Politics 2020

[Orogun01]

2 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

I consider Bernie left-liberal, whilst I'd consider myself left-libertarian. I guess you could call that "Socialism with American values" if you wanted to.

Put simply, left-liberals seem to want to adopt the Euro model, whilst I reckon we have our own way of doing things over here.

I would love to hear what economic model we should have, one of the few things I think won Bernie a bunch of supporters was his claim that America was already a socialist country. On the aftermath of economic recession and corporate bailouts that did nothing. I can see why a bunch of college graduates that are joining a hostile economy and job market would lean towards socialism

 

[ComradeYellow]

Nothing too fancy really.  Stop imperialism, institute medicare 4 all, and institute the Green New Deal and force more workers control over production, especially on large corporations.

Small and medium sized businesses would be left alone.

It's well within the context of "leftism" in the U.S. when you account for the New Deal of the 30's and the social revolution of the 60's.  A combination of both.

Defund the police, encourage firearm safety and training for citizens as a substitute.

Slash military budget by at least 50%, more focus on national guard.

Let's get radical and libertarian baby.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

HRC was such an awful candidate and bad loser that it is certainly easy to associate every bad decision to her, but if her supporters were willing to tar Bernie with his overenthusiastic supporters then it's certainly fair for the reverse to happen too and she be tarred with her 'bad' supporters. There was certainly a lot of attempts to blame Bernie for the loss in 2016- "didn't campaign enough for Hillary" when he had more campaign rallies for Clinton once Hillary was confirmed than Hillary herself had- when they were desperately looking for someone other than the Democratic establishment to blame for the loss.

Maybe?

I had many friends (and a politically awakening son) who were Bernie supporters. My take on 2016 was that a lot of young people who had not previously been politically active heard Bernie's call to arms, became emotionally invested in his campaign, then decided not to vote in the general once he lost the primary.

I think Bernie bears some responsibility for this. He spent months trying to paint the entire process as capital C "Corrupt", then tried to turn on a dime and keep his supporters invested after losing.

I was not excited about Hillary's campaign. I largely think of her as a political opportunist and still shake my head at her antics in the 2008 campaign. But she was the most qualified person running for office in 2016. All that to say, if Hillary was an "awful candidate", then I think we'll need to invent a new word for the guy who got elected.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

As a first generation immigrant I can tell you for certain that anyone can prosper in this country. People that have barely the basics of English have made a decent living, for having left their lives behind and started anew, I'd say that's a pretty good place. More so their offspring that have had more time to adapt will likely make it further than them.

The counter argument is that the type of person who has the emotional and mental capacity to migrate to a new country is the same type of person who is likely to be successful there. I don't know that you could randomly extract a person from their native country, plunk them down in the U.S., and expect them to be successful. Character matters.

And obviously, parental influence matters too.

Quote

As a former ghetto resident, I can say that a lot of the economic pain is self inflicted and stems from cultural problems rather than systemic ones. If there's a systemic problem it might be the welfare state that incentivizes indolence and poverty

Some of this is probably true, some of the time. As a former ghetto resident, I can say that social mobility is ~40% how hard you work and ~60% how lucky you are.

I'm not sure what you mean by "cultural problems", but I am a little familiar with the concept of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is a systemic issue, not a character or cultural issue. Almost every single person I've ever known who participated in the welfare system hated it. Unfortunately, the way the system is designed, some people get trapped into it. For example, they need to make X dollars per month to afford to get off welfare, but can only find jobs paying Y and Z. If they take the job paying Y dollars, they'll make a little more of their own money, but won't be able to support their families because Y income will trigger a loss of benefits. If they take the job paying Z, they'll never get ahead, but will be able to continue supporting their family.

That is a systemic problem.

Quote

It is also worthy of note that the group that claims to care more about minorities is also the group that's very supportive of heavy taxation. California and NY will do a big show about how they care about minorities while have some of the biggest taxes in the country. If the purpose of welfare programs is to help people out of poverty why are they so keen to take their money when they're just barely out of the poverty threshold?

California and NY have the biggest taxes in the country you say?

Do you think that could have anything to do with the fact that the city of New York is largest city in the U.S. (8.3m) and the city of Los Angeles is the 2nd largest (~4m, the state having 39m)?

