So we have too few jobs, too few well-paying jobs, and increasing numbers in need of the safety net. I doubt many of those in need aspire to a life of minimal resources, food stamps and bare necessities. This I think is the dishonesty of the meme that government “traps” people in welfare. Joblessness traps them in unemployment and welfare. Lack of opportunity does, though the right prefers to blame it on government “enabling” and “laziness” or “entitlement” by the victims of offshoring jobs and profits.

If we as a culture want the kind of wealth gap we have, those with the high flying lifestyle of fine wine, cocktail parties, second homes in Vail and glittering jewels, really need to lighten up about programs to help the poor. As fewer people can afford to buy stuff, the “consumerism” part of our model suffers. We need solutions, not rhetoric.

Why did you ask me to name five Republican policy positions I support, to begin with, instead of responding to the substantive points I made on the issue we had been discussing — the relative merit of Democratic and Republican policies in regard to poor people? What relevance did that question have to the discussion of whether Republican or Democratic policy positions were more or less helpful to poor Americans? You asked that question, in my view, to provoke an answer that you could then use to accuse me of having “ceased to grow as a person.” Your question was a trap, I knew it was a trap, knowing it was a trap made me angry, and I responded accordingly. That was a mistake, if only because it meant I fell into the trap, but that hardly absolves you of asking me a question that had no purpose other than giving you an opportunity to make highly insulting personal comments about my character and integrity.

You claim to want discussion, but accept no direct criticism or other points of view that are not already yours.

I could say the same for you, based on your admittedly mocking and attacking style. I don't respond well to that style.

Do I really believe my earlier statement the Democrats (as a party and their leadership) follow an unbelievably cynical strategy of keeping the poor poor and dependent on government largess.? yes, I do,

I emphatically disagree, and I have not seen you provide any substantive evidence for the truth of that assertion, other than the assertion itself. I would actually love to discuss this belief of yours on the merits, but based on the way you've responded to me so far, I'm not sure that you want to do that.

but that is different than saying ALL democrats believe that, or that is the only motivation they have, or that because of that I will not even consider or support any ideas put forth by Democrats.

Likewise, I'm sure that ALL Republicans don't believe that the best way to help poor Americans is to remove all or most social services and sources of economic assistance, or that a deep belief that poor Americans are poor because they are lazy or made bad choices or are dependent on government largess
is not the only motivation Republicans have. But being sure of these things does not really reach the issue of whether the policy positions espoused by the Republican Party are helpful or harmful to poor Americans.

Finally, I do not think I have twisted your words. I think you are a radical-left person (and O don't think you would necessarily disagree with that) and that you have a habit of writing reflexively, and as such say things that are more absurd than you realize.

Actually, I would not agree that I am a “radical-left” person. I'm certainly left-wing, but who knows what “radical” means to you? It's a subjective, relative word. Anyone who claims to be “well-versed” in socialism, Marxism, and communism and yet believes that the Obama administration's policies are “taking us on a road to socialism” is not someone I would trust to accurately assign labels indicative of political philosophy.

I do not think I have ever seen you change your position one iota on any topic at any time here,

Well, likewise, but I also wonder why it's so important to you that I change my position on an issue. I never expect to change someone's position or even think of that as something I want to accomplish. I'm happy if I can come away with an increased understanding of what the other person is trying to say (which is not the same as agreement), and if the other person can come away with an increased understanding of what I'm saying (which I also would not expect to be the same as agreement). What makes debate with you so difficult and frustrating for me is not that we have sharply different views on many issues, or that I can't “convince” you that your opinions are “wrong.” It's the fact that you do not even understand my positions — as evidenced by the fact that you cannot accurately characterize them. Or, put slightly differently, yes — you did twist my words. I certainly allow that it's possible you took what I wrote to mean what you said it meant, but that does not change the fact that you did not accurately characterize them.

I freely admit to using an attacking and mocking style in response when I think people do that.

And I freely admit to reacting very badly when I am attacked and mocked. I don't feel I need to prove anything to you, and I don't think I'm going to develop a more positive attitude toward debating with someone who attacks and mocks me.

