The 10 poorest states in America are....

Covid drove the unemployment to over 14%.

Covid ended. Not all the people who were employed while Trump was president went back to work after covid was over.

 

The biggest drop in unemployment occurred under Trump. The unemployment reached a peak of 14.8% in in April 2020. It dropped to 6.4% in Jan 2020, a drop of 6.4%. Biden dropped it from 6.4% in April 2020 to 3.9% in Feb 2024, a drop of only 2.5%.

Sorry. The number I quoted as Feb 2023, was Feb 2024. Those are the latest numbers put out by The US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Civilian unemployment rate (bls.gov)

 

I love that you people say 30 years isn’t enough time for policy positions to work in the states but that Biden is responsible for things that happened just because of his election and before he took office.

It’s laughable

 

Great question. I would reduce government to a minimum and minimize the burden on tax payers. This allows workers to keep more of what they make and keep employers from leaving. I would ban private meetings between lobbyists and politicians. They would be live streamed and recorded. No more no bid government contracts for campaign contributors. When politicians come up with more spending, they must first find cuts. Government is out of control and both parties are spending like thieves with stolen credit cards. There’s more, but it will have to wait. Have a good weekend.

 

Oh I understood it all right. And told you precisely why you are wrong as is your usual wont you dodged like the last kid left on the south end of the dodge ball court.

 

Your funny Biden and the dems are one of the main reasons it hasn't happened yet. And everyone of those states is better off now in almost every way now than when the Democrats ruled them/

 

So Biden — president for 3 years — is the cause that republicans haven’t been able to fix the red states they have had complete control of for the last 30 years?

Sure. That makes sense!

That’s an impressive amount of logic

 

If you have evidence of Biden being a 'sex offender', please post it.

 

How many of those states have leftist cities with high cost of living and rightist countrysides with low cost of living?

ALL of them, right?

State to state comparisons just arent good for much, especially politically and economically.

 

I didn't raise that as a point.

Substantiate, please.
But...
Compared to Republicans, they always win that pissing contest. Do you actually need proof?

I have no idea what you are talking about so you'll need to be specific.

I don't love how unspecific you often are. Generalities and weasel words become you.

Please substantiate this claim.

Good for him, but your anecdote is irrelevant.

You're speaking in generalities again, a euphemism for 'weasel words'. Substantiate, please.

so, all told, your claim that Democrats work for the rich is a sweeping generalization that doesn't account for the complex landscape of American politics.

And while your concerns about government responsibility, educational efficiency, and tax policy are valid discussion points, the arguments presented lean heavily on generalizations and anecdotal evidence that don't fully capture the complexity of the issues at hand.

Simply put, you'll have to do better than this.

 

Trump, with his tax bill favoring the superrich, was way to the right of clinton. His health bill, which failed, was to the right of Clinton's health bill, which also failed. Taht's how you tell who is left, right, or center, look at their health policies.

At the time, most moderate dems didn't, either. Evolution on this didn't come until the 2000s.

Another thing, 'transgenderism' wasn't in the public consciousness, in any particular way, at the time, though gay activism really took off under Reagan, probably due to the AIDS crisis.

No they wouldn't, they'd be consider as centrist, given clinton's health bill which was left of center, I'd put them smack in the middle. His Welfare reform, most Repubs want to do away with it, so it was a compromise, but clinton signed the commodity futures modernization act, which was far more conservative.

True, no moderate conservativism, that is, because they are so far to the right now they are off the charts.

You were doing okay until you hit me with the above weasel words.

I don't have to look them up, where others read about history, I remember it (I can remember back to the 'great society' days.) .

However, his Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which brought us exotic derivatives, credit default swaps,shook up the financial community in 2008, which, in my view, despite the subprime fiasco, the system would have withstood it, but for the default swaps, it was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, and that points directly to Clinton.

 

You missed the point entirely. Try reading the OP, this time.

 

Well, since you think you know the answer, why are you asking me?

Clearly you have some ulterior motive.

if you have a point to make, just make it. you'll feel better.

 

Congratulations, you missed the point of the OP, entirely.

 

Wasn't the point of the OP.

 

Around here we swim in the river and ride ATVs and drink beer and shoot guns and go fishing.

I lived in the big city of Tampa for 16 years before moving to the country over a decade ago and I could give a damn less if this county is considered poor, life is much better here.

I don't spend upwards of 3 hours a day of my life sitting in traffic and that is absolutely priceless

 

Anyone who pontificates about results, but only those results which agree with their predetermined conclusion when the facts, the complete facts, defy them, and they still ignore them, they cannot possibly be 'correct'.

It's called you didn't grasp the comment, let alone read it.

 

Great point!

 

My point was that your statement was a non sequitur fallacy. I asked you so that you could realize it. Silly of me.

 

That's a slogan, not a policy.

How, exactly, would you 'reduce government to a minimum'. ?

To what extent, precisely, with real numbers, would that unburden taxpayers?

See, while the idea of minimizing government size and tax burden appeals to the values of efficiency, freedom, and fiscal conservatism, its practical implementation must carefully weigh the impacts on public services, social equality, and long-term economic health. The challenge lies in striking a balance that maximizes individual freedom and economic potential while ensuring the well-being and fairness for all members of society.

But this idea of going at government with machetes and weed wackers, with no forethought, consequences, etc., won't cut it with Democrats, I assure you. Get specific, show what 'small government' actually means, because it seems to me that all it has ever meant by Republicans were tax cuts for rich folks and severe limitations on women's reproductive rights.

Without a policy and an analysis of that policy, you can't make that assumption.

That's interesting, that's something specific, that gives me something to think about. Have you thought this through? Doesn't sound like it, it's just a short sentence, and short sentence with constitutional and other sweeping implications rarely are thought through, if that's all you got for it. Sounds good, I can see some benefits, but I see some issues, too. So, I'll do it for you, think it through that is:

So, imagine if we stopped all those secret meetings between lobbyists and politicians and instead had every chat live-streamed and recorded for everyone to see. Sounds like a big deal, right? Well, it is, and it comes with its own set of ups and downs.

On the upside, this could really open things up. People could see what's going on with their own eyes, building trust and making sure things are done for the public good and not just in some smoke-filled room. But then, there's a chance this could all turn into a bit of a show. You know, where everyone's playing to the camera, (of course that's what will happen) hiding the real deal, which might just push the truly important talks even further into the shadows, i.e., it's kinda like prohibition, it will just go underground.

When it comes to the power of lobbyists, this could be a game-changer. Throwing those doors open means everyone gets to hear the pitch, possibly cutting down on the shady stuff. But, let's not kid ourselves, some lobbyists might just get sneakier, or this whole thing could end up helping the big fish who know how to swim through these new waters better than anyone. Ya think?

Now, about keeping things private and the right to speak freely, it's a bit tricky. Lobbying isn't exactly a private, between-friends kind of chat, but blasting every word out there could make people think twice about what they say, fearing it might scare off honest, straightforward talk that's needed to make good policies. I'm reminded of that oft repeated line by Otto von Bismarck, the 19th-century Prussian prime minister who said (paraphrased) "There are two things no citizen should ever witness, which is how they make sausages and how they make laws', and I'm sure lobbying is a big part of the sausage making process.

Then there's the whole setup. Sure, we've got the tech to make live streaming and recording pretty easy and not too expensive, which could make rolling this out pretty smooth. But think about the hassle and the cost of making sure every single conversation is broadcast and stored safely, especially when we're talking about sensitive or classified stuff.

This could really change the vibe of how policies are made. With everything out in the open, we might get a more engaged public, really getting into the details of how decisions are made. But then again, knowing the whole world is watching could make people play it too safe, ditching bold ideas for fear of getting a bad rap, which could lead to bland, ineffective policies.

Legally and ethically, it's a mixed bag. Sure, it sets a high bar for how government should work, all transparent and accountable. But it could run into all sorts of legal troubles over privacy, the right to gather, and free speech. Plus, it might make people wary of having genuine, necessary conversations, leading to more suspicion than trust. Also, there's all sorts of grey areas, so grey that it would be doubtful you could live stream it all. Not all lobbying is cut and dry, meetings are done on golf courses, restaurants, on fishing trips, how does it all work? I'm not seeing it.

