American Domestic Policy - No Clear Solution for "Haves vs. Have nots"

[Fergasun]

I'm starting a new topic because this post is a spin off of an idea I had about Trump -- but it goes much further.  

I was annoyed by Trump again this week, and I realized how much I despise his nation-wide leadership. As much as I would like to explain that his irrational roll-back of the Obama regulations on military equipment was a roll-back of "good governance policy" (and didn't actually prevent police from getting that equipment), I'm going to discuss something else in general.  Something we should be all concerned with in America.

   

A demagogue is:

Quote

a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

 

I think the political issue in this nation is that we have gone so far awry with demagoguary that we are stuck with political leaders who don't just look at things rationally.  

One of my hopes for Trump was that he actually would govern using "rational argument" (I mean it was clear he wasn't from the campaign that he ran... but one could hope the right people surrrounding him...).  

 

Domestically, the country has stagnated in crises-to-crises since 2008.  Although 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan have distracted us, the country is struggling with a way to deal with the "haves" and "have nots".  I don't even think that we can agree on who the "haves" and "have nots" are -- other than most people think that "haves" are not them.  Domestically, people are dealing with, unemployment, through the roof health care costs (even with Obamacare), through the roof higher education costs (college-industrial-complex), and through the roof housing costs (especially in the places where you can get oppurtunity).  Yet, not one of our damn politicians are really willing to speak out plainly, clearly, and directly about these problems (Bernie did, but "no one wants a socialist").

 

In the midst of all this -- Trump comes in, and as a President with no political background and expectation, he was in a position to a lot of good.  I always felt that he would have an easy path to re-election if he went purple... truly try to fill his cabinet with "the best" like he promised (and not political hacks), and really try to address the issues we have been dealing with as a country since probably 2006 (housing crash, stock market, banking bailout?).    

 

This country is still in crises. We can act like its Obamacare, but it's really not. I think both parties need to admit, Obamacare is not what is putting this country in crises.  Both parties need to also admit that lack of tax reform is not putting this country in crises.  Both parties need to admit that immigration is not putting this country into crises.  I actually wouldn't mind building the wall, just so we can look in 10 years and say --- "You guys wanted a wall, the wall was a dumb idea" and some President can say to their DHS secretary -- "MR SECRETARY TEAR DOWN THAT WALL." 
  
By ignoring all the domestic crises (you could even say national debt -- no one wanted to touch that and we ended up in sequestration in 2013) we are at risk of, and maybe already have started down a different American path than "leader of the free world".  So the question to us as Americans is "what the **** are we going to do about it?"  We keep electing demagogues who have no real interest in addressing the needs of our nation.  Over and over and over again.  I'm supposed to end these types of things with "solutions" -- but I don't have them.  I hear about "getting back to our Constitution" or "having a Constitutional Congress" but that's not going to solve the problem of who we rely on for political leadership as a country.     

 

Without any solution we are going to lurch around the same way we have for the past 15+ years, the "have nots" will continue to fall behind... the "haves" will continue to be fine.  I'm not satisfied that that course for our nation. I know I'm not offering solutions, but this is something we need to keep talking about.  

[Springfield]

Well, I'll start off going with the theme of your OP.

 

Both political parties view themselves as the "have nots" and the other side as the "haves".  Their constuents eat this stuff right up and regurgitate it en masse.

 

Of course the truth is in the middle.  The "haves" so to speak are the politicians, and the "have nots" are most of the rest of the population.  You can break that down even further though, a family making $130,000 a year, owning a single family home with two cars, would be considered "haves" when compared to a rural couple with 4 kids, a non working mother and a father who makes $35,000 a year, renting a double wide trailer.

 

 

There is no perspective any longer.  One side preys on people from a rural background and the troubles they face and the other side preys on people from a city background and the troubles that they face.  We would do well with a leader who unites those troubles into one pointed platform.

[LadySkinsFan]

To spring off your post, Springfield, the rural population you describe is mostly white and the city population is mostly black. The Republicans have spent well over half a century creating and ramping up a division between these two populations. We've just witnessed this with the rise of overt white supremacy, with POTUS cheerleading this division. 

 

How do you propose finding a leader who will unite them? Serious question.

[skinsmarydu]

29 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Well, I'll start off going with the theme of your OP.

 

Both political parties view themselves as the "have nots" and the other side as the "haves".  Their constuents eat this stuff right up and regurgitate it en masse.

 

Of course the truth is in the middle.  The "haves" so to speak are the politicians, and the "have nots" are most of the rest of the population.  You can break that down even further though, a family making $130,000 a year, owning a single family home with two cars, would be considered "haves" when compared to a rural couple with 4 kids, a non working mother and a father who makes $35,000 a year, renting a double wide trailer.

 

 

There is no perspective any longer.  One side preys on people from a rural background and the troubles they face and the other side preys on people from a city background and the troubles that they face.  We would do well with a leader who unites those troubles into one pointed platform.

I can't just give this post a "like", or a "thanks".  It's the ****in' truth. 

And we had that President.  People hated him for even trying.

