You might be interested in what type of people actually give most to charities.
Shotgun method. Spray em with bull and see what sticks.
(In fairness, it's hard to have a debate with glib posters who refuse to debate)
OP seems like more of a rhetorical thrust than a logical one to me. If our poor are rich in relative terms to others (by counting household appliances and cars for example), then it's not "really" poverty. Hence the headline.
I remember poverty back in my childhood days when my parents were migrant workers and we lived in small shacks with no bathroom and we had to crap in the outhouse and take showers outside.
That to me was poverty.
Hmm.
I really try to avoid strawman attacks, and work towards honestly representing the views of those who I disagree with. This was a good faith effort on my part to do so.
If you say it is not a commonly held belief among conservatives that we "should end government welfare programs and leave it to charities", then the onus is on me to show that it is.
Bull has been called. Fair enough.
I do not think it is unreasonable to charactorize a lot of conservative arguments in that manner, and will try to find some fair comments from conservatives to support that.
Those that can afford to?
No, it's not.
Knock yourself out, kid. I don't doubt you could find quite a number of talking heads saying that. Doesn't mean a damned thing other than that's what the talking heads believe...if it's even really what they believe...showbidness and all that...
I don't think private charities could pull the load either. That's why it's not a conservative position, regardless of the straw you continue to heap on this.
sounds like the threshold where even conservatives might want to help, maybe slip y'all $100/month, but only with weekly drug testing.
Alot? Nice, round number that.
It is not the zero sum position you seem to think it is. Most conservatives, IMO, would like to see some welfare programs changed....sure. I'm one of 'em. There's about zero reason why the LoneStar Card should be used to buy Slurpees at the 7-11 for instance. But that's a far cry from abolishment, which you seem to assume is the conservative position.
Seriously, ditch the qualifiers and once you find quotes from talking heads, link them to actual conservatives in the populance...you know, like CG or myself, or any number of humans. I'm pretty sure you aren't gonna do that and if you decide to use a poll, you better look at it pretty hard before you do.
thats like camping. can't believe people pay money to do that.
And don't think I missed the implication....conservatives = shockingly immoral.
Google search for:
government should get out of welfare and leave it to charity
About 9,520,000 results (0.22 seconds)
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/...lfare-spending
Government welfare cannot provide the same flexibility and diversity as private charities. Private aid organizations have a better understanding that true charity starts with individuals making better life choices. Federal involvement in welfare has generated an expensive mess of paperwork and bureaucracy while doing little to solve the problem of long-term poverty.http://www.fff.org/freedom/0197c.aspFor reasons to be discussed below, welfare should be abolished. A good beginning would be for the federal government to get out at once. ... By its nature, re- form leaves that principle intact. ... are the recipients themselves and that the people on welfare would do better under a system of private charity. ...
http://www.kingdombaptist.org/whats-...american-soil/I contend that the U.S. government should simply get out of the TEMPLE altogether, and leave welfare, charity, religious reformation of character, etc. to the various churches, and charitable and religious organizations
Source: The Great Libertarian Offer, p. 75 Sep 9, 2000Repealing the income tax will leave an extra trillion dollars a year in the hands of individual Americans-money now being poured down government rat holes. That trillion dollars will buy a job for everyone who can work and charity for everyone who can’t.
Can you envision the jobs that will be created? Can you imagine the increase in charity? Whatever the problem, the people most interested in solving it will have the means to do so.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Har..._+_Poverty.htm
It didn't take long to find a rather large number of websites pretty much explicitly advocating the complete abolishment of government welfare programs and any kind of poverty assistance, with the exact argument that such functions can and should be left to charity.
At least a few of them were honest and admitted that some people will simply fall through the cracks and be really really bad off, as in starving.
Does this, or does this not provide some reasonable basis for concluding that such beliefs are "commonly held" among conservatives?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-20-2011 at 12:47 PM.
Okay I'll remember this article and the line of logic therein next time someone tries to argue that $250K salary doesn't qualify as "rich."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions