2012 Election Paul Ryan vs Obama Healthcare Policy

[NickNaylor]

Let's check in with the open-minded wing of the party of ideas:

"We've got a Muslim president who hates farming, hates the military, hates the U.S., and we hate him!"

-Hank Williams, Jr., following a rendition of "Don't Apologize for America" at the Iowa State Fair

Mr. Williams then went on to praise gay equality, the DREAM act, and the construction of an Islamic cultural center on Park Place and W. Broadway in Manhattan.

If you blindly support either party then you're a fool that's contributing to the problem. You can't pretend that there aren't ***** Democrats saying equally stupid things.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted103644]

If you blindly support either party then you're a fool that's contributing to the problem. You can't pretend that there aren't ***** Democrats saying equally stupid things.

Sure there are, but...

It's simple numbers. They have more.

And every day I have to make decisions that send hundreds of people like you to their deaths.

 

[yappy]

This thread has devolved into partisan politics. The beginning was interesting though.

I doubt that Ryan is going to change Romney's decisions too much. He's a Jr. guy on the hill and will only be filling a VP position. He does seem to excite the conservative base, though. I guess we'll see what happens but no president will be able to do much unless they have the other branches to support them.

 

[notbobtrustme]

If you blindly support either party then you're a fool that's contributing to the problem. You can't pretend that there aren't ***** Democrats saying equally stupid things.

Legitimate rape does not cause pregnancy.

Todd Akins

 

[circulus vitios]

Legitimate rape does not cause pregnancy.

Todd Akins

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Akin said that even in the worst-case scenario — when the supposed natural protections against unwanted pregnancy fail — abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.

“Let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something,” Akin said. “I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/todd-akin-legitimate-rape.php?ref=fpa

You can't make this **** up.

Buzzfeed’s Anna North has found several examples of Republicans making this claim over the last few decades. In 1988, Pennsylvania state Rep. Stephen Friend, a leading anti-abortion legislator, got in trouble for claiming that the trauma of rape causes women to "secrete a certain secretion" that kills sperm. In 1995, North Carolina state Rep. Henry Aldridge told the House Appropriations Committee, “The facts show that people who are raped—who are truly raped—the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work, and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever.”

It’s in this context that one should understand efforts like the 2011 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which both Akin and Ryan cosponsored. Right now, there’s an exception to the ban on federal funding for abortion in case of rape, but that bill would have changed it to “forcible rape.” That’s language commonly used by those who deny that pregnancy results from “legitimate” rape. As Willke wrote, “When pro-lifers speak of rape pregnancies, we should commonly use the phrase ‘forcible rape’ or ‘assault rape,’ for that specifies what we're talking about.”

What’s outrageous about Akin’s words, then, isn’t so much his fantastical ideas about reproductive biology. It’s the laws he wants to enact. And when it comes to his policy positions, in today’s Republican Party, Akin isn’t considered outrageous at all.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ad-but-his-abortion-views-are-much-worse.html

 

[Dave89]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/todd-akin-legitimate-rape.php?ref=fpa

You can't make this **** up.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ad-but-his-abortion-views-are-much-worse.html

Only a liberal rag like the Daily Beast could claim with a straight face that Akin's ignorance of biology is more absurd than the position that if fetuses are a form of innocent human life with the rights of such, they are to be protected regardless of how they came into existence.

 

[MiracleforMD]

Johnny Wannabe,

I write for grants, edit, and have been a second author. English is my first language. I suspect that my posts seem that way to you because I don't consider syntax while writing a post, auto corrections, and you're unfamiliar with the topics I'm discussing.

EDIT: Looking back at your posts it does look like you're unfamiliar with history as a study or practical discipline. That's okay - no one knows everything right? - but it looks ignorant for you to point my posts as undeveloped or "pointless" because of your lack of understanding.

You forgot to add that you're a financial savant

You son of a bitch. Beat me to it.