And what do you mean by taxes? Sales tax? Property tax? I'm not a expert, but I do know that tax laws often written so that some items are taxed heavily (luxury tax) so that they can reduce or eliminate taxes for others. And that some items aren't taxed at all because they disproportionately burden lower incomes.

So could you please help me understand what you mean by "big taxes"?

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Nothing too fancy really.  Stop imperialism, institute medicare 4 all, and institute the Green New Deal and force more workers control over production, especially on large corporations.

Small and medium sized businesses would be left alone.

It's well within the context of "leftism" in the U.S. when you account for the New Deal of the 30's and the social revolution of the 60's.  A combination of both.

Defund the police, encourage firearm safety and training for citizens as a substitute.

Slash military budget by at least 50%, more focus on national guard.

Let's get radical and libertarian baby.

With you probably about half of this.

M4A needs to be a long term project. We need to change the healthcare system before implementing it, otherwise there will be unintended consequences that will make us worse off, not better.

Police need more funding, not less, but it needs to go towards training and standards. Oh, and it probably needs to be nationalized. Police-like services for non-emergencies is a good idea and we should definitely do that.

Companies need to apply for and receive a fixed-term "accreditation" if they want to be corporations. Incorporation is a risk management tool, not a license to print money for shareholders.

And since this is a wish list, libertarians have to dedicate one weekend per month to public service projects

[213374U]

7 hours ago, Gromnir said:

"idpol"? another shibboleth wielder.

selective quotes and a general misrepresentation o' mlk does not help your position.

What's this, another typical Gromnir "here's why you're wrong even though I'm going to say the same thing in a wall of text and a bunch of embedded videos" post? Thank the maker (of IPB v4) for the limit on that.

"Shibboleth", sure. Because identity politics is an invention of the alt-right or something, even though the former predates the latter by about 30 years. Imagine squealing because people can't be arsed to write the whole thing.

Seriously, don't bother. I don't care.

[Zoraptor]

33 minutes ago, Achilles said:

 

I was not excited about Hillary's campaign. I largely think of her as a political opportunist and still shake my head at her antics in the 2008 campaign. But she was the most qualified person running for office in 2016. All that to say, if Hillary was an "awful candidate", then I think we'll need to invent a new word for the guy who got elected.

The two least popular candidates in US history contested the 2016 election, and it was blade of grass stuff as to which was less popular. The main difference was that Trump was far better at galvanising support from the people he needed to win. As a pure candidate Hillary has to be worse than Trump since she lost to him; and even taking a somewhat less reductionist view the best you can say is that she was marginally better than another awful candidate. If you're drawing up a list of criteria for being an awful candidate being highly unpopular and losing to Trump are pretty big indicators.

Quote

 

I had many friends (and a politically awakening son) who were Bernie supporters. My take on 2016 was that a lot of young people who had not previously been politically active heard Bernie's call to arms, became emotionally invested in his campaign, then decided not to vote in the general once he lost the primary.

I think Bernie bears some responsibility for this. He spent months trying to paint the entire process as capital C "Corrupt", then tried to turn on a dime and keep his supporters invested after losing.

 

The sort of voter who hates The System was never going to vote for Hillary- whatever Bernie said- as she's the epitome of the system insider whose career was deliberately sculpted to aim at the presidency and whose campaign was certainly seen as using every insider trick available to win including suborning party machinery for her benefit before being confirmed.

Hillary simply was not at all inspiring to the average Bernie supporter, and made little effort to be either. Bernie can tell his people to swallow a lemon and vote for her but it isn't a cult, he cannot force them to. I'd expect much the same if Bernie won the nomination, if Hillary endorsed him (and it was like pulling teeth getting her to endorse Obama) not all her supporters would have heeded her call.

 

 

[Orogun01]

4 minutes ago, Achilles said:

The counter argument is that the type of person who has the emotional and mental capacity to migrate to a new country is the same type of person who is likely to be successful there. I don't know that you could randomly extract a person from their native country, plunk them down in the U.S., and expect them to be successful. Character matters.

And obviously, parental influence matters too.

I agree but as a counter example, not every immigrant is successful or capable of adapting. I know of Cubans that actually went back permanently because they failed to adapt, others have been expelled because of their repeat criminal activities in the US.
I think what it clearly means is that there's a bigger chance of seeing those that are successful as they stay longer and become more visible.

