Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

I’ve made my life’s work spotting #######s.

Phrasing Dion. Phrasing.

[MelBridgeman]

What Empathy is NOT

Empathy doesn’t mean agreeing with someone’s actions or feelings; you can empathize while holding them accountable.

Example: “I understand you’re angry, but breaking things won’t solve the problem.”

It’s not about shielding people from challenges but supporting them as they face them.

Sympathy is feeling pity or sorrow for someone, which can sometimes feel condescending. Empathy focuses on shared humanity

You both are getting it confused with "feeling pity or sorrow for someone"

If that makes me a horrible person Pickles so be it.

I chose to support, both of you chose to shield. One is helpful (ME!) and one is not (You)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

No he’s a man of hypotheticals.

Can you answer the question so that everyone can see how right you are?

niether put in any work

[Dion]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

What Empathy is NOT









You both are getting it confused with "feeling pity or sorrow for someone"

If that makes me a horrible person Pickles so be it.

I chose to support, both of you chose to shield. One is helpful (ME!) and one is not (You)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The below is what empathy is about.

This belief that everyone is created equal and that we all have the same chance to succeed in life is fundamentally flawed. The truth is that we are not all created equal in our ability to achieve success. Every person has a unique set of strengths, which can aid in achieving the success they desire. Conversely, each person also has their own unique set of challenges that inhibit them in achieving such success. We are meant to share our strengths with those close to us and resolve the challenges we face together.

If a child is born disabled or grows up in a poor, abusive, or criminal home, they do not have the same chance at success as a child born healthy, to a high-income, loving family that lives in a nice neighborhood. The former will start school approximately 1.5 years behind other students and by third grade, they will be three years behind their peers educationally. These are the facts.

https://vocal.media/motivation/life-is-not-equal

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You are just making excuses to avoid recognizing not everyone has the same easy road. A person pulling themselves out of poverty into a strong career is the exception, and it's not because there are so many challenges to overcome that only a slim few make it through that gauntlet.


Do you have any idea how health issues can completely impede you from being able to function and achieve even the most basic of successes? Obviously you don't, or you wouldn't be how you are. But since it's no big deal to you, I wish all the pain and suffering on you for the rest of your life . Maybe one day you will understand the meaning of the word empathy. Probably not. Can you go find another community to be a horrible in person please?

Why can’t you have a discussion without flying off the handle?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I said the wealth trickles down, never said anything about trickle down ecomomics, and wouldn't be the term I would use. Did not graduate from from the Warren Sanders Reich Shool of Economics



Books, papers, articles, what ever i remember or find.

and yes i can

Defines equality of opportunity; but doesn't call it equality of opportunity.

Defines Trickle Down Economics; but won't call it trickledown economics.

Is semantics just a game to you, or are you obtuse?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

What Empathy is NOT

You both are getting it confused with "feeling pity or sorrow for someone"

If that makes me a horrible person Pickles so be it.

I chose to support, both of you chose to shield. One is helpful (ME!) and one is not (You)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

What do you do to support the disadvantaged? Is it the part where you mock them for earning minimum wage? Do you support governments who provide actual support for them? How much do you donate a year to causes that help out?


What actionable things do you do?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Defines equality of opportunity; but doesn't call it equality of opportunity.

Defines Trickle Down Economics; but won't call it trickledown economics.

Is semantics just a game to you, or are you obtuse?

As an aside, "trickle down economics" isn't a serious descriptor of economic policy. It was a campaign slogan. It makes the utterer of the term sound uninformed.

It's a straw man term in the same way tax-and-spend-Liberal is.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

As an aside, "trickle down economics" isn't a serious descriptor of economic policy. It was a campaign slogan. It makes the utterer of the term sound uninformed.

It's a straw man term in the same way tax-and-spend-Liberal is.

As another aside, “trickle down economics” is actually a pejorative descriptor of supply side economics and government policies that favour the wealthy and corporations over the middle class. It was never a campaign slogan. Thinking otherwise makes the utterer sound uninformed.

[Roughneck]

As an aside to the asides, it was one of Reagan's own cabinet members, David Stockman, who made the supply-side/trickle-down connection in the first place. Trickle-down was the original, but had bad connotations because of the Great Depression, so supply-side was a way to dress it up.

For all of the elaborate rhetoric on how the Kemp-Roth bill would stimulate investment by cutting marginal tax rates, for all of the baloney spoon- fed to willing congressmen by Arthur Laffer, Jude Wanniski and Rep. Jack Kemp, Stockman confesses that he knew from the very start that "the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply side is 'trickle down' theory."

Stockman concedes the point that the tax cut is a rich man's bill. "Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront (when the tax legislation went to the Hill)?" he asked Greider. "The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of opportunism, just got out of control. . . . The politics of the bill turned out to be very traditional. The basic strategy was to match or exceed the Democrats, and we did."

The uninformed were basically anybody who bought into the tax cuts and spending increases who made under $50,000 in 1980 (which was most people, since the average annual wage was under $13,000).

