Do Republicans actually like poverty?

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Few if any Republicans run those cities

Arkie always trying to make democrat shitholes better than they really are

 

[Drumcollie]

Why is it, then, that they tend to preside over its decline? There were declines in poverty under FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, and Obama -- often huge declines. Of all the Democratic presidential eras in the last century, the only one when poverty didn't decline was the shortest one: the Carter presidency. That's quite the contrast with all the recent Republican presidencies when poverty didn't decline (Bush, Bush, Reagan, and Ford.) If Democrats profit from poverty, why are they so focused on decreasing it (and generally fairly successful at doing so)?

You need you some poverty huh?

 

[Dawg]

Arkie always trying to make democrat shitholes better than they really are

or trying to be a father figure to other libs

 

[Drumcollie]

Boston has a quirk working against it in indicators like that. Because it's such an old city, the official city itself is ridiculously small -- just 48 square miles. Yet it long ago melted into surrounding cities that remain officially independent as historical anachronisms.

To put that in perspective, Houston clocks in at 600 square miles. Boston is surrounded by a bunch of other cities that, from within the city or from a satellite, you'd think were part of the same city, but technically there's a border there..... Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Charlestown, etc. Thus, when using municipal numbers, you're only looking at the inner city, whereas with many other major cities you're looking at the inner city, plus many of its suburbs -- or even surrounding rural areas, in the case of some cities (for example, Anchorage has a land area of 1707 miles, making it almost 36 times the size of Boston, geographically -- the "city" of Anchorage is so big it has its own glacier).

That's why the best way to calculate these things would be to use MSA's, rather than arbitrary lines on a map.

Using MSA particularly like House where the MSA is as big as Connecticut is not a viable measure. Whereas areas in outside Houston are gaining businesses because of the democratic policies of the city itself.

 

[Arkady]

may be due to being known as a racist city

Here's a way to gauge the level of racism in Boston:
https://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/President Vp all wards_tcm3-26280.pdf
https://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/110706Results_02governorsrace_tcm3-26359.pdf

That's two elections in which the people of Boston voted in a major election with a white candidate against a black one. What you'll notice is that the black candidate won both of those elections in each of the 22 wards, other than a close defeat by Patrick in Ward 6 (Southie). Keep in mind, Boston is only about 22% black. So for a black candidate to win, he needs a lot of white support. And Patrick and Obama got 73% and 79% of the votes, respectively. Even districts with almost no black population supported Obama:

And in 2012, even districts with almost 100% white population did:

So, if Boston is racist, it's not showing up enough to steer most white voters against a black candidate.

Keep in mind how unusual that is at the national level. In most states and cities, the majority of whites have NEVER voted for a black person over a white one. Check your own state's history to see what I mean. In state-wide elections (governor, senator), have the majority of white voters ever voted for a black person over a white one? Ever?

 

[marvin martian]

Quick: when was the last time we had a Republican presidency that ended with lower poverty rates than it started with?

I'm pretty sure that not even the conservatives here would identify either Bush as the answer to that question. Poverty famously increased dramatically during each of their presidencies. But maybe you're tempted to guess Reagan. Nope, didn't happen. Ford? Uh uh. Turns out it was Nixon. Although poverty declined only a fifth as much on his watch as during the same length of time before he took office, it at least did decline.

So, what is the reason for this failure by Republican leadership to make headway against poverty, going back four decades? It's not like its a bipartisan failure -- poverty declined dramatically under Clinton and, despite inheriting the Great Recession, came down a bit under Obama, too. The usual answer would be that the Republican failure is a product of their vision of government, which limits their ability to cope with any problem that doesn't have laissez faire solutions. But what if poverty isn't a negative side effect of ineffectual policy tools, but rather a positive goal of their policies?

That may sound facetious, but it's not meant to be. It's about the "positional good." In some ways, wealth isn't best understood as an absolute thing, but a relative one.

Think of it this way: would you rather live like the owner of a big plantation in 1850, or like a lower-middle-class American today -- setting aside the moral issues of slavery? Well, in a lot of ways, the lower-middle-class person today is better off. He'll very likely live a longer and healthier life, since the kind of medical care that's a bare-minimum standard in the modern world would be unavailable at any price in 1850. He'll be able to dine on foods from all over the world, and to wear clothes manufactured with a robotic precision even greater tailors of earlier eras could meet. He will also have entertainment options that even the richest 19th century person would have trouble affording equivalents of. With a TV and Netflix account, you have the equivalent of having hundreds of theatrical troupes standing by to put on plays of your choosing, and with your mobile phone, you have the equivalent of a 19th century person walking around with a photographer, a team of musicians, a bunch of messengers, stenographers, and clerks, etc. Yet, despite that ABSOLUTE wealth, I think a lot of people would opt to be the plantation owner, moral considerations aside. Relative to the surrounding society, that person was very rich. He was respected and envied, and was be surrounded by dozens or hundreds of people subservient to him. That has emotional value for a lot of people.