I am reacting to you. When you say unthinking, demagogue-ish things like “Why would I support Republican policy positions when I believe them to be hostile to the interests of anyone who isn't wealthy, powerful, and white?”, exactly what reaction are you going for?

You either really mean it (which I believe is true), in which case my reply was perfectly correct in content and tone, or you said it to agitate, so you have no right to complain if it agitates me.

Let's go back to assuming you meant it. You complain about the partisanship in Washington, but support a radical 'my way or the highway, and my opponents are evil Simon LeGree's' attitude. You complain when anyone implies the Democratic party is trying to turn us into a socialist society, but you throw vitriol at ALL Republicans.

You claim to want discussion, but accept no direct criticism or other points of view that are not already yours.

For myself, I have always been clear I am concerned that the existing leadership of the Democrats is indeed taking us down a path to a socialism and I do not support that. But I do not say ALL Democrats do.

I also am well versed in socialism, Marxism and communism. I do not want to live in a socialist, Marxist or communist state, but at the same time I acknowledge that all three philosophies have some very good and rational political ideas that i fully support.

Do I really believe my earlier statement the Democrats (as a party and their leadership) follow an unbelievably cynical strategy of keeping the poor poor and dependent on government largess.? yes, I do, but that is different than saying ALL democrats believe that, or that is the only motivation they have, or that because of that I will not even consider or support any ideas put forth by Democrats.

Finally, I do not think I have twisted your words. I think you are a radical-left person (and O don't think you would necessarily disagree with that) and that you have a habit of writing reflexively, and as such say things that are more absurd than you realize. I freely admit to using an attacking and mocking style in response when I think people do that. And as I said earlier, there have been many examples here of people convincing me through discussion and argument that my initial position on a topic was wrong, or at least not nuanced enough.

I do not think I have ever seen you change your position one iota on any topic at any time here, Please prove me wrong.

there is something alternately friendly and belligerent about your style

Well, I am bi-polar.

Honestly, I've been around enough to know that counseling would help quite a few. There are people who are poor because they're too disabled to work, those who have been hit with disaster and are struggling to recover, and those who aren't willing, either because they have a problem that they're not willing to give up (drugs, sex, video games), or because they just don't want to do the work. I don't mind helping the first two groups, but the third group needs a different kind of help.

All through this discussion, you have twisted the statements I have made and contended they mean something they don't. I have tried to be measured and fair and calm in my responses, but even as I do so, each one of your responses is more dishonest than the one before. This last one has gone too far for me.

If you cannot look back at each comment between us in this argument, mine and yours, and see a pattern in which you attribute to me things I never said and that go beyond the reasonable meaning of what I wrote — and frankly I don't think you can — then I truly believe, at least at this moment, that it's counterproductive for me to talk to you. Not that I plan to ignore you, but getting into extended debates with you is pointless.

For you to claim that you have an ability to listen to other viewpoints is just laughable, in my view. The problem is not that you cannot admit when you think good points are made, or say sorry when you feel you are wrong. The problem comes in when you *don't* agree or think good points are being made. When that happens, you become aggressive and condescending, and you “interpret” what others have written in a way that isn't supported by the text, and you attribute hidden or unacknowledged meanings that I don't think are honestly or appropriately supported by the text.

I continue to respect and like you as a person. But there is something alternately friendly and belligerent about your style that is just very difficult for me to take.

For now, at least, I'm just going to back away.

At least you are willing to admit that is what you are.

I guess then you do not come to any discussion to actually learn and debate the merits, as the other positions and ideologies have nothing to teach you. You come to preach your gospel and tell people they are wrong unless they agree with you.

That also explains my ability to listen to other viewpoints and admit when I think good points are made, and to say sorry when I am wrong, and your lack of the same. You simply cannot acknowledge the very possibility that any view you have is wrong.

You have stopped growing as a person, then, given that stance.