[belsarius]

Horse and sparrow!

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

As an aside, "trickle down economics" isn't a serious descriptor of economic policy. It was a campaign slogan. It makes the utterer of the term sound uninformed.

It's a straw man term in the same way tax-and-spend-Liberal is.

You want to join the semantics train as well?

Sorry - i will change it to supply-side economics.

Trickle Down was used for over a century as a term prior to the Gipper using it

Dont be uniformed like that, BoLevi...

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

niether put in any work

You shouldn’t be telling people that. Otherwise the whole house of cards for all that the harder you work the further you will get ahead rhetoric will come crumbling down. Then people might be more inclined to realize that raising the taxes on people who make money without having to work instead of on the people who actually do the work that makes them their money isn’t the craziest idea in the world. Neither is paying the people who actually create their wealth for them a little bit more.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

It should be a part of peoples budgets to throw money into some sort of financial product.

Yes it should. So I suppose you'd support income supports/higher wages then so that people can all have surplus wealth to save?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Cappy

You want to join the semantics train as well?

Sorry - i will change it to supply-side economics.

Trickle Down was used for over a century as a term prior to the Gipper using it

Dont be uniformed like that, BoLevi...

In all cases, it's erroneously used to imply or state that the intent of certain policies is to simply "make the rich richer".

The usage of the phrase in modern times is a continuation of the misrepresentation of the intent of the policies, which is to make everyone richer. The progressives have, and always will, be wrong in their belief that an economy is a zero sum game. The rich can (and almost always do) get richer without it coming from making others poorer. People generally get rich by providing, not from taking. This should be self evident with some basic observations, but humans aren't really wired to be intuitive when they can feel the soft warmth of envy instead. Envy is a basic human instinct, so it is easy to generate a populist message about wealth creation somehow simultaneously making the populace more poor.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by GGG

Kansas experiment?

Remember that an economy on its own is not a good. The economy facilitates a standard of living. You should read the latest Nobel in economics research around what types of institutions lead to prosperous countries.

They found that having “inclusive” (not woke inclusive but instead institutions which reinvest in the local area) rather than extractive institutions led to prosperity. I’m not doing it justice but well worth reading. In centers around answering the question of why did colonialism produce winning nations and losing nations.

Valiant effort, but we both know you've suggested far too much reading for these folks to reasonably be expected to perform! They're stuck on the black and white of taxes=bad and don't have even an inkling of an idea how complicated the real economy is.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

In all cases, it's erroneously used to imply or state that the intent of certain policies is to simply "make the rich richer".

The usage of the phrase in modern times is a continuation of the misrepresentation of the intent of the policies, which is to make everyone richer. The progressives have, and always will, be wrong in their belief that an economy is a zero sum game. The rich can (and almost always do) get richer without it coming from making others poorer. People generally get rich by providing, not from taking. This should be self evident with some basic observations, but humans aren't really wired to be intuitive when they can feel the soft warmth of envy instead. Envy is a basic human instinct, so it is easy to generate a populist message about wealth creation somehow simultaneously making the populace more poor.

I bolded the problem with the statement. It's not necessary to make others poorer, but it's a mathematical fact that as a wealthy person's wealth grows further, they are essentially removing the capacity of others to gain wealth. So, not necessarily making people poorer, rather ensuring they don't have the ability to create new wealth at the same capacity.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

In all cases, it's erroneously used to imply or state that the intent of certain policies is to simply "make the rich richer".

The usage of the phrase in modern times is a continuation of the misrepresentation of the intent of the policies, which is to make everyone richer. The progressives have, and always will, be wrong in their belief that an economy is a zero sum game. The rich can (and almost always do) get richer without it coming from making others poorer. People generally get rich by providing, not from taking. This should be self evident with some basic observations, but humans aren't really wired to be intuitive when they can feel the soft warmth of envy instead. Envy is a basic human instinct, so it is easy to generate a populist message about wealth creation somehow simultaneously making the populace more poor.

That's not the purpose of my post.

If you look again, i wasn't the one that first used the term.

Talk to Harry Lime and MelBridgeman about the use of the term. They both used it.

My post was calling out MelBridgeman for saying (A) isnt (A), then describing (A) as (A)

Don't make me your strawman to go on your rants

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I bolded the problem with the statement. It's not necessary to make others poorer, but it's a mathematical fact that as a wealthy person's wealth grows further, they are essentially removing the capacity of others to gain wealth. So, not necessarily making people poorer, rather ensuring they don't have the ability to create new wealth at the same capacity.

It is self evident why this statement is false.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Cappy

That's not the purpose of my post.

If you look again, i wasn't the one that first used the term.

Talk to Harry Lime and MelBridgeman about the use of the term. They both used it.

My post was calling out MelBridgeman for saying (A) isnt (A), then describing (A) as (A)

Don't make me your strawman to go on your rants

Apologies that wasn't my intent.