 

[DoctwoB]

Sure there are, but...

It's simple numbers. They have more.

And every day I have to make decisions that send hundreds of people like you to their deaths.

I declare that johnnydrama has won the thread.

 

[DoctwoB]

This talk about the "Neo-left" or whatnot is rather amusing. I feel that the left hasn't changed much. They're for the same social programs, safety net, and universal healthcare they've always wanted.

It's the right where being conservative has gone from "small-government, less regulation, pro-free market" policies to "no abortion with ""forcible-rape,"" everything is "socialism," no raising the debt ceiling (aka paying back what we've already borrowed), and starting wars."

Who does a fiscally conservative but non-insane person have left to vote for these days?

 

[notbobtrustme]

This talk about the "Neo-left" or whatnot is rather amusing. I feel that the left hasn't changed much. They're for the same social programs, safety net, and universal healthcare they've always wanted.

It's the right where being conservative has gone from "small-government, less regulation, pro-free market" policies to "no abortion with ""forcible-rape,"" everything is "socialism," no raising the debt ceiling (aka paying back what we've already borrowed), and starting wars."

Who does a fiscally conservative but non-insane person have left to vote for these days?

Not to mention the last Republican President that was fiscally conservative was ****ing Herbert Hoover.

 

[Gut Shot]

If you blindly support either party then you're a fool that's contributing to the problem.

Considering that one party apparently wants to send us along into some sort of theocratic economic feudalism, hand me the red hot poker.

You can't pretend that there aren't ***** Democrats saying equally stupid things.

Okay, find me something comparable.

 

[pkwraith]

This talk about the "Neo-left" or whatnot is rather amusing. I feel that the left hasn't changed much. They're for the same social programs, safety net, and universal healthcare they've always wanted.

It's the right where being conservative has gone from "small-government, less regulation, pro-free market" policies to "no abortion with ""forcible-rape,"" everything is "socialism," no raising the debt ceiling (aka paying back what we've already borrowed), and starting wars."

Who does a fiscally conservative but non-insane person have left to vote for these days?

Eh, at this point, you pretty much talk with your vote and hope the crazies gets kicked out of the party before it's too late. Problem is if they lose (with the "Massachusetts moderate"), they'll go even further right. If they win, they might still do that too. I don't really know where it's going to go with the current GOP-Teaper amalgamation, but the current Akin battle (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79889.html?hp=t1_3) between RNC and baggers is a pretty good standin.

 

[KinasePro]

Considering that one party apparently wants to send us along into some sort of theocratic economic feudalism...

Yeah, that's not hyperbole .

NickNaylor is right, both parties are stacked with bullsh:tters, and you'd be a fool to buy into either party line.

As an aside, I'm a left-leaning moderate, but I find staunch liberals to be the most insufferable of all political peanut galleries. The incessant snark and self-righteousness is enough for me vote republican just to piss them off.

 

[deleted103644]

As an aside, I'm a left-leaning moderate, but I find staunch liberals to be the most insufferable of all political peanut galleries. The incessant snark and self-righteousness is enough for me vote republican just to piss them off.

Needless to say, this is a stupid way to choose your candidate.

Vote for the candidate that you think will be best for the country.

Don't treat it like a sports competition and vote for "your team" or against "their team".

 

[DoctwoB]

Eh, at this point, you pretty much talk with your vote and hope the crazies gets kicked out of the party before it's too late. Problem is if they lose (with the "Massachusetts moderate"), they'll go even further right. If they win, they might still do that too. I don't really know where it's going to go with the current GOP-Teaper amalgamation, but the current Akin battle (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79889.html?hp=t1_3) between RNC and baggers is a pretty good standin.

Governor Romney was a Massachusetts moderate. Candidate Romney is sprinting right as fast as his legs will carry him.

 

[KinasePro]

Needless to say, this is a stupid way to choose your candidate.

Vote for the candidate that you think will be best for the country.

