4 ms·

The drug war argument is compelling. If this is the main driver we have a pretty unpleasant trade off to consider: accept drug addiction which ruins lives or

by onos 4y ago

The drug war argument is compelling. If this is the main driver we have a pretty unpleasant trade off to consider: accept drug addiction which ruins lives or send people to jail which also ruins lives. Some drugs aren’t so bad so the trade off is not there. Definitely one suggestion from the right is promote their view of social morality, Christianity but also a la carte statements: no infidelity, no sex out of wedlock etc. Another of their arguments is that welfare payments from the state have made it easier for the poor to not stick together and this has been a driver of single parent households. Ie however well motivated there is a potential harmful unintended consequence here.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
> the right is promote their view of social morality, Isn't it patently obvious that their view of social morality is relativistic? Considering they endorsed multiple men who have openly paid for abortions, cheated on all their partners etc. If you believe in social morality you do not put a man like Hersel Walker anywhere near a ballot. Or you would suspend candidates with serious allegations like Gaetz being investigated over dating a minor. If the proposal is social morality, why not lead by example? > no sex out of wedlock etc if the right wing view about economics is that the right incentives will fix the market. Having tax benefits for married couples is already an economic incentive, therefore either their economic policy is wrong, or they shouldn't complaint about this as time will correct the market. > Another of their arguments is that welfare payments from the state have made it easier for the poor to not stick together and this has been a driver of single parent households. This might hold water on paper. But in reality every country with stronger social nets has lower crime. Even small experiments with universal credit have been fairly promising in lifting everyones living standards. In my opinion the lip service to "strong on crime" and "welfare disincentivices people working harder" is done because the consequences on those policies reinforce the status quo. They do not want more police or less welfare because its good for society, they want it because it keeps social mobility from happening. And considering how many people in the right are investing in rent-seeking instead of aggresive and innovative capitalistic ventures I think their actions speak louder than their words. If the entire Republican party moved to back AI and venture investment, and put forward absolute paragons of business with large perfect families I would believe them. But so far all I see is sketchy car used salesman energy millionaries with legacy degrees promoting business loans and rescues for companies that haven't been competitive in 3 decades.
- onos 4y ago
  Plenty of people on the right do not support walker et al. The right isn’t any more of a monolith than the left. Absolutely they’d support tax incentives for married couples. As for stronger social safety nets decreasing crime, sounds good. And yet, the claim I’ve read is that in the USA increases to this have not correlated with improved outcomes to eg household wealth among black Americans (since the 60s). Of course we have a complex system here so hard to make any conclusions.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
    > Plenty of people on the right do not support walker et a The same argument could be made about Trump and he got record number of votes. A man who has never stepped inside a church and slept with an adult actress while his foreign third wife was giving birth to his 4th kid. With 26 lawsuits about inappropiate sexual behaviour. And a history as a debacherous family money bachelor. if the people on the right cared about social morality why reward that history with the highest office in the land? Its hard to imagine somoene more inappropiate and yet it brought unprecedented support. > Absolutely they’d support tax incentives for married couples. those already exist and single mother and sex out of marriage have increased since the 60s, so something seems to not add up. > And yet, the claim I’ve read is that in the USA increases to this have not correlated with improved outcomes to eg household wealth among black Americans (since the 60s). https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ This is a great source to compare median wealth in America. If even wages for upper middle class have fallen in relative terms in the past 50 years, what effect are gonna marginal increases on substandard welfare programs gonna do? If your rent goes up 10% annually, who cares if your food stamps go up 1-3%?
    - onos 4y ago
      Thanks for the link. Yeah the world is complicated. I assume the plots above are driven by globalization. Fwiw I’m pro reshoring and isolationist. Below is a link to single motherhood rates by year. The lift off precedes the drug war so to my mind this discredits the idea that drug war is solely responsible for single parent growth, though I’m sure it has contributed. Thankfully it looks like we may have hit a peak. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_structure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_stru...

by onos 4y ago

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago

> the right is promote their view of social morality, Isn't it patently obvious that their view of social morality is relativistic? Considering they endorsed multiple men who have openly paid for abortions, cheated on all their partners etc. If you believe in social morality you do not put a man like Hersel Walker anywhere near a ballot. Or you would suspend candidates with serious allegations like Gaetz being investigated over dating a minor. If the proposal is social morality, why not lead by example? > no sex out of wedlock etc if the right wing view about economics is that the right incentives will fix the market. Having tax benefits for married couples is already an economic incentive, therefore either their economic policy is wrong, or they shouldn't complaint about this as time will correct the market. > Another of their arguments is that welfare payments from the state have made it easier for the poor to not stick together and this has been a driver of single parent households. This might hold water on paper. But in reality every country with stronger social nets has lower crime. Even small experiments with universal credit have been fairly promising in lifting everyones living standards. In my opinion the lip service to "strong on crime" and "welfare disincentivices people working harder" is done because the consequences on those policies reinforce the status quo. They do not want more police or less welfare because its good for society, they want it because it keeps social mobility from happening. And considering how many people in the right are investing in rent-seeking instead of aggresive and innovative capitalistic ventures I think their actions speak louder than their words. If the entire Republican party moved to back AI and venture investment, and put forward absolute paragons of business with large perfect families I would believe them. But so far all I see is sketchy car used salesman energy millionaries with legacy degrees promoting business loans and rescues for companies that haven't been competitive in 3 decades.

onos 4y ago
Plenty of people on the right do not support walker et al. The right isn’t any more of a monolith than the left. Absolutely they’d support tax incentives for married couples. As for stronger social safety nets decreasing crime, sounds good. And yet, the claim I’ve read is that in the USA increases to this have not correlated with improved outcomes to eg household wealth among black Americans (since the 60s). Of course we have a complex system here so hard to make any conclusions.
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
  > Plenty of people on the right do not support walker et a The same argument could be made about Trump and he got record number of votes. A man who has never stepped inside a church and slept with an adult actress while his foreign third wife was giving birth to his 4th kid. With 26 lawsuits about inappropiate sexual behaviour. And a history as a debacherous family money bachelor. if the people on the right cared about social morality why reward that history with the highest office in the land? Its hard to imagine somoene more inappropiate and yet it brought unprecedented support. > Absolutely they’d support tax incentives for married couples. those already exist and single mother and sex out of marriage have increased since the 60s, so something seems to not add up. > And yet, the claim I’ve read is that in the USA increases to this have not correlated with improved outcomes to eg household wealth among black Americans (since the 60s). https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ This is a great source to compare median wealth in America. If even wages for upper middle class have fallen in relative terms in the past 50 years, what effect are gonna marginal increases on substandard welfare programs gonna do? If your rent goes up 10% annually, who cares if your food stamps go up 1-3%?
  - onos 4y ago
    Thanks for the link. Yeah the world is complicated. I assume the plots above are driven by globalization. Fwiw I’m pro reshoring and isolationist. Below is a link to single motherhood rates by year. The lift off precedes the drug war so to my mind this discredits the idea that drug war is solely responsible for single parent growth, though I’m sure it has contributed. Thankfully it looks like we may have hit a peak. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_structure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_stru...