All in all, while this idea aims to shine a light and cut down on the shady stuff, it's crucial to think it through from all angles. There might be some bumps along the way that could throw things off track. It might also mean we need to beef up the rules on lobbying and make it easier for everyone to see what's happening in government, to really tackle this complex issue head-on. Overall, it really sounds like you haven't thought it through. I always ask the question, do we need lobbyists?

So, what I will do is ask myself: If I were a legislator, what would I recommend on the lobbying issue?

Well, I would think it through to the best I could, but we have to start somewhere, so a quick, formal, outline, would be a good place to start, so I would sketch out something like this:

Preamble, i.e., what is the issue that needs fixing?

Lobbying, while a fundamental aspect of the democratic process, has raised significant concerns, primarily centered around issues of transparency, fairness, and undue influence. The core of these concerns often relates to the role of money in politics, which can skew policy outcomes towards those with the most financial resources, rather than the public good. Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach focused on increasing transparency, accountability, and equity in the lobbying process. Here are some policy recommendations aimed at improving the situation:

Increase Transparency

1. Public Disclosure of Lobbying Activities: Mandate comprehensive disclosure of all lobbying activities, including the issues lobbied on, the amount of money spent, and the outcomes sought. This information should be easily accessible to the public in a searchable database.
2. Real-Time Reporting: Require lobbyists to report their activities in real-time or close to it, reducing the lag between lobbying activities and public disclosure.
3. Disclosure of Lobbying Targets: Require disclosure of which lawmakers or officials are being lobbied, further clarifying the flow of influence.

Enhance Accountability

1. Tighten Revolving Door Regulations: Implement stricter "cooling-off" periods for public officials before they can engage in lobbying activities after leaving office. This can help prevent conflicts of interest and the perception that public service is a stepping stone to lucrative lobbying careers.
2. Enforce Penalties for Non-Compliance: Establish and enforce significant penalties for lobbyists and politicians who fail to comply with transparency and reporting requirements, deterring unethical behavior.

Promote Equity in Influence

1. Public Financing for Campaigns: Implement public financing options for campaigns to reduce candidates' dependency on large donors and special interests, leveling the playing field for those without substantial lobbying budgets.
2. Limit Contributions and Spending: Place caps on the amount of money that can be spent on lobbying activities and on contributions to political campaigns from lobbyists and the entities they represent.
3. Equal Access Initiatives: Create programs or platforms that provide public interest groups and underrepresented communities more access to lawmakers, ensuring a diversity of voices are heard in the policymaking process.

Foster Civic Engagement and Education

1. Civic Education: Enhance civic education programs to better inform the public about how lobbying works, the role it plays in the democratic process, and how individuals can participate or express their views effectively.
2. Encourage Public Participation: Develop and promote channels for public input in legislative processes, such as public comment periods, town halls, and forums, making it easier for citizens to engage without the need for intermediaries.

Implementing these policy recommendations could help mitigate the negative aspects of lobbying by ensuring that it functions transparently and ethically, with a balanced representation of interests. The goal is to safeguard the integrity of the democratic process, ensuring that policymaking serves the public interest rather than the interests of the few with the means to lobby effectively. Such reforms would require broad support from the public and policymakers alike, highlighting the need for a collective effort to enhance the democratic process.

That's what I mean, by 'think it through'. Now, I don't know if the above is good or bad, I'd have to run it by a bunch of folks, someone who knows about such things, to see if I'm on the right track, but that would be my approach.

The idea to ban no-bid government contracts for campaign contributors and require politicians to offset any new spending with cuts tackles big issues like transparency, fiscal responsibility, and keeping the procurement process honest. This move, aimed at cutting down on excessive spending and potential back-scratching, comes with a bunch of challenges and things to think about:

First off, this could really open up the government spending process, making it clearer who gets contracts and why, which would cut down on deals made just because of political ties. But, pulling this off could take a lot of work, setting up new ways to keep an eye on who's giving money to politicians and making sure things are above board.

Then there's the money side of things. Forcing the government to find places to trim the fat every time they want to spend more could lead to smarter spending habits. The flip side? It might also make it tough to respond quickly to unexpected needs or to invest in big projects that are necessary but pricey, potentially leaving some areas underfunded.