My point was to prove that there's a possibility of upper mobility, so as to undermine the idea of systemic racism. That's the key word, because there's obviously the possibility of racism, but the great thing about the US is the number of opportunities you can have or create.

 

10 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Some of this is probably true, some of the time. As a former ghetto resident, I can say that social mobility is ~40% how hard you work and ~60% how lucky you are.

I'm not sure what you mean by "cultural problems", but I am a little familiar with the concept of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is a systemic issue, not a character or cultural issue. Almost every single person I've ever known who participated in the welfare system hated it. Unfortunately, the way the system is designed, some people get trapped into it. For example, they need to make X dollars per month to afford to get off welfare, but can only find jobs paying Y and Z. If they take the job paying Y dollars, they'll make a little more of their own money, but won't be able to support their families because Y income will trigger a loss of benefits. If they take the job paying Z, they'll never get ahead, but will be able to continue supporting their family.

We are pretty much on the same page on this as well, where we differ is the source of Learned helplessness. Classical condition is a tremendous factor in the world view of a person and I saw within the US black communities a lot unchecked contempt that could only be considered racism. There were times I heard people sucking air through their teeth and be dismissive of my suggestions because of arguments that can be summarized by "The man is trying to keep us down" or that schooling and higher education was dismissed because of it being "too white". It might seem cliche but it does shape the view of many a black people when they only way they see themselves out of poverty is through music or sports.
Also part of stepping ahead economically is coming up with a plan of where you want to be in the next few years. I met male nurses that come from these rough areas that made their way up the economic ladder. Because they had a plan to study and follow a career that was affordable enough and quick enough where they could see results.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Achilles said:

California and NY have the biggest taxes in the country you say?

Do you think that could have anything to do with the fact that the city of New York is largest city in the U.S. (8.3m) and the city of Los Angeles is the 2nd largest (~4m, the state having 39m)?

And what do you mean by taxes? Sales tax? Property tax? I'm not a expert, but I do know that tax laws often written so that some items are taxed heavily (luxury tax) so that they can reduce or eliminate taxes for others. And that some items aren't taxed at all because they disproportionately burden lower incomes.

So could you please help me understand what you mean by "big taxes"?

Tax rate, as in the percent at which you're taxed not the volume of taxes collected. It is a group of different taxes, income, property, etc etc.
You add to that ideological policies that ignore economic realities and you end up with higher good costs. California is a good example since because of environmental reasons their gas cost more, that means that it costs more to transport goods so things are more expensive.

 

[Gromnir]

2 minutes ago, 213374U said:

"Shibboleth", sure. Because identity politics is an invention of the alt-right or something, even though the former predates the latter by about 30 years. Imagine squealing because people can't be arsed to write the whole thing.

 

doesn't matter who invented. is how it is used and by whom. "idpol" says more 'bout those who use than it does 'bout those you claim it applies. we hear "idpol" and is not difficult to predict where a post and argument is going. you did not surprise us. shibboleth label clear appropriate.

and hey, am getting how embarrassing it must be to have the old select-a-quote routine undermined by mlk in his own words. sure, you were making a kinda silly argument, but you no doubt felt pretty good that you had a quote, out of context, from mlk himself which reinforced your evils o' idpol bit.

take it as a learning experience and endeavour to do better in the future. 

that said, we do tend to repeat self, but you didn't actual offer anything new. just the misquote.

*shrug*

as for oro's story o weal and woe...

as a person who grew up on pine ridge, we can tell you it is possible to succeed in America and thrive no matter how impoverished one begins life.

so what? anybody really wanna hear Gromnir's horatio alger story?

am also much aware how easy it woulda' been for things to turn out extreme different for us. our mother developed cancer while we were in high school and we had to spend considerable time caring for her. if our grades had dropped, what then? nobody woulda' faulted us if our studies slipped a bit, but a number o' scholarships woulda' been off the table after that. 

is easy for us to see dozens o' critical points in our life where one small mistake or misfortune mighta' doomed our future prospects. if we came from a nice and stable middle-class family, we coulda' faced such obstacles and failed more than once... call 'em growth or learning experiences. converse, we had zero room for error. none.

is all kinda wonderful anecdotal stories 'bout what can be achieved in the US.  those stories is real. it is possible to go from bottom 1% to top 1% in one generation.