Don't treat it like a sports competition and vote for "your team" or against "their team".

I was just using a figure of speech. It's sad that the discourse in this thread is bad enough that you thought this advice was necessary, though I can't really blame you.

 

[pseudosquam]

Don't take him too seriously. Had you phrased what you said to favor the democratic ticket he would not have felt compelled to post. Johnny is as left as they come.

I was just using a figure of speech. It's sad that the discourse in this thread is bad enough that you thought this advice was necessary, though I can't really blame you.

The left has no limited supply of loons. I'm sure the right has some but there is also a large selection bias by the media for R loons; which, misshapes peoples perception as liberals tend to get a free pass. The treatment by the media of 99% VS Tea was pretty telling.

 

[deleted103644]

Don't take him too seriously. Had you phrased what you said to favor the democratic ticket he would not have felt compelled to post. Johnny is as left as they come.

You don't know much about me, pseudo.

I've prodded you a bit because you've established yourself as an idiot, your political views have little to do with it.

And my advice stands either way. If you believe the Republican candidate represents the better policy directions for the country, then you should vote that way. I would disagree with you, but I would never tell you to vote against the Republican anyway for something stupid and superficial.

 

[Gut Shot]

Yeah, that's not hyperbole .

I do not find it hyperbole to say that the evangelical wing of the Republican party would like expand its influence on daily American life. As just one tiny example I could point to the never ending push to devalue evolution in public school curricula, with the simultaneously promotion of intelligent design and/or creationism as acceptable scientific alternatives. Look at all the mouth breathers who are busy banning Sharia law in this country? Who are these people?

I also do not find it hyperbole to say that we have been trending toward economic feudalism. I'm sure we could argue for days over the underlying dynamics, but the fact is that we are trending toward a nation of haves and have-nots, one which is being reinforced by our current system of taxation. Extrapolation this out and we reach a point where enormous wealth is concentrated in few hands (even more so than now), with most of the citizenry competing with overseas labor for low wage jobs.

NickNaylor is right, both parties are stacked with bullsh:tters, and you'd be a fool to buy into either party line.

This approach, while handy to avoid specific policy debates, is about as intellectually lazy as they come.

 

[Gut Shot]

You don't know much about me, pseudo.

Classic. I am conservative, you argue with me, therefore you are liberal. You continue to argue with me, therefore you are extreme liberal. You hurt my feelings, therefore you are as liberal as they come.

 

[PrideNeverDie]

I do not find it hyperbole to say that the evangelical wing of the Republican party would like expand its influence on daily American life. As just one tiny example I could point to the never ending push to devalue evolution in public school curricula, with the simultaneously promotion of intelligent design and/or creationism as acceptable scientific alternatives. Look at all the mouth breathers who are busy banning Sharia law in this country? Who are these people?

I also do not find it hyperbole to say that we have been trending toward economic feudalism. I'm sure we could argue for days over the underlying dynamics, but the fact is that we are trending toward a nation of haves and have-nots, one which is being reinforced by our current system of taxation. Extrapolation this out and we reach a point where enormous wealth is concentrated in few hands (even more so than now), with most of the citizenry competing with overseas labor for low wage jobs.

This approach, while handy to avoid specific policy debates, is about as intellectually lazy as they come.

so the people who study all weekend and work 60 hour weeks are making more over time while the high school dropouts smoking weed and playing xbox are making less. sounds like the system is becoming more fair.

the 90th percentile cut-off for income is 71k (source: http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=2879 )

 

[Gut Shot]

so the people who study all weekend and work 60 hour weeks are making more over time while the high school dropouts smoking weed and playing xbox are making less. sounds like the system is becoming more fair.

Yeah, no. The people who study all weekend and work 60 hour weeks are continuing to watch their standard of living erode in the face of increasing costs of living. You and I do not have the same opportunity for social mobility that our parents did, and at this rate our kids will have it even worse than we do. Anyone who is smart will choose to be born to a hedge fund manager.