What's that tell you about our division now? 

Tears are coming down as I type this:  I WANT MY PRESIDENT BACK. 

[Fergasun]

Well, in our two-party system, the political parties spend at lot of their energy at trying to distinguish themselves and convince voters that the other political party is evil and bad.  So how can non-Presidential party unite behind the President? I will note that Bush and Congress worked well together from 2005 to 2008... and Bush seemed to understand that he had to work well with Congressional Democrats.  Obama and Congressional Republicans did not unite very well 2011 to 2016... (and Obama did extend bi-partisan branches... we nearly had the "Grand Bargain" debt  reform).  Actually, the 2011 debt-deal leading to sequestration was probably the point that the Obama Presidency realized (and Republican Congress) that there's no point to trying anything domestically.  

 

The sad point is that they politically shouldn't have to wait 5 years to solve the countries problems, just because the solution in front of you is not what you like (see, Scalia Supreme Court vacancy -- yes, GOP used their Congressional power to block but man... putting party ahead of country).   

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

22 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I can't just give this post a "like", or a "thanks".  It's the ****in' truth. 

And we had that President.  People hated him for even trying.

What's that tell you about our division now? 

Tears are coming down as I type this:  I WANT MY PRESIDENT BACK. 

I think most people wrongly assume it is about the president.  Obama showed how little power the POTUS really has.  People need to focus more on who they support for Congress.

[TradeTheBeal!]

19 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think most people wrongly assume it is about the president.  Obama showed how little power the POTUS really has.  People need to focus more on who they support for Congress.

 

This sounds nice but sadly it's inaccurate.  For rural whites the fix is in...their districts are gerrymandered and their "candidates" are thoroughly vetted and chosen by Right-wing special interests/media.  Their vote has no more power than the vote of a USSR citizen circa 1980.  The Tea Party/RINO phenomenon was the killing blow.

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

This sounds nice but sadly it's inaccurate.  For rural whites the fix is in...their districts are gerrymandered and their "candidates" are thoroughly vetted and chosen by Right-wing special interests/media.  Their vote has no more power than the vote of a USSR citizen circa 1980.  The Tea Party/RINO phenomenon was the killing blow.

This is true but no different for the POTUS level.  And again, the POTUS has little power which is why nothing gets done.  If POTUS had more power, Obama would have been able to get a lot more done.  And so would Trump (which is scary).

[tshile]

I see two problems

 

There's no more middle ground anymore. Try to enter a political conversation with a middle ground mindset and see how quickly you're labeled as one of 'them' by the rest of those participating. 

 

People spend too much time worrying about how 'bad' the other team's candidate is, and not enough on how good/bad their own candidates are. People who willingly identify with either party can never be expected to vote for the other side, they will always have a reason why their guy is the better option. If they'd just spend 1/2 the time spent criticizing the other side looking hard at their own candidates, maybe those of us not attached to either would have better options...

[88Comrade2000]

I am surprised you held out any hope that the Trump presidency could do any good things. What he appealed to while running; showed we  were in for dark times. Frankly, I am surprised things aren't worse.

 

The politicians on both sides have convinced people; that the side that doesn't agree with you is evil. You oppose them and you don't find common ground.

[No Excuses]

At one point or another, both Democrats and Republicans have sacrificed the American worker to the altar of profit and big business growth.

 

Deindustrialization and globalization was handled much better by almost every other developed nation. 

 

We, for some reason, just decided that large chunks of our population were useless and we had no practical need for them to participate in our economy and governance.

 

The real tragedy of all is that working poor of both white and colored groups have it rough, but they are driven apart politically and often pit against each other.

[zoony]

Om the one hand, money is like fertilizer, you maximize its effectiveness when you spread it around.

 

On the other hand, generational poverty exists largely because those people suck at life and consistently make poor choices.

 

Ive never really seen a good solution, but in general I think we need far MORE social programs in this country, but those programs need to be far more radical.  Paying poor people is not the answer, and neither is punishing those who work hard and smart everyday.  Im a big proponent of welfare with job training attached.  I also think we need to stop letting lazy trash have children.  That makes me very popular in these discussions, but deep down everyone knows Im right.  Paying people to get fixed sounds like a good idea.  Also, lets identify the true mentally il, among the poor and take care of them

[The Sisko]

19 hours ago, No Excuses said:

We, for some reason, just decided that large chunks of our population were useless and we had no practical need for them to participate in our economy and governance.

 

The real tragedy of all is that working poor of both white and colored groups have it rough, but they are driven apart politically and often pit against each other.

This goes back to before the revolutionary war. Nathaniel Bacon tried to unite poor whites and blacks in a rebellion against the planter class. It was put down but the result was the creation of policies and ideas designed to put them against one another and create in essence a caste system that has largely endured to this day. If you think about a lot of the GOP's policies, they track along similar lines. 

 

17 hours ago, zoony said:

On the other hand, generational poverty exists largely because those people suck at life and consistently make poor choices...

