Blame Trump’s Victory on College-Educated Whites, Not the Working Class - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yff;51386524]Was there an outcry like this about black votes when Obama won?[/QUOTE] Pretty sure there was. I don't think just black people either, a minority president was a really big deal for some.

Blame yourself, if you didn't want Trump you would have voted Hilary. But I think both options are pretty bad so be glad you've got the one that might resemble some change.

[QUOTE=Chopstick;51386631]Blame yourself, if you didn't want Trump you would have voted Hilary. But I think both options are pretty bad so be glad you've got the one that might resemble some change.[/QUOTE] But people did, it's just that their votes don't matter because they lived in the wrong place. Also change isn't necessarily good.

Very misleading article. Sure, middle class and wealthy suburban whites also voted for Trump in high numbers, but Trump actually got less of them than Mitt Romney. The key voters that swung the states in the Midwest were largely blue-collar whites who voted for Obama. [IMG]https://s22.postimg.org/vmyhjxwkh/IMG_7471.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;51386446]Decreasing social mobility, rising wealth inequality, loss of jobs, increasing cost of education, increasing cost of healthcare, etc, etc, etc. None of which are specific to being white of course, but for many Americans these would be their biggest problems. Concerns which the Democratic establishment shows no signs of addressing. Trump may or may not actually do anything about these problems (I'm thinking not) but at least he was the one talking about them.[/QUOTE] Everyone goes through what you have mentioned, but the poor white bloc in the Rust Belt has felt that harder than anyone else barring the black community in the southern states. Loss of what was their bread and butter and lack of alternative jobs, no chance at getting a college education because of the cost and lack of job and increasing inequality and yet despite their worsening conditions they have become tossed to the side and are told by the Democrats they don't matter anymore but they need to make sure to vote "in their interests".

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51386116]When regulations are loosened, what evidence is there to show companies won't just pocket the new profits into their CEO's accounts instead of "hiring entire departments"?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that the amount of regulations does not matter. Their purpose does. The problem is that regulations always get put into an "amount" category by both sides. I'm saying regulations should be efficient and to the point. There is a lot of useless red tape just to make red tape. Not to prevent any company from screwing over the public. And sure, those large corporations could try to put those bills into their CEO's pocket. But the point is that they would have competition that they do not currently have. Why, for instance, is so much of US media controlled by just 6 companies? (Hint: They used the government to block their competitors, i.e. using the FCC for instance to make it so cost prohibitive to run a simple FM station.)

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51383781]And the solution is to lower taxes on the rich? How can you agree with that with a straight face?[/QUOTE] "But it'll totally work this time! It all works out on paper!"

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;51384878]Did you see me say minimum wage increases are bad? I didn't, and thats not my opinion. Increasing minimum wages seems to be mostly good. Nor is that related to increasing taxes on the rich. Try to be coherent. So you don't know how increasing taxes on the rich helps income inequality (it doesn't) but you still are in favor of it because.... ????[/QUOTE] It's a common argument from conservatives that raising the minimum wage is bad, I didn't say you said it was, but it's a common argument When I combine all the arguments from the right about taxation and wealth disparity, the solution seems to be "Let it go" Taxation is meant to provide funds for social programs that help others. If we can't tax the rich more to provide better services and programs, and we can't raise minimum wage, it really seems like we just want to leave the poor to their own devices and never resolve issues.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51388471]It's a common argument from conservatives that raising the minimum wage is bad, I didn't say you said it was, but it's a common argument When I combine all the arguments from the right about taxation and wealth disparity, the solution seems to be "Let it go" Taxation is meant to provide funds for social programs that help others. If we can't tax the rich more to provide better services and programs, and we can't raise minimum wage, it really seems like we just want to leave the poor to their own devices and never resolve issues.[/QUOTE] you can raise the minimum wage because there is actual evidence that shows that it helps. Some evidence against it, but from what i can tell the larger body of evidence suggests it is overall a good thing. increased taxation on the wealthy, as i linked to a study in a prior post, does not do anything to help with income inequality. I further suggest it would increase the amount of money that the wealthy attempt to hide. there is always going to be wealth inequality. Always. Short of implementing a communist system, which is really just replacing a 3 class system with a 2 class system. The poor and the inner cabinet. It is a simple fact of life that some can and others can't. This is why vague goals like "fixing inequality" are a kind of mawkish emotional reasoning, not sober minded appraisal of issues. A more targeted goal would be something like reducing the amount of people who live below the poverty line.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;51388569]you can raise the minimum wage because there is actual evidence that shows that it helps. Some evidence against it, but from what i can tell the larger body of evidence suggests it is overall a good thing. increased taxation on the wealthy, as i linked to a study in a prior post, does not do anything to help with income inequality. I further suggest it would increase the amount of money that the wealthy attempt to hide. there is always going to be wealth inequality. Always. Short of implementing a communist system, which is really just replacing a 3 class system with a 2 class system. The poor and the inner cabinet. It is a simple fact of life that some can and others can't. This is why vague goals like "fixing inequality" are a kind of mawkish emotional reasoning, not sober minded appraisal of issues. A more targeted goal would be something like reducing the amount of people who live below the poverty line.[/QUOTE] And how do you raise people up from the poverty line? My city is seeing a crisis where affordability rates are literally driving people onto the street, due to how unaffordable things are, it's a real crisis. Due to how the real estate bubble here will never pop, and how wages here literally haven't gone up with inflation to a ridiculous degree, if someone has a bad month, they can very easily end up on the street with no way back. How do you prevent that without in some way making the ultra rich inconvenienced? Why does everything in our society cater to them in every possible way? [editline]17th November 2016[/editline] I just feel that ultimately, we're saying "No, you can't affect the rich, they're better than you, they deserve to not have to deal with you or your shit, or helping you or helping society, because if we tried to enforce that, they'd use their considerable resources to dodge the situation because money gives you the freedom to do that" I mean fuck it, if we want the ultra rich to have all the power, and all the options to dictate what manner of progress forward we use then this seems like the way to go.

