Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan started it all.

[NealIRC]

Originally Posted by xsboost

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was looking for proof this "racial wealth gap" was caused by Reagan/Greenspan.

I'm tired of people blaming others (white people getting the brunt of it) for all of their problems. This is coming from from someone whose family (non-white) immigrated to the US with literally nothing except the clothes on their backs.

Okay, that would be a political article and not a economic article.

You won't find a news article that blames individuals like Reagan and Greenspan specifically. This would be from a compilation of sources, synthesized.

My point was they started the whole modern rivalry between Democrats and Republicans, the GOP, today. Prior to them, Dems and Republicans didn't hate each other as much. Well, I guess the Nixon watergate scandal was a turning point too, but for something else.

In my college 1 year, they put like a Abraham Lincoln statue, and the word Democrat.

And then there was a backlash against the college, for Lincoln was a Republican, not Democrat. But then the school argued back, Lincoln by today standards would be a Democrat. And so and so forth.

It's not worth either side to bring up that Republicans were against slavery, so I think a lot of the modern day-criticism goes to Reagan and Greenspan.

Bill Clinton was economically a great president, but due to that incident he had with that secular woman, that's enough in some view to remember him as a bad president. So,...

[NealIRC]

I'm tired of people blaming others (white people getting the brunt of it) for all of their problems. This is coming from from someone whose family (non-white) immigrated to the US with literally nothing except the clothes on their backs.

Well, this wasn't a which race is to blame. In the Democratic-Republican on the federal level, this is to blame which Republicans caused it. And there were Republican decision-makers.

Reagan shut down the mental health clinics in the '80s, let them just scatter into the streets. And I guess that's mostly forgotten about today.

[xsboost]

Originally Posted by NealIRC

Well, this wasn't a which race is to blame.

I did said blame others. People at the bottom tend to have one tend to have one characteristic in common. They can do no wrong and it's always someone else's fault. I mentioned white people because you posted an article about a racial race gap between minorities and who? White people.

Originally Posted by NealIRC

In the Democratic-Republican on the federal level, this is to blame which Republicans caused it.

Again, show me some proof. You keep stating this like it's a fact. Here's an article from Forbes that contradicts your theory:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe.../#51262e5d9ac9

[NealIRC]

Originally Posted by xsboost

I did said blame others. People at the bottom tend to have one tend to have one characteristic in common. They can do no wrong and it's always someone else's fault. I mentioned white people because you posted an article about a racial race gap between minorities and who? White people.



Again, show me some proof. You keep stating this like it's a fact. Here's an article from Forbes that contradicts your theory:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe.../#51262e5d9ac9

It'd be helpful if it said which groups of people it helped.

I fault Reagan for appointing Greenspan near the end of his term.

Greenspan's Wikipedia article portrays Greenspan as more of a hero for what he helped to the rich.

Even for all the lower-middle class workers that Reagan helped, what did Reagan do to the people at the very bottom?

[NealIRC]

Obamanomics is something else. In some cases he can be very much Republican.

I mean, Obama's policies gave Trump Tower a big tax break. Go figure.

[Chicago Trusted]

Hate each other? That's you.

Hate is a personal problem, not a party problem.

[NealIRC]

Originally Posted by Chicago Trusted

Hate each other? That's you.

Hate is a personal problem, not a party problem.

It can be both.

People can use the same word to mean different things.

For example, when I say I hate asparagus, it doesn't mean I have to hate it in the same sense when used on ideas, concepts, or people.

[Chicago Trusted]

I've seen the hate between the parties.. it isn't a veggie hate

practice peace, love, understanding, be moderate in your views and there will be no hate.

i hear ya though.

[compactspace]

Reagan, yes. Greenspan, maybe. There's an unfortunate tendency to blame poor people for being poor. The truth is, being down-and-out is rarely due to laziness. The better off your family is, the more second chances you get. The lack of second chances and family support feeds into other problems like mental health.

Now somebody who's angry and impoverished, lashing out and blaming others, is hard to like. But their behavior is a usually a symptom of all those factors combining.

And they're human beings. They're our brothers and sisters. And in our highly productive, food rich and wasteful society, we can take care of them.

And the tendency to dehumanize the poor is, sadly, exacerbated by isolation: if you exist in a suburban bubble and only see poor people wrecking things on Fox News then you're going to harden your heart and shout 'Bad choices! Laziness! Throw em to the wolves!'

If you're actually near such people and interact with them then you can see it's rather more complicated than that, and that even the most unsympathetic poor people are still human. That's one of the reasons Chicago, SF and NYC are so liberal.

Some would argue that generous make-work and welfare schemes mean lazy crooks and system-abusers will live off everyone's hard work. And they're right. But the alternative is the mentally ill and those with unfortunate birth circumstances will suffer greatly. Plus, the abusers won't suddenly grow a conscience and become good workers. They'll just steal. Vide: Victorian London and Paris. The Thernardiers of Les Miserables didn't appear out of thin air.

It breaks my heart every single day to see all the rationalizations people make for knowingly letting the indigent -- our human brethren -- suffer and die young, so they can pay less tax.

[NealIRC]

Originally Posted by compactspace

Reagan, yes. Greenspan, maybe.

Why Reagan more than Greenspan?

Originally Posted by compactspace

There's an unfortunate tendency to blame poor people for being poor. The truth is, being down-and-out is rarely due to laziness. The better off your family is, the more second chances you get. The lack of second chances and family support feeds into other problems like mental health.

Now somebody who's angry and impoverished, lashing out and blaming others, is hard to like. But their behavior is a usually a symptom of all those factors combining.

And they're human beings. They're our brothers and sisters. And in our highly productive, food rich and wasteful society, we can take care of them.

And the tendency to dehumanize the poor is, sadly, exacerbated by isolation: if you exist in a suburban bubble and only see poor people wrecking things on Fox News then you're going to harden your heart and shout 'Bad choices! Laziness! Throw em to the wolves!'

If you're actually near such people and interact with them then you can see it's rather more complicated than that, and that even the most unsympathetic poor people are still human. That's one of the reasons Chicago, SF and NYC are so liberal.

Some would argue that generous make-work and welfare schemes mean lazy crooks and system-abusers will live off everyone's hard work. And they're right. But the alternative is the mentally ill and those with unfortunate birth circumstances will suffer greatly. Plus, the abusers won't suddenly grow a conscience and become good workers. They'll just steal. Vide: Victorian London and Paris. The Thernardiers of Les Miserables didn't appear out of thin air.

Now, I'd agree with the whole thing, except, I think it is under the idea that, getting a job or well-paying job is a piece of cake if you're willing to work for it.

But I don't think that's necessarily the case anymore.

I can't say for everybody else, but for my case, every job I apply to, they're only looking to hire 1 person, and interviewing multiple. And if I find out a job will require some overtime, that's more of a turn-off for me. It just makes me think the company is cheap, and not as fluorishing. I wouldn't want to work for a company that suffers financially, and cuts costs, by hiring less people, for more overtime.

(So this situations, having too many people applying to the same job, I don't know who is to blame, probably not any individual is my guess.).