 

...I also think we need to stop letting lazy trash have children.  That makes me very popular in these discussions, but deep down everyone knows Im right.  Paying people to get fixed sounds like a good idea.

I guess three generations of imbeciles is enough for you so you're for a kinder, gentler eugenics, huh? ? And where does that slippery slope end? Sorry but we've actually tried that semi-final solution and it didn't work. All it did was provide us something in common with the Nazis.

 

Regarding your ideas about "trash" and No Excuse's first paragraph quoted above, try reading White Trash by Nancy Isenberg. The idea of the need to control/exploit "worthless" poor whites, eugenics and our explicit caste system have driven much of everything about this country from the beginning. As Lyndon Johnson put it,  "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

 

[LadySkinsFan]

In the late 90s, I attended a meeting between the Baltimore NOW group and a group of Black women to talk about our differences and how we could work together. NOW is largely seen as entitled white women.

 

One of the topics was abortion, which NOW supports, but much to my surprise the Black women were pro-life. Their reason was that they viewed abortion as a part of the eugenics movement to limit their race and to keep the U.S. white controlled. It was eye opening to say the least. I posit that the abortion issue is why some Black people are Republicans due to this issue.

 

BTW, there is still a division between white and black feminists working together. It's gotten somewhat better, dialog is still continuing. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Saw this article on FB, interesting take on what needs to be done. It's focused on the Democrats, and I considered putting it in that thread, think it goes here better.

 

http://billmoyers.com/story/everything-thats-wrong-democratic-reboot-one-lousy-op-ed/

 

Then there's this.

 

 

[The Sisko]

2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

One of the topics was abortion, which NOW supports, but much to my surprise the Black women were pro-life. Their reason was that they viewed abortion as a part of the eugenics movement to limit their race and to keep the U.S. white controlled. It was eye opening to say the least. I posit that the abortion issue is why some Black people are Republicans due to this issue.

 

BTW, there is still a division between white and black feminists working together. It's gotten somewhat better, dialog is still continuing. 

This is a case of certain interests, some on the right and others on the left, using some partial historical facts about Margaret Sanger to manipulate the opinions of some black voters. It's not unlike the "Democrats were the segregationists" nonsense that some try to pull off. It's factually true, but takes much out of context and ignores subsequent history.

[twa]

Just now, The Sisko said:

This is a case of certain interests, some on the right and others on the left, using some partial historical facts about Margaret Sanger to manipulate the opinions of some black voters. It's not unlike the "Democrats were the segregationists" nonsense that some try to pull off. It's factually true, but takes much out of context and ignores subsequent history.

 

what is the historical rate of black fetuses being aborted vs others?

 

Disparate impact only matters when convenient?

[The Sisko]

54 minutes ago, twa said:

 

what is the historical rate of black fetuses being aborted vs others?

 

Disparate impact only matters when convenient?

Thanks for your input. 

[twa]

Disparate impact doesn't count if we don't give them personhood right?

[Busch1724]

TWA,

 

• White patients accounted for 39% of abortion procedures in 2014, blacks for 28%, Hispanics for 25% and patients of other races and ethnicities for 9%. Link for source below.
•  
• (Link with many other stats: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states?gclid=CjwKCAjwlrnNBRBMEiwApKU4PHHm7BvlQKzAFw7VZKZh4K81GEJco0g0k6JDhhUqypuibA89Umio7xoCr9AQAvD_BwE)

 

[LadySkinsFan]

I'm going to stick this right here. If anyone can answer the question, that would be appreciated.

 

 

[grego]

37 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

TWA,

 

• White patients accounted for 39% of abortion procedures in 2014, blacks for 28%, Hispanics for 25% and patients of other races and ethnicities for 9%. Link for source below.
•  
• (Link with many other stats: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states?gclid=CjwKCAjwlrnNBRBMEiwApKU4PHHm7BvlQKzAFw7VZKZh4K81GEJco0g0k6JDhhUqypuibA89Umio7xoCr9AQAvD_BwE)

 

 

I'm not sure that means what you think it means. 

[NoCalMike]

It seems like as of late there's been a real ramping up of politicians trying to convince their specific base that they are the most oppressed and in need of help.  It has been a great way to divide and conquer as opposed to actually come up with policies that are designed to help everybody. 

 

 

[twa]

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

It seems like as of late there's been a real ramping up of politicians trying to convince their specific base that they are the most oppressed and in need of help.  It has been a great way to divide and conquer as opposed to actually come up with policies that are designed to help everybody. 

 

 

 

Of late?....seems a lifetime thing to me

 

5 minutes ago, grego said:

 

I'm not sure that means what you think it means. 

 

I'm sure 28% while being 13.3% of the population is meaningless and not disparate.....but no matter if they don't matter.

[grego]

On 9/3/2017 at 3:57 PM, zoony said:

 

 

On the other hand, generational poverty exists largely because those people suck at life and consistently make poor choices.

 

 

 

criticizing behavior, or culture, has become the ultimate no go zone. its a non starter. and thats bad news of you think poor decisions are important.

 

and ive made more bad decisions than i can count.