Obviously, I do not share your view that Democratic policy positions keep poor Americans poor and dependent on the government. I also strongly disagree with your previous statement (in the comment before this one) that “a majority of poor Americans do not act in ways that are in their best long-term interests.” However, my point in that earlier comment was that this statement (“poor Americans do not act in ways that are in their best long-term interests”) does not at all logically lead to the conclusion that “Republican-oriented strategy on social spending and how the government should help the poor be able to help themselves” is the strategy that does better serve those long-term interests. You have claimed more meaning for that statement than is there.

In addition to this, Austin, you just got finished answering my statement that Republicans do not support job training and education by telling me you are more of a Libertarian than a Republican. This would seem to suggest that you were, at least to some extent, accepting my point (that Republicans do not support job training and education). Now you tell me that “Republican-oriented strategy” does help poor Americans get themselves out of poverty (so then why did you say you are more of a Libertarian than a Republican?) and you also tell me that *I* am demonstrating that logic is not my strong point.

Telling me that logic is not my strong point is a tad condescending, but if I felt you had a point, or that this criticism was fair at least to some degree, I would say so. But when you argue illogically to demonstrate that logic is not my strong point — well, let's just say you do not have logic on your side.

It is called being a moderate, independent thinker, and not being a mindless ideologue.

Of course not. Why would I support Republican policy positions when I believe them to be hostile to the interests of anyone who isn't wealthy, powerful, and white?

saying that a majority of poor Americans do not act in ways that are in their best long-term interests does not support your argument that Republicans (or conservatives in general) do know what is in their best long-term interests. Or that their policies reflect that.

Sorry Kathy, but logic is not your strong point – empathy is.

If I feel that following a more Republican-oriented strategy on social spending and how the government should help the poor be able to help themselves, then voting Democratic in lockstep to keep the programs in place that keep them poor and dependent on the government is most certainly acting against their best long-term interest.

And they do that because they don't realize they are voting for a party that wants them dependent on the government, and that those programs are not really in their best interests long-term.

Can you name 5 political major positions normally associated with Republicans that YOU support?

And yet, oddly enough, Republicans in leadership positions invariably oppose spending money on job training and education.

Just as Thomas Frank says that people in Kansas don't act in their best long-term interests. Do you agree with him?

Also, saying that a majority of poor Americans do not act in ways that are in their best long-term interests does not support your argument that Republicans (or conservatives in general) do know what is in their best long-term interests. Or that their policies reflect that.

My question is, how could we spend it to better help the poor be — not so poor. The only program that comes to mind right now is in the form of job training bills.

That first sentence I blockquoted is exactly the point I was making.

Your second sentence sets out one great way to spend dollars that have a significantly greater chance of helping them improve their lives long-term. I support that 100%. Beyond just job training, education overall (adult and children) is another.

You are suggesting that poor Americans don't know their own self-interest, don't know what helps or harms them.

Not quite. I am saying that a majority do not act in ways that are in their best long-term interests, as a whole.

I think you misunderstand these people, particularly the Republicans. The US gov't, from it's inception favored the well off, since it's founders were not bumpkin farmers, but businessmen and plantation owners who were not much interested in paying taxes to Parliament.

The first significant tax levied upon the citizens, rather than on importers, was the tax on whiskey. Whiskey, much like the opium in Afghanistan, was the byproduct of a plant, in the case of whiskey, corn. There was not much of a market for corn in the cities grown by the farmers in western Pennsylvania, partially because it took a long time and a lot of money to move anything out of where they lived. The roads were poor. So why sell something cheap at expensive prices when, with some processing (distilling) the corn can be changed into something of high worth?

This worked well until the large distillers in the city of Philadelphia began complaining that the farmers were undercutting their prices. Enter Alexander Hamilton and enter the Whiskey Act of 1791. Things went down hill from there, with the farmers eventually leaving and fleeing further into the hinterlands of what is now Kentucky.

The tax was a failure. Hardly any money was collected, but it had done what it was designed to do . . . get rid of the competition.

So, to say that the people that want to “make things like they used to be” and “empower the individual” is quite frankly laughable. All these people want to do is “make the world safe for American businesses to make a profit” which they quite conveniently describe as democracy.