nevertheless need be willful obtuse to ignore overwhelming statistics and realities o' life in the US. is getting more difficult to thrive in the US. is no longer possible to raise a family on a minimum wage job, which only a few decades ago were plausible. is far more difficult to move up from poverty to middle class than in previous decades. etc.

and sowell is not 100% wrong on any number o' issues,  however,

"A Marxist radicalized into a free-market libertarian by a year working at the U.S. Labor Department, Sowell is now the go-to black academic for conservative media outlets. The son of a maid, he earned his way in the old-fashioned style to and through New York’s elite Stuyvesant High School, Harvard College, Columbia and the University of Chicago. He has waged a relentless crusade against those who would try to alleviate poverty or equalize opportunity through welfare, affirmative action or anything else that interferes with the operation of free markets."-- recent book review

is not surprising a victim o' the breitbart echo chamber would glomp onto sowell. maybe you got from same place numbers got his mlk quote? dunno. as you aren't quoting or referencing any particular part o' sowell, am left to wonder what insights you derive from his books and lectures.

we do note how heavily sowell relies on chance and random factors to explain disparities in income. such variables would not consistent produce the disparities we see which correspond with race. sure, chance will have a significant impact on any complex scenario with multiple and poorly understood factors contributing to the result. to interfere in such poorly understood market factors is dangerous. applies to any extreme complex economic example, but after a few million throws o' the dice, you are gonna see patterns emerge. when the patterns consistent correspond with existing racial breakdowns, it takes a particular curious act o' will to ignore the relevance o' race. 

generalizing taxation efforts is also ridiculous. for example, progressive taxes is much different than flat taxes. make some non specific and vague observation 'bout taxes shows a depth o' ignorance or an attempt to purposeful mislead. more than once on these boards Gromnir has observed real positive change insofar as taxes had better include an overhaul o' the current capital gains scheme, 'cause that is where most rich folks is making their money.  have criticized folks like bernie and warren for their tax the rich approach w/o addressing the biggest issues.

but again, repeating self... unapologetically.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[213374U]

Well, the long-winded response was predictable (didn't read it) but no videos? I mean, don't stop on my account.

[Orogun01]

@Gromnir Sorry to hear about your hardship

I however don't believe that you were one mistake away from "making it", that's a dubious definition of success. It is true for scholarships and it is true of your chosen field. But what I like about the US is the wealth of opportunity, people that didn't go to college have become successful and not just in entertainment but in business, journalism and other reputable professions.  Right now there are a lot of industries that are turning away from colleges because of the poor education of graduates compared to someone the same amount of job experience without a college degree.
Trade schools are becoming a better option, specially since they have lower costs and teach marketable jobs.

Tomas Sowell was my introduction to the argument that the welfare state might be doing more harm than good to black America and I would add Hispanics as well. I've known people that used to work but are now living off welfare because it is more profitable than work. I've formerly knew of people that tried to get into welfare because the whole family was working 2 jobs. The only times they saw each other was the few hours they had each night and whenever they were working the same job. They got denied because of their hard work ethic, when their original intent was to at least quit one job so they could have something resembling a regular life. Meanwhile at the same job I would see people that were well of and clearly had money using EBT cards because they had either payed someone to adjust their application or because their recent immigrant status even though they were wealthy.
 

A bit on context of the video (since it won't embed) a woman uses EBT cards to buy lobster for her dog at Publix, which is a pretty ubiquitous chain here in S. Florida. The aforementioned family both worked at Publix with me. I know this whole has been anecdotal and it might be a regional thing (Florida is the most corrupt state in the Union) but it has tremendously affected my view of welfare programs and how much we should favor alternative solutions to poverty.

https://youtu.be/zGmQAF84tww

[Guard Dog]

Assume for a moment Hillary Clinton is President and Chuck Schumer is the Senate Majority leader. The election is less than 40 days awa and it's looking like Clinton will loose to the Republican challenger and there is a better than average chance the Senate will flip. RBG passes away. Is there any doubt in anyones mind the goddamned Democrats will move heaven and earth to get a left wing activist justice nominated and confirmed in the remaining time?  You bet they would. And all of the "media" that is wailing and gnashing their teeth over what Trump and McConell are about to do would be cheering the way Clinton and Schumer siezed the opportunity. 

