Sunday, February 3, 2013
War on the Poor
Sumner makes my disputed point from before much more eloquently. Government programs mostly screw the poor and disadvantaged in favor of the rich and well off, as everyone this weekend is pointing out that Yglesias said. If you go one further with the HBDism...most of the poor are minorities...which makes government mostly a war on the poor minorities...while doing a few other things on the side (killing people on the other side of the world).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
If you go one further with the HBDism...most of the poor are minorities...which makes government mostly a war on the poor minorities...
Nonsense again. Sumner's post is designed to troll the left and he overuses their retarded logic "if Law A affects designated victim B more than designated oppressor C, then A is unjust." By the numbers:
1)He calls them poor when they are actually non-payers. Others pay for their use of the facilities through taxes and higher rates. Cuts will be made throughout the "free" medical system here (as elsewhere) but most people (and approx. all minorities) in America demand that ERs take everyone, but non-payers are going to be induced not to show up demanding percs and OCs. Herr Bloomberg is undoubtedly right that poor people are a bigger pain in the ass when they're on pain meds than are others.
2)What are the odds that blacks demand laws to illegalize prostitution more than whites? Paging black church attendance.
3)It was because of grassroots black efforts that crack use and sales were given stiffer penalties than coke.
4)Blacks DEMAND free healthcare. The only Americans who want free market health care are whites. Cigarette taxes are a backdoor way to get poor people to pay for more of the services that they demand.
5)Poor people are taxed for doing something insane? And those taxes can go to pay for some of the services they demand? Oh noes!
6)Current, low income people in industry demand that these barriers to entry be maintained. And let's clear something up, Sumner keeps shrieking the Manichean poor vs elite when the middle class (and often poor people) demand the same things that the elites do. Once again, he's trolling the left using a bullshit leftist tactic. It doesn't mean that an avowed libertarian should fall for it.
7)He phoned this one in. So I will too.
8)This is the perfect retarded leftist style point. Without the TSA, there would be free-market security. Regular and wealthy travellers would buy quick passes because it would make real economic sense for them and the airlines. The plebs would be stuck with shittier lines regardless because that's what happens in market systems, too. Plus, the TSA polls well. The proletariat demand more TSA!
9)The most brutal sport is football and it's almost universally loved. A few leftist do-gooders are whinging. This is not an attack on the proles.
10)He's got a ... A point.
11)I don't know about his foolishness point, but the NCAA sucks.
12)Minorities overwhelmingly favor gun control by government.
13)It's worse for the poor than it is for the middle class? Yglesias' overwhelming anecdote and frame aside, I doubt it.
14)Quick! How do you think poor minorities would respond if you told them that you wanted them to move to apartments with poison walls? Gimme new house?
And finally, a general point: minorities vote in unreal, overwhelming mobs for the party that openly states its desire to control every aspect of their lives. Just as blacks have demanded that the WoP be waged on them. This post is as ridiculous as your old post.
I'd say that government is mostly dead weight loss, plus some transfers. Different groups are more or less able to escape the burdens of the state. I am not poor, but when I look at my income tax payments, it's hard to see the government as my ally in a "war" on the poor.
The KCPD might more plausibly be thought of as such an ally for me, but their behavior is rather more like the rest of the city employees instead of a wartime ally.
What Meh said. I wouldn't even give point 10. The gov't spends little supporting high end art and media, while much is spent subsidizing lower class lifestyle.
Overall, the gov't = transfer payment to the poor. Do you really believe that if gov't was eliminated tomorrow, the plight of the poor would improve?
The ruling class is frantically shoveling out beads and blankets in an effort to buy social peace and votes. If the EBT cards run dry, I don't see a whole lot of evidence that genuine economic activity will rise to maintain the lifestyle.
From the Yglesias piece:
more startup-friendly cities such as Dallas and Indianapolis tend to have lower average incomes and a less promising customer base.
Ha ha ha. Nice of him to notice such a thing. Maybe he will notice it in other areas.
The vibe I get from Yglesias is that the poor are anyone not in the top 1%. But the red tape he decries hits the middle class. The truly poor don't worry about paperwork when subletting their apartment, setting up a roadside food stand, trading cars, selling drugs, etc.
What we have here, again, is the High-Low against the Middle.
And let me reiterate the point from above. The Poor like government. They want more of it. They vote for more of it. Immigrants like government. They come here partly because we have so much of it. Aretae, do you really believe that if abolished Washington DC and all the centrally planned money transfers that entails, that we would have immigration anything like what we have today?
Post a Comment