Here is another view of income distribution that better illustrates who has been getting ahead:

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729

 

[deleted103644]

so the people who study all weekend and work 60 hour weeks are making more over time while the high school dropouts smoking weed and playing xbox are making less. sounds like the system is becoming more fair.

the 90th percentile cut-off for income is 71k (source: http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=2879 )

You're looking at the wrong graph.

Most of the increase in the top 10% is due to the top 1% or even 0.1%, not the 90-99%.

The cutoff there used to be $350k, but I think it's closer to $1million annually now.

Clearly doctors' salaries aren't increasing, so it ain't us causing that increase. Nor is it any other white collar professional.

It's mainly finance and overpaid CEOs, with scattered lawyers, tech people, and professional athletes. But by far mostly finance and CEOs.

 

[deleted103644]

Also, why is this thread in Allo? Shouldn't it be SPF?

 

[PrideNeverDie]

Yeah, no. The people who study all weekend and work 60 hour weeks are continuing to watch their standard of living erode in the face of increasing costs of living. You and I do not have the same opportunity for social mobility that our parents did, and at this rate our kids will have it even worse than we do. Anyone who is smart will choose to be born to a hedge fund manager.

Here is another view of income distribution that better illustrates who has been getting ahead:

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729

just to clarify i wasn't being totally serious about my comments

your concerns over the top 1% taking more of the net wealth are justified

that is why when i'm an attending i will sacrifice hours/pay in order to do some business ventures on the side

generally, you don't make it into the upper class with a doctor's salary

 

[Gut Shot]

just to clarify i wasn't being totally serious about my comments

your concerns over the top 1% taking more of the net wealth are justified

that is why when i'm an attending i will sacrifice hours/pay in order to do some business ventures on the side

generally, you don't make it into the upper class with a doctor's salary

Well alright then. I do think it's about time to put this one out to pasture.

Anyone want to start a thread about the female body's response to Todd Akin?

 

[evilbooyaa]

Doctors aren't going to be high upper class anymore, especially not the less paying specialties. I think the taxcuts should be extended for anyone making <$1 million/year. Not going to happen though b/c it pisses off both sides, the general populace as well as those who are bankrolling elections.

 

[deleted103644]

Doctors aren't going to be high upper class anymore, especially not the less paying specialties. I think the taxcuts should be extended for anyone making <$1 million/year. Not going to happen though b/c it pisses off both sides, the general populace as well as those who are bankrolling elections.

Doctors have never been high upper class.

The truth is that taxes need to be raised on everybody, but particularly those getting fat off of capital gains.

There obviously should be additional brackets at the upper ranges, eg $1 million, $10 million, $100 million.

 

[KinasePro]

I do not find it hyperbole to say that the evangelical wing of the Republican party would like expand its influence on daily American life. As just one tiny example I could point to the never ending push to devalue evolution in public school curricula, with the simultaneously promotion of intelligent design and/or creationism as acceptable scientific alternatives. Look at all the mouth breathers who are busy banning Sharia law in this country? Who are these people?

I also do not find it hyperbole to say that we have been trending toward economic feudalism. I'm sure we could argue for days over the underlying dynamics, but the fact is that we are trending toward a nation of haves and have-nots, one which is being reinforced by our current system of taxation. Extrapolation this out and we reach a point where enormous wealth is concentrated in few hands (even more so than now), with most of the citizenry competing with overseas labor for low wage jobs.

You don't think its hyperbole, because you're obfuscating all conservative ideology with that of fringe factions within the conservative landcape. After reading your posts in this thread, it's clear that your preferred method of debate is to make statements that are equal parts legitimate opinion and inflammatory rhetoric. This sends the discussion nowhere fast, because 99% of the time the conversation will follow the inflammatory rhetoric like "theocracy" and "feudalism." Regardless of your attempt to rationalize, it's still hyperbole and adds nothing to this herp-a-derpy thread.