It rats calling out other rats for being rats. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

As a pure candidate Hillary has to be worse than Trump since she lost to him; and even taking a somewhat less reductionist view the best you can say is that she was marginally better than another awful candidate. If you're drawing up a list of criteria for being an awful candidate being highly unpopular and losing to Trump are pretty big indicators.

You are aware she won the popular vote, right?

Also, I like to think "being popular" isn't the same thing as "being qualified".

Quote

The sort of voter who hates The System was never going to vote for Hillary- whatever Bernie said- as she's the epitome of the system insider whose career was deliberately sculpted to aim at the presidency and whose campaign was certainly seen as using every insider trick available to win including suborning party machinery for her benefit before being confirmed.

Hillary simply was not at all inspiring to the average Bernie supporter, and made little effort to be either. Bernie can tell his people to swallow a lemon and vote for her but it isn't a cult, he cannot force them to. I'd expect much the same if Bernie won the nomination, if Hillary endorsed him (and it was like pulling teeth getting her to endorse Obama) not all her supporters would have heeded her call.

I don't necessarily question the accuracy of anything you say here. I think there's probably some daylight between us on what that says about Bernie supporters though.

My opinion is that voting is civic duty. No one cares how any of us feel about the candidates. We all have an obligation to participate. People who opt to take their ball and go home when their preferred brand doesn't win sure seem like sore losers to me.

[Malcador]

 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54255727

On bright side, maybe this will keep our border with the US closed as it is now. Less Americans around is a good thing

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Guard Dog said:

Assume for a moment Hillary Clinton is President and Chuck Schumer is the Senate Majority leader. The election is less than 40 days awa and it's looking like Clinton will loose to the Republican challenger and there is a better than average chance the Senate will flip. RBG passes away. Is there any doubt in anyones mind the goddamned Democrats will move heaven and earth to get a left wing activist justice nominated and confirmed in the remaining time?  You bet they would. And all of the "media" that is wailing and gnashing their teeth over what Trump and McConell are about to do would be cheering the way Clinton and Schumer siezed the opportunity. 

It rats calling out other rats for being rats. 

I think the issue at hand isn't that they *shouldn't*, rather that they're violating their own made-up-as-they-went-along-rules from after Scalia's death.

So the question is: have you not been following politics for very long or are you intentionally forgetting about what happened 4 years ago?

[Guard Dog]

I am curious how many of Thomas Sowell's books his fans have actually read? I have six here. Basic Economics, Knowledge and Decisions, and A Conflict of Visions are all required reading at Guard Dog U.

[Guard Dog]

10 minutes ago, Achilles said:

I think the issue at hand isn't that they *shouldn't*, rather that they're violating their own made-up-as-they-went-along-rules from after Scalia's death.

So the question is: have you not been following politics for very long or are you intentionally forgetting about what happened 4 years ago?

You've got quite the acerbic tone there don't you? It's irritiating. For what it's worth I thought Merrick Garland should have had a vote, and been voted down. What they did, how they did it was dirty pool. Had Garland recieved a vote and not been nominated, and I'd rather he had not been, then there would be no cries of hypocisy today. There would be every other kind of cry though. 

But, no one in this sad little tale would have behaved any differently had all the roles been reversed. There are no saints in hell. Only devils grasping for power. And yes I have followed politics all my life and even worked in a campaign one time. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Guard Dog

[the_dog_days]

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm not sure why anyone was expecting consistency, these are the same people who will wax on about freedom and call for mass arrests in the same breath after all. I doubt it will matter to their supporters either.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

I'm not sure why anyone was expecting consistency, these are the same people who will wax on about freedom and call for mass arrests in the same breath after all. I doubt it will matter to their supporters either.

Yep

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You've got quite the acerbic tone there don't you? It's irritiating. For what it's worth I thought Merrick Garland should have had a vote, and been voted down. What they did, how they did it was dirty pool. Had Garland recieved a vote and not been nominated, and I'd rather he had not been, then there would be no cries of hypocisy today. There would be every other kind of cry though. 

But, no one in this sad little tale would have behaved any differently had all the roles been reversed. There are no saints in hell. Only devils grasping for power. And yes I have followed politics all my life and even worked in a campaign one time. 