The same concept works within modern America. There's a famous quotation, variously attributed, to the effect that "It is not enough to succeed; others must fail." I think there's a real undercurrent of that sentiment in our society that drives conservatism. Paul Krugman refers to it as "Republican Sadism":

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/dollars-cents-republican-sadism.html?rref=collection/column/paul-krugman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&assetType=opinion

"Making lower-income Americans worse off has become a goal in itself for the modern G.O.P., a goal the party is actually willing to spend money and increase deficits to achieve."​

Living a comfortable middle-class lifestyle will not taste as sweet for some people if they feel like others who don't deserve it are living almost as comfortably. If, on the other hand, things like basic medical care, decent education, etc., are not generally assured, then those things become luxury goods, and people who have them can bask in that luxury. So, some people would take the smaller absolute gains in quality of life we see under Republicans, in exchange for the larger RELATIVE gains (relative to "those people," who lose ground.) It's Schadenfreude as prime policy objective.

Does this have something to do with the massive stock devaluation you predicted?

 

[JackDallas]

Quick: when was the last time we had a Republican presidency that ended with lower poverty rates than it started with?

I'm pretty sure that not even the conservatives here would identify either Bush as the answer to that question. Poverty famously increased dramatically during each of their presidencies. But maybe you're tempted to guess Reagan. Nope, didn't happen. Ford? Uh uh. Turns out it was Nixon. Although poverty declined only a fifth as much on his watch as during the same length of time before he took office, it at least did decline.

So, what is the reason for this failure by Republican leadership to make headway against poverty, going back four decades? It's not like its a bipartisan failure -- poverty declined dramatically under Clinton and, despite inheriting the Great Recession, came down a bit under Obama, too. The usual answer would be that the Republican failure is a product of their vision of government, which limits their ability to cope with any problem that doesn't have laissez faire solutions. But what if poverty isn't a negative side effect of ineffectual policy tools, but rather a positive goal of their policies?

That may sound facetious, but it's not meant to be. It's about the "positional good." In some ways, wealth isn't best understood as an absolute thing, but a relative one.

Think of it this way: would you rather live like the owner of a big plantation in 1850, or like a lower-middle-class American today -- setting aside the moral issues of slavery? Well, in a lot of ways, the lower-middle-class person today is better off. He'll very likely live a longer and healthier life, since the kind of medical care that's a bare-minimum standard in the modern world would be unavailable at any price in 1850. He'll be able to dine on foods from all over the world, and to wear clothes manufactured with a robotic precision even greater tailors of earlier eras could meet. He will also have entertainment options that even the richest 19th century person would have trouble affording equivalents of. With a TV and Netflix account, you have the equivalent of having hundreds of theatrical troupes standing by to put on plays of your choosing, and with your mobile phone, you have the equivalent of a 19th century person walking around with a photographer, a team of musicians, a bunch of messengers, stenographers, and clerks, etc. Yet, despite that ABSOLUTE wealth, I think a lot of people would opt to be the plantation owner, moral considerations aside. Relative to the surrounding society, that person was very rich. He was respected and envied, and was be surrounded by dozens or hundreds of people subservient to him. That has emotional value for a lot of people.

The same concept works within modern America. There's a famous quotation, variously attributed, to the effect that "It is not enough to succeed; others must fail." I think there's a real undercurrent of that sentiment in our society that drives conservatism. Paul Krugman refers to it as "Republican Sadism":

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/dollars-cents-republican-sadism.html?rref=collection/column/paul-krugman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&assetType=opinion

"Making lower-income Americans worse off has become a goal in itself for the modern G.O.P., a goal the party is actually willing to spend money and increase deficits to achieve."​

Living a comfortable middle-class lifestyle will not taste as sweet for some people if they feel like others who don't deserve it are living almost as comfortably. If, on the other hand, things like basic medical care, decent education, etc., are not generally assured, then those things become luxury goods, and people who have them can bask in that luxury. So, some people would take the smaller absolute gains in quality of life we see under Republicans, in exchange for the larger RELATIVE gains (relative to "those people," who lose ground.) It's Schadenfreude as prime policy objective.