This approach, while handy to avoid specific policy debates, is about as intellectually lazy as they come.

Are you trying to say it's intellectually lazy to challenge party lines? If anything, disagreeing with the two major political ideologies gets me into far MORE debates than would agreeing with either party. You have the luxury of groupthink, not me.

 

[Amnipotem]

Ryan wants to:

- Criminalize abortions
- Deregulate the banking industry. (He even voted against the Dodd-Frank Act.)
- Bail out more banks
- Abolish the capital gains tax. (Is he nuts? Clearly.)
- Abolish the corporate income tax (Surprised? I'm not.)
- Abolish IBR. (Romney wants to do this, too. Say hello to student loans.)
- Eliminate the tax-exclusion for employer sponsored healthcare (In other words, fewer insured individuals.)
- Convert Medicaid into block grants (Good luck getting your money then.)

Unless you're a banker, you'd have to be an idiot to support Ryan.

I'd be very surprised if the Republicans win this election. They are so far right that many independents and moderates will vote for Obama. And fortunately, even in the off chance that they do win, Congress will never pass most of the legislation Ryan proposes (not that the VP matters anyway). Ryan is one of the most right wing nutjobs to ever run for office.

 

[deleted103644]

Are you trying to say it's intellectually lazy to challenge party lines? If anything, disagreeing with the two major political ideologies gets me into far MORE debates than would agreeing with either party. You have the luxury of groupthink, not me.

I disagree with both parties, but one of them is clearly more nuts than the other. I mainly argue with Democrats (outside of Internet forums), but that doesn't mean I see most Republicans as viable alternatives.

I voted for Bloomberg over the Democratic candidate. Would probably vote for him over Obama.

 

[pkwraith]

You don't think its hyperbole, because you're obfuscating all conservative ideology with that of fringe factions within the conservative landcape. After reading your posts in this thread, it's clear that your preferred method of debate is to make statements that are equal parts legitimate opinion and inflammatory rhetoric. This sends the discussion nowhere fast, because 99% of the time the conversation will follow the inflammatory rhetoric like "theocracy" and "feudalism." Regardless of your attempt to rationalize, it's still hyperbole and adds nothing to this herp-a-derpy thread.



Are you trying to say it's intellectually lazy to challenge party lines? If anything, disagreeing with the two major political ideologies gets me into far MORE debates than would agreeing with either party. You have the luxury of groupthink, not me.

I fail to see how you're challenging party lines, when you're spouting things like "the incessant snark and self-righteousness is enough for me vote republican just to piss them off. " Yeah, that's clearly disagreeing with both parties.

Sorry, you don't get to pull an "Oh I'm so Independent" card when you selectively ignore garbage like "On one side you have the new left who believers that the US is a terrible country and their morals say to bring it crashing down. On the other side you have true Americans who understand what freedom is" permeating through this entire thread.

Fact is, you're challenging one party line while pretending you're not. At least fundies take a stand in what they're doing.

 

[KinasePro]

I fail to see how you're challenging party lines, when you're spouting things like "the incessant snark and self-righteousness is enough for me vote republican just to piss them off. " Yeah, that's clearly disagreeing with both parties.

Sorry, you don't get to pull an "Oh I'm so Independent" card when you selectively ignore garbage like "On one side you have the new left who believers that the US is a terrible country and their morals say to bring it crashing down. On the other side you have true Americans who understand what freedom is" permeating through this entire thread.

Fact is, you're challenging one party line while pretending you're not. At least fundies take a stand in what they're doing.

I wasn't challenging anyone or taking a stand in my posts, I was just stating that staunch liberals bother me more than other ideologues. I'm in the peanut gallery of this sh:tty thread and haven't read the entire thing. Also, I'm perfectly capable of agreeing with people on a variety of issues while still finding their caricature annoying.