getting tired of hearing the dnc " fall in line "

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51388614]And how do you raise people up from the poverty line? My city is seeing a crisis where affordability rates are literally driving people onto the street, due to how unaffordable things are, it's a real crisis. Due to how the real estate bubble here will never pop, and how wages here literally haven't gone up with inflation to a ridiculous degree, if someone has a bad month, they can very easily end up on the street with no way back. How do you prevent that without in some way making the ultra rich inconvenienced? Why does everything in our society cater to them in every possible way? [editline]17th November 2016[/editline] I just feel that ultimately, we're saying "No, you can't affect the rich, they're better than you, they deserve to not have to deal with you or your shit, or helping you or helping society, because if we tried to enforce that, they'd use their considerable resources to dodge the situation because money gives you the freedom to do that" I mean fuck it, if we want the ultra rich to have all the power, and all the options to dictate what manner of progress forward we use then this seems like the way to go.[/QUOTE] No, you're just seriously confused about who you want to target. For example, you just touched on a key point there: real estate. These vultures have been jacking up rates and prices for decades now. Property in the US, UK, and AUS (i imagine its no different in CA) are grossly overvalued. Rent prices only increase as urbanization expands. So there is something government can target by enacting regulations to keep a lid on property hikes, perhaps some sort of regulation to create a cap on how overvalued a property can be put on the market. Taxing the wealthy dramatically more just because they are wealthy? why? If we establish it doesn't do anything to improve income inequality (how could it? it simply cant) then why do it other than to be spiteful because some people have it better than you? Sanders proposed a top tax bracket of 50%. If I'm a wildly successful entrepreneur, and ive gone from rags to riches off the back of risking my own money, possibly (probably) in debt from loans and years of my life building something for the express purpose of being rich, and then you come along and tell me you want to tax 50% of my income so the government (notoriously inept, notably corrupt) can do whatever they please with it, well shit I'm probably going to feel inclined to lie and hide too. And getting back to what i mean by you being confused, your posts give off this attitude that you think the ultra rich are the cause of these problems and should be duly penalized . Why do you think this way? do you really believe that everyone who is rich got their money by swindling and cheating the system like a wall street stockbroker? Seriously i dont get it. You want to target the rich because.... they are rich? You speak about affordability rates, well this is the behavior of the specific group of people involved in the real estate market. What does this have to do with people who became rich through gambling, or investment, or creating businesses, or buying a mine? How does taxing them stop the decision making of real estate vultures?