No but Democrats do. No poverty, no votes for Democrats. The permanent underclass of poor folks and welfare cheats, who rely on government for their food and dope money, are the base of the Democrat Party.

 

[Arkady]

No but Democrats do. No poverty, no votes for Democrats. The permanent underclass of poor folks and welfare cheats, who rely on government for their food and dope money, are the base of the Democrat Party.

Did you read what I wrote. If, as you believe, Democrats like poverty, isn't it odd they're so consistently good at fighting it (poverty rates falling under every Democratic president in living memory other than Carter)? And if Republicans don't, isn't it odd they're so consistently bad at fighting it (no Republican president after Nixon presiding over falling poverty)?

 

[Alinvegas]

Quick: when was the last time we had a Republican presidency that ended with lower poverty rates than it started with?

I'm pretty sure that not even the conservatives here would identify either Bush as the answer to that question. Poverty famously increased dramatically during each of their presidencies. But maybe you're tempted to guess Reagan. Nope, didn't happen. Ford? Uh uh. Turns out it was Nixon. Although poverty declined only a fifth as much on his watch as during the same length of time before he took office, it at least did decline.

So, what is the reason for this failure by Republican leadership to make headway against poverty, going back four decades? It's not like its a bipartisan failure -- poverty declined dramatically under Clinton and, despite inheriting the Great Recession, came down a bit under Obama, too. The usual answer would be that the Republican failure is a product of their vision of government, which limits their ability to cope with any problem that doesn't have laissez faire solutions. But what if poverty isn't a negative side effect of ineffectual policy tools, but rather a positive goal of their policies?

That may sound facetious, but it's not meant to be. It's about the "positional good." In some ways, wealth isn't best understood as an absolute thing, but a relative one.

Think of it this way: would you rather live like the owner of a big plantation in 1850, or like a lower-middle-class American today -- setting aside the moral issues of slavery? Well, in a lot of ways, the lower-middle-class person today is better off. He'll very likely live a longer and healthier life, since the kind of medical care that's a bare-minimum standard in the modern world would be unavailable at any price in 1850. He'll be able to dine on foods from all over the world, and to wear clothes manufactured with a robotic precision even greater tailors of earlier eras could meet. He will also have entertainment options that even the richest 19th century person would have trouble affording equivalents of. With a TV and Netflix account, you have the equivalent of having hundreds of theatrical troupes standing by to put on plays of your choosing, and with your mobile phone, you have the equivalent of a 19th century person walking around with a photographer, a team of musicians, a bunch of messengers, stenographers, and clerks, etc. Yet, despite that ABSOLUTE wealth, I think a lot of people would opt to be the plantation owner, moral considerations aside. Relative to the surrounding society, that person was very rich. He was respected and envied, and was be surrounded by dozens or hundreds of people subservient to him. That has emotional value for a lot of people.

The same concept works within modern America. There's a famous quotation, variously attributed, to the effect that "It is not enough to succeed; others must fail." I think there's a real undercurrent of that sentiment in our society that drives conservatism. Paul Krugman refers to it as "Republican Sadism":

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/dollars-cents-republican-sadism.html?rref=collection/column/paul-krugman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&assetType=opinion

"Making lower-income Americans worse off has become a goal in itself for the modern G.O.P., a goal the party is actually willing to spend money and increase deficits to achieve."​

Living a comfortable middle-class lifestyle will not taste as sweet for some people if they feel like others who don't deserve it are living almost as comfortably. If, on the other hand, things like basic medical care, decent education, etc., are not generally assured, then those things become luxury goods, and people who have them can bask in that luxury. So, some people would take the smaller absolute gains in quality of life we see under Republicans, in exchange for the larger RELATIVE gains (relative to "those people," who lose ground.) It's Schadenfreude as prime policy objective.

More poverty in Kaulifornya than any other state. Totally run by Dems/Leftist.

 

[Alinvegas]

Did you read what I wrote.

Does anyone?

 

[JackDallas]

Did you read what I wrote. If, as you believe, Democrats like poverty, isn't it odd they're so consistently good at fighting it (poverty rates falling under every Democratic president in living memory other than Carter)? And if Republicans don't, isn't it odd they're so consistently bad at fighting it (no Republican president after Nixon presiding over falling poverty)?

Well, the fact that everything you said in this post is a huge, steaming pile of dogshit, sort of weakens your argument. Don't you agree?

 

[Arkady]

More poverty in Kaulifornya than any other state. Totally run by Dems/Leftist.

In terms of poverty rates, it's not even close.... counting the territories, it has the 21st highest poverty rate. The highest, among the states, is Mississippi, at 21.9%. California is at 16.4%.