 

[deleted103644]

I wasn't challenging anyone or taking a stand in my posts, I was just stating that staunch liberals bother me more than other ideologues. I'm in the peanut gallery of this sh:tty thread and haven't read the entire thing. Also, I'm perfectly capable of agreeing with people on a variety of issues while still finding their caricature annoying.

Are you talking about West coast, dog therapy, energy crystal vaccine denier liberals?

Well, I hate them too.

 

[KinasePro]

I disagree with both parties, but one of them is clearly more nuts than the other. I mainly argue with Democrats (outside of Internet forums), but that doesn't mean I see most Republicans as viable alternatives.

Sounds like we're coming from a similar place. Though I'm often critical of Democrats, the alternative is generally much worse.

Are you talking about West coast, dog therapy, energy crystal vaccine denier liberals?

Well, I hate them too.

lol, bingo. I blame it on all those years I spent in west metro Boston.

 

[Gut Shot]

You don't think its hyperbole, because you're obfuscating all conservative ideology with that of fringe factions within the conservative landcape.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the Rome that was once an epicenter of erudite conservative thought has been sacked by these people:

After reading your posts in this thread, it's clear that your preferred method of debate

After 17 years of arguing online I no longer debate. I amuse myself.

Are you trying to say it's intellectually lazy to challenge party lines?

No, I'm saying it's lazy to just say "oh well, both parties do it" and saunter off. At least pour yourself a pitcher of beer first.

 

[xf3rn4nd3sx]

Yeah, no. The people who study all weekend and work 60 hour weeks are continuing to watch their standard of living erode in the face of increasing costs of living. You and I do not have the same opportunity for social mobility that our parents did, and at this rate our kids will have it even worse than we do. Anyone who is smart will choose to be born to a hedge fund manager.

Here is another view of income distribution that better illustrates who has been getting ahead:

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729

There is still plenty of upward mobility available. You just can't choose to study something like gender studies and expect to move up.

 

[Gut Shot]

There is still plenty of upward mobility available. You just can't choose to study something like gender studies and expect to move up.

How would you feel if the "land of opportunity" actually has less social mobility than Canada and much of Europe? Yes, there is a significant and growing problem here, and no, it cannot be blamed on liberal arts majors.

 

[Dave89]

How would you feel if the "land of opportunity" actually has less social mobility than Canada and much of Europe? Yes, there is a significant and growing problem here, and no, it cannot be blamed on liberal arts majors.

You do know what "opportunity" means, right?

Hint: It doesn't mean a guarantee that if you put in 8 hours of work a day, you will rise to the level of country-club elite.

 

[Gut Shot]

You do know what "opportunity" means, right?

Hint: It doesn't mean a guarantee that if you put in 8 hours of work a day, you will rise to the level of country-club elite.

Ah, Dave. I assume the shame of your Sanctity of Life reading comprehension failure has subsided enough to allow your return.

Yes, I am aware of the meaning of the word "opportunity." The point is that other countries have overtaken us in providing it. Unless you are positing that lower class Americans are inherently less interested in societal advancement than lower class Canadians or lower class Europeans. Is that what you're positing?

 

[notbobtrustme]

You do know what "opportunity" means, right?

Hint: It doesn't mean a guarantee that if you put in 8 hours of work a day, you will rise to the level of country-club elite.

I think you don't know what the word opportunity means.....

 

[deleted103644]

There is still plenty of upward mobility available. You just can't choose to study something like gender studies and expect to move up.

The issue is less upward social mobility and more downward. (Although upward mobility has been taking a hit.) Someone who comes from a wealthy family and majors in gender studies will probably always be richer than you, a neurosurgeon.

I have no problem with the people who make a living by working, it's the people who can sit back and do nothing and watch their money grow that need to be more heavily taxed.

 

[Dave89]

Ah, Dave. I assume the shame of your Sanctity of Life reading comprehension failure has subsided enough to allow your return.

Yes, I am aware of the meaning of the word "opportunity." The point is that other countries have overtaken us in providing it. Unless you are positing that lower class Americans are inherently less interested in societal advancement than lower class Canadians or lower class Europeans. Is that what you're positing?