Politically, these changes could win some fans among voters who are sick of hearing about wasteful spending and shady contracts. But, it could also make it harder for politicians to agree on anything, especially when it comes to deciding what to cut, leading to slowdowns and making it tough to get stuff done.

Economically and socially speaking, in the long haul, encouraging competition for government contracts and careful spending could lead to a better use of resources, which is good for everyone. But, there might be some bumps in the road, especially for businesses used to winning contracts more because of who they know than what they can do. Smaller outfits or those not as well-connected could find these changes tough to swallow.

Finally, making sure everyone's playing by the rules could even the playing field, letting businesses shine based on their merits. But, figuring out the fine line between a regular campaign contribution and one made with strings attached could get tricky. Plus, figuring out exactly how to make those spending cuts without hurting essential services or being too rigid is something lawmakers would need to really think about.

So, while this proposal hits at some key concerns about government spending and the influence of money in politics, making it work would mean carefully navigating through a bunch of potential issues. Balancing the books while still being able to meet the public's needs, keeping the contract process fair without bogging it down, and ensuring the government can still do its job effectively amid all these spending rules would all be part of the challenge.

Overall, I support banning no bid contracts, but I don't like the no exceptions/ideological aspect of it, there might be times where it would be necessary for speed, or where expertise is crucial and it is known in advance, that of the total bidding pool, only a few of the bidders really have the expertise. How many times have we heard the story about someone who just hung out their shingle in a certain field, without that much experience, submitted a bid and got it just because they were cheaper, only to find out they were so cheap that it couldn't be done safely, the bid was only low because the bidder wasn't experienced enough to know how to bid, and then after making the thing that was required, the outfit cut too many corners? You have to create a system that catches such things. And there might be circumstances were a banning a no bid contract will not work at all. I don't know, really, but I think we should bring in a consultant on this one, to help us work out the bugs.

The problem I have with you, and a lot of folks on this forum, is a particular disease I call arm chair variety simplistic reasoning. It's easy for us to sit back in our easy chairs and bellyache about the government, and dole out one liners as if we really knew what we are talking about. But, do we? Are we asking ourselves that question?

 

Maybe I should be a bit more specific...

California has a massive homeless problem

181,399 unhoused Californians — 28% of the nation's total homeless population
The average cost to rent a 1 BR apt is $2,150 in LA, $2,850, and $2,250 in San Diego
This juxtaposed against a monthly income of about $1,800 per month for the bottom 20% of earners.

How do you go about resolving the homeless issue without

Raising taxes
Confiscating properties for state use
Rent controls

And, this isn't texas, you can't just pack the homeless onto a bus and send them ...

 

Well, there's a fallacy in your point, and it is this:

You ask a question with an ASSUMED premise.

That is why you should just come out with it, so we can debate the premise like we should.

Don't be so darn sure you are correct in your premise when you ask a loaded question.

That is why I, as a general rule, do not engage loaded questions, because too many times the question's premise is wrong, or at the minimum, debatable. You can't ask a question with an assumed premise, unless you are looking for a fool to answer it. That would not be me.

So, I'm not sure you are even correct.

Okay, you asked me this question regarding my question:

ME: Therefore, can we conclude then, that Republican policies cause poverty?

YOU: Can you identify the debate fallacy in that question?

The first problem with your question is that my question you appear to be concerned about,. you've misinterpreted my reason for asking it. I was NOT making a point about republicans, if you followed through the text, I was pointing out that that kind of statement, itself, often leads to 'guilt by association' or 'post hoc' fallacies. It's the same kind of logic Repubs use against Dems. I was pointing out that both sides make the same logical fallacy, 'guilt by association' or 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'.

I illustrated that point with my answer, which was this:

There is a tendency on this forum, I see posts after posts using the 'guilt by association' logic, which is a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' logical fallacy

So, you tell me, just How is the above 'non sequitur' ? Because, for the life of me, it seems like an accurate statement.

 

The comparison, itself, wasn't the point. Read the entire OP please.

 

But it is my point.

 

NO. It is called at looking at all sides of an issue.