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;51388853]No, you're just seriously confused about who you want to target. For example, you just touched on a key point there: real estate. These vultures have been jacking up rates and prices for decades now. Property in the US, UK, and AUS (i imagine its no different in CA) are grossly overvalued. Rent prices only increase as urbanization expands. So there is something government can target by enacting regulations to keep a lid on property hikes, perhaps some sort of regulation to create a cap on how overvalued a property can be put on the market. Taxing the wealthy dramatically more just because they are wealthy? why? If we establish it doesn't do anything to improve income inequality (how could it? it simply cant) then why do it other than to be spiteful because some people have it better than you? Sanders proposed a top tax bracket of 50%. If I'm a wildly successful entrepreneur, and ive gone from rags to riches off the back of risking my own money, possibly (probably) in debt from loans and years of my life building something for the express purpose of being rich, and then you come along and tell me you want to tax 50% of my income so the government (notoriously inept, notably corrupt) can do whatever they please with it, well shit I'm probably going to feel inclined to lie and hide too. And getting back to what i mean by you being confused, your posts give off this attitude that you think the ultra rich are the cause of these problems and should be duly penalized . Why do you think this way? do you really believe that everyone who is rich got their money by swindling and cheating the system like a wall street stockbroker? Seriously i dont get it. You want to target the rich because.... they are rich? You speak about affordability rates, well this is the behavior of the specific group of people involved in the real estate market. What does this have to do with people who became rich through gambling, or investment, or creating businesses, or buying a mine? How does taxing them stop the decision making of real estate vultures?[/QUOTE] I don't think they deserve targeting because it's all their fault, but clearly they have more power than you're giving them credit for here. I have one vote, in one election, every so often. A billionaire has the power to talk to the politicians in power at any given time. It's expected of them. As a regular joe, how can I reconcile that with a supposedly "democratic" society? He has more influence than I could ever with a vote, so how do I combat that? How do I combat the influence of the ultra rich who don't want to raise minimum wages or don't want more taxes or whatever they decide is best for society I don't think you're getting my points or my concerns.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51388882]I don't think they deserve targeting because it's all their fault, but clearly they have more power than you're giving them credit for here. I have one vote, in one election, every so often. A billionaire has the power to talk to the politicians in power at any given time. It's expected of them. As a regular joe, how can I reconcile that with a supposedly "democratic" society? He has more influence than I could ever with a vote, so how do I combat that? How do I combat the influence of the ultra rich who don't want to raise minimum wages or don't want more taxes or whatever they decide is best for society I don't think you're getting my points or my concerns.[/QUOTE] I dont get your points or concerns because you're not being coherent and at this point it really looks like you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. This started off about income inequality, now you're talking about the level of influence someone wields in society. If thats the case, nothing will be fair until we are all one amorphous blob of shared sentience. A person who is simply better looking than you has more influence in a room of people. Even still, this isnt germane to increasing taxes. Increased taxes on the rich aren't being funneled into YOUR pocket as reparations for the influence people better off might or might not have. They are funneled into government departments to spend as they see fit, which often isn't intelligently and sometimes is even done illegally. You could increase the top tax bracket to 75%, this still wouldn't increase your influence. So why insist on doing it then? The only option i'm left with is that you think this is something that should be done because you are spiteful.

Fair enough. Here's my problem as best I can put it then. Wealth inequality is a fact of life. I accept that. Wealth inequality is getting worse. I accept that. Wealth inequality isn't a good thing. I accept that. Taxation isn't a method to help the poor. I accept that. From where I stand then, you're looking at just removing government intervention on all fields. I see problems with this from everything to product quality to employee safety to employee well being.

what the fuck literally two posts ago i just said to you that government intervention in real estate would be helpful. How is this looking at removing government intervention on all fields? If Im an orthodontist i don't cut someones jaw off because the TMJs are hurting.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;51389273]what the fuck literally two posts ago i just said to you that government intervention in real estate would be helpful. How is this looking at removing government intervention on all fields? If Im an orthodontist i don't cut someones jaw off because the TMJs are hurting.[/QUOTE] There's already regulation in the real estate market here Depending on what type of capitalist I listen to here, government intervention is either required, or evil and should be kept out Which situation is actually helpful? There's quite a bit of regulation in this market, and many say "thats why there's such an affordability issue" but there's also those saying the opposite. Who's right?

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;51388853]Seriously i dont get it. You want to target the rich because.... they are rich?[/QUOTE] No, you tax the rich because people living paycheck to paycheck actually need their money just to live modestly. Why put the burden on someone who has to stretch their wallet just to cover their bills and most basic needs? You put all this emphasis on protecting the rich but what about the poor?

I'd like to point out that - at least according to the CNN article - that study doesn't say that progressive taxation doesn't decrease wealth inequality. Obviously (and intuitively) it does, but the effect, considering the current wealth inequality, of raising the tax on the highest tax bracket with 10% wouldn't be big. Shit needs to come through structural changes, like free college and free healthcare. And other stuff, including taxation.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51389557]No, you tax the rich because people living paycheck to paycheck actually need their money just to live modestly. Why put the burden on someone who has to stretch their wallet just to cover their bills and most basic needs? You put all this emphasis on protecting the rich but what about the poor?[/QUOTE] jesus christ, if you are going to jump in, have the fucking common courtesy to read through on whats already been said I know you didn't because of the dumb shit you just said

Yep, let's find one specific group and blame them instead of blaming the multitude of different groups, and the multitude of different events and situations and how they effect each individual group differently.

Don't quite understand how a candidate so staunchly anti intellectual appealed to the educated but exit polls lolz

Blame it on the rain.