So you're just here to beat the drum about how "both sides do it" even though only one side *has* done it? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I am curious how many of Thomas Sowell's books his fans have actually read? I have six here. Basic Economics, Knowledge and Decisions, and A Conflict of Visions are all required reading at Guard Dog U.

I bought and started to read one. I didn't make it very far before putting it down. Sam Harris is a fan, so I may try again someday.

[Hurlshort]

33 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You've got quite the acerbic tone there don't you? It's irritiating. For what it's worth I thought Merrick Garland should have had a vote, and been voted down. What they did, how they did it was dirty pool. Had Garland recieved a vote and not been nominated, and I'd rather he had not been, then there would be no cries of hypocisy today. There would be every other kind of cry though. 

But, no one in this sad little tale would have behaved any differently had all the roles been reversed. There are no saints in hell. Only devils grasping for power. And yes I have followed politics all my life and even worked in a campaign one time. 

I think it's fun to compare the judicial record of Garland, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Because we make it seem like these are some sort of polar opposites, when the reality is much more minute. 

[Orogun01]

8 minutes ago, Achilles said:

I bought and started to read one. I didn't make it very far before putting it down. Sam Harris is a fan, so I may try again someday.

To be fair politics, history, philosophy  and academic books are quite tend to be quite verbose and meander with abstractions rather than with concise example. That might be why the most successful academic books tend to be the ones with analogues and metaphor or those that have clear real life examples. They can be quite tough to get without projecting your own experiences to the subject.
That's mostly why I skipped the last chapter of the Leviathan but I'm thinking that it would be interesting to go back to it because I'm now more familiar with the English civil war and have a better background on that chapter....I suppose I should explain it deals with the Ecclesiastic and their authority...and that the English Civil war was fought because taxes and other economic reasons but as any other war it was framed as religious, I mean I'm sure it contributed but I'm also sure that modern revisionism helped emphasize that aspect

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

I agree but as a counter example, not every immigrant is successful or capable of adapting. I know of Cubans that actually went back permanently because they failed to adapt, others have been expelled because of their repeat criminal activities in the US.
I think what it clearly means is that there's a bigger chance of seeing those that are successful as they stay longer and become more visible.My point was to prove that there's a possibility of upper mobility, so as to undermine the idea of systemic racism. That's the key word, because there's obviously the possibility of racism, but the great thing about the US is the number of opportunities you can have or create.

I think you and I are on the same page for the most part. I think the original argument was "anyone can make it here". It sounds like you and I agree that isn't the case and that the ones that do probably have some advantage over those that don't.

I think where we disagree is that this is evidence against systemic racism. Someone who didn't grow up under the influence of systemic racism is probably not going to internalize it the way that someone who did would. Similarly, the fact that some minorities are wealthy and successful isn't evidence that systemic racism isn't a thing, only that some people (possibly exceptions to the rule) make it against all odds.

Quote

We are pretty much on the same page on this as well, where we differ is the source of Learned helplessness. Classical condition is a tremendous factor in the world view of a person and I saw within the US black communities a lot unchecked contempt that could only be considered racism. There were times I heard people sucking air through their teeth and be dismissive of my suggestions because of arguments that can be summarized by "The man is trying to keep us down" or that schooling and higher education was dismissed because of it being "too white". It might seem cliche but it does shape the view of many a black people when they only way they see themselves out of poverty is through music or sports.
Also part of stepping ahead economically is coming up with a plan of where you want to be in the next few years. I met male nurses that come from these rough areas that made their way up the economic ladder. Because they had a plan to study and follow a career that was affordable enough and quick enough where they could see results.

I hear you, but again it's hard for me not to view this through the lens of learned helplessness via systemic racism. The idea that their only way out is through sports or entertainment is supported by history. It's tempting to chalk it up to a lack of character, but I think people tell themselves stories to make sense of their plight. Once enough people adopt the story, it be comes common sense.

Quote

Tax rate, as in the percent at which you're taxed not the volume of taxes collected. It is a group of different taxes, income, property, etc etc.
You add to that ideological policies that ignore economic realities and you end up with higher good costs. California is a good example since because of environmental reasons their gas cost more, that means that it costs more to transport goods so things are more expensive.

Right, but which tax(es)? It sounds like you're speaking primarily about sales tax. Are the flat, meaning that everything is taxed evenly, or are something exempt and other not? I genuinely don't know as I've only paid for things in california and new york while visiting.