 

[Arkady]

Well, the fact that everything you said in this post is a huge, steaming pile of dogshit, sort of weakens your argument. Don't you agree?

Which of the facts I posted were you unaware of?

 

[Arkady]

Does anyone?

Yes. The smarter posters regularly do. Did you?

 

[Colorforms]

You don't appear to be willing to confront that, at least on paper, this isn't a bipartisan failing. Poverty fell dramatically on Clinton's watch. It fell on Obama's watch, too, as it did during every Democratic presidency in living memory other than Carter's.

It went up on Obama's watch and then declined from that high point, but it was still higher under Obama.

 

[redtide]

Quick: when was the last time we had a Republican presidency that ended with lower poverty rates than it started with?

I'm pretty sure that not even the conservatives here would identify either Bush as the answer to that question. Poverty famously increased dramatically during each of their presidencies. But maybe you're tempted to guess Reagan. Nope, didn't happen. Ford? Uh uh. Turns out it was Nixon. Although poverty declined only a fifth as much on his watch as during the same length of time before he took office, it at least did decline.

So, what is the reason for this failure by Republican leadership to make headway against poverty, going back four decades? It's not like its a bipartisan failure -- poverty declined dramatically under Clinton and, despite inheriting the Great Recession, came down a bit under Obama, too. The usual answer would be that the Republican failure is a product of their vision of government, which limits their ability to cope with any problem that doesn't have laissez faire solutions. But what if poverty isn't a negative side effect of ineffectual policy tools, but rather a positive goal of their policies?

That may sound facetious, but it's not meant to be. It's about the "positional good." In some ways, wealth isn't best understood as an absolute thing, but a relative one.

Think of it this way: would you rather live like the owner of a big plantation in 1850, or like a lower-middle-class American today -- setting aside the moral issues of slavery? Well, in a lot of ways, the lower-middle-class person today is better off. He'll very likely live a longer and healthier life, since the kind of medical care that's a bare-minimum standard in the modern world would be unavailable at any price in 1850. He'll be able to dine on foods from all over the world, and to wear clothes manufactured with a robotic precision even greater tailors of earlier eras could meet. He will also have entertainment options that even the richest 19th century person would have trouble affording equivalents of. With a TV and Netflix account, you have the equivalent of having hundreds of theatrical troupes standing by to put on plays of your choosing, and with your mobile phone, you have the equivalent of a 19th century person walking around with a photographer, a team of musicians, a bunch of messengers, stenographers, and clerks, etc. Yet, despite that ABSOLUTE wealth, I think a lot of people would opt to be the plantation owner, moral considerations aside. Relative to the surrounding society, that person was very rich. He was respected and envied, and was be surrounded by dozens or hundreds of people subservient to him. That has emotional value for a lot of people.

The same concept works within modern America. There's a famous quotation, variously attributed, to the effect that "It is not enough to succeed; others must fail." I think there's a real undercurrent of that sentiment in our society that drives conservatism. Paul Krugman refers to it as "Republican Sadism":

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/dollars-cents-republican-sadism.html?rref=collection/column/paul-krugman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&assetType=opinion

"Making lower-income Americans worse off has become a goal in itself for the modern G.O.P., a goal the party is actually willing to spend money and increase deficits to achieve."​

Living a comfortable middle-class lifestyle will not taste as sweet for some people if they feel like others who don't deserve it are living almost as comfortably. If, on the other hand, things like basic medical care, decent education, etc., are not generally assured, then those things become luxury goods, and people who have them can bask in that luxury. So, some people would take the smaller absolute gains in quality of life we see under Republicans, in exchange for the larger RELATIVE gains (relative to "those people," who lose ground.) It's Schadenfreude as prime policy objective.

well I would say the last time was now. more people on food stamps at the end of obie's 8 then at the begining and the numbers are dropping now that Trump has undone much of obie's punitive taxes and regulations,

 

[JackDallas]

Which of the facts I posted were you unaware of?

I am aware that there are no facts in your post.

 

[JackDallas]

In terms of poverty rates, it's not even close.... counting the territories, it has the 21st highest poverty rate. The highest, among the states, is Mississippi, at 21.9%. California is at 16.4%.

Well, if you pull numbers out of your ass, maybe.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/whats-matter-california/

 

[JackDallas]

Yes. The smarter posters regularly do. Did you?

How about giving me a list of the posters, on this forum, whom you consider to be the smart posters.

 

[marvin martian]

How about giving me a list of the posters, on this forum, whom you consider to be the smart posters.

This should be good...