My viewpoint on that matter was well-supported by modern applications of the word. Apparently your attention capabilities died out halfway through the discussion. The reason I am posting less frequently is mostly due to the fact that I'm back in school.

As far as social mobility and opportunity - who cares about "social mobility"? Fact is, we mostly lead far better lives than our parents and have more luxuries available for cheaper than ever before. To a liberal who divides society based on appeals to base human emotions ("we are the 99%!), it's all about the evil overlords on top and the struggling masses below. The only instance in which I believe "income inequality" is a problem is when that inequality has been facilitated through government intervention.

A glass-half-full approach to "social mobility" would be to compare a mechanic's/factory worker's/doctor's lifestyle today to a similarly skilled worker's lifestyle a generation ago.

FWIW many of the barriers to "social mobility" stem from liberal programs such as minimum wage and federally-subsidized education.

 

[deleted103644]

My viewpoint on that matter was well-supported by modern applications of the word. Apparently your attention capabilities died out halfway through the discussion. The reason I am posting less frequently is mostly due to the fact that I'm back in school.

As far as social mobility and opportunity - who cares about "social mobility"? Fact is, we mostly lead far better lives than our parents and have more luxuries available for cheaper than ever before. To a liberal who divides society based on appeals to base human emotions ("we are the 99%!), it's all about the evil overlords on top and the struggling masses below. The only instance in which I believe "income inequality" is a problem is when that inequality has been facilitated through government intervention.

A glass-half-full approach to "social mobility" would be to compare a mechanic's/factory worker's/doctor's lifestyle today to a similarly skilled worker's lifestyle a generation ago.

FWIW many of the barriers to "social mobility" stem from liberal programs such as minimum wage and federally-subsidized education.

It must be wonderful living in an evidence free world. Clearly the minimum wage and public education are holding the lower classes down. Thank you for enlightening me.

 

[Dave89]

It must be wonderful living in an evidence free world. Clearly the minimum wage and public education are holding the lower classes down. Thank you for enlightening me.

See Milton Friedman on the subject of minimum wage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

And minimum wage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA

So you know, he was not exactly of Rockefeller stock.

 

[circulus vitios]

Republican party: Decry the science of global warming, praise the science of rape.

 

[circulus vitios]

There is still plenty of upward mobility available. You just can't choose to study something like gender studies and expect to move up.

For how much longer?

WASHINGTON, Aug 22 (Reuters) - The U.S. middle class has shrunk drastically over the last 10 years as Americans' net worth has plunged, wages declined and standards of living slipped away, according to a report released on Wednesday.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/usa-economy-middleclass-idINL2E8JM4U920120822

 

[circulus vitios]

FWIW many of the barriers to "social mobility" stem from liberal programs such as minimum wage and federally-subsidized education.

what is this? i don't even

 

[deleted103644]

See Milton Friedman on the subject of minimum wage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

And minimum wage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA

So you know, he was not exactly of Rockefeller stock.

Can't watch videos on my phone anymore, so transcripts please.

The minimum wage can reduce employment, but it definitely doesn't hurt those with jobs.

And you know Milton Friedman was for a negative income tax, right? IE give the poor free money (just don't use it for specific programs).

 

[DoctwoB]

As far as social mobility and opportunity - who cares about "social mobility"?

You should. Do you want to live in a country where your potential is solely defined by that of your parents? Just because a middle class person now can have a "better" life w/ iPhones and computers then a middle class person 30 years ago doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for a society in which hard-working and intelligent people can't move up through society based on merit.

FWIW many of the barriers to "social mobility" stem from liberal programs such as minimum wage and federally-subsidized education.

So offer no minimum wage and don't educate anyone who can't afford private school? And this would improve social mobility how exactly? As crappy as our school system is, a free state-provided education is one of the few means of social mobility left.