Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - "Not All Dems Are The Same"

[King Kreole]

I have NO affinity for Meghan McCain

But this is what happens when you keep trying to knock every pitch into the parking lot on twitter.

Sometimes someone is going to push it back on you.

Whatever Gabbard gained in trolling, she lost in the conservative push back.

Stop giving people easy wins.

You're acting like Republicans haven't been trying to throw the kitchen sink at AOC. She's faced more Republican fury than just about anyone in Congress right now. They're obsessed with trying to own her. This is all they have, and she's still golden. They can't step to her, she awkward she box lefty. I don't know who this Great Republican Hope you're terrified of is, these people are mental midgets, and it's AOC who's banking the easy wins. You're out here trying to tell Barry Bonds to bunt .

 

[Perfectson]

This actually isn't accurate.

American Inequality in Six Charts

"Once again, the long-term trends are clear. Between the start of the Second World War and the first oil-price shock of 1973, families in the bottom ninety-nine per cent saw their incomes rise sharply. With the exception of the late nineteen-nineties, the past forty years have been marked by slow growth. For those at the top of the income distribution, recent history has been very different. After growing modestly in the postwar decades, the incomes of families in the top one per cent took off in the late nineteen-seventies, and have been zig-zagging upward since then."

Inequality started getting supercharged in the late-70s, early-80s when conservatives began waging war on labour and the social safety net. It was the mid-century period of FDR's socialist New Deal and LBJ's socialist Great Society that laid the groundwork for a healthy, robust middle class.


So according to you, the wealthy are the laziest group in society because they no longer have positive and negatives incentives to drive them? I think in reality, what robs people of motivation to progress their lives is the belief that there is no opportunity to progress because society has stacked the deck against them by not giving them the tools they need to rise from their condition through socialist policies. And again, these aren't "free stuff" being given via socialist policies, they're the benefits and rights you are owed by society as a citizen. You pay for them via taxes and civic behavior. No one calls the police "free", no one calls the military "free", no one calls social security "free", no one calls roads or the postal service or any of the other myriad things the government does to uphold society "free". It's a deal, and it's the basis of a healthy society.


K-12 is free, due to socialist policies, and robust investment in it is a progressive, socialist policy! I've never in my life heard of a progressive that was against more investment in public schooling. It's almost always conservatives touting the "no free lunch" ideology that you've been displaying that have acted to starve public schools, and they've used your idea that it will separate the deserving wheat from the indolent chaff as justification. Free college is just a natural extension of free K-12 that acknowledges we live in a modern world and economy in which knowledge work is becoming increasingly centralized, and social education policy should reflect that.

1) Breh you're 100% wrong. I didn't go researching charts and stats, so my years may have been off but at least you should post accurate stats that convey the points. Also your reading comprehension was off because I clearly stated "since 1960" the income gap has increased...which is 100% accurate. You also failed to mention that 1970's we were in a recession which is why teh top % decreases compared to the impovered who were supported by the safety net and we were out of the recession late/early 80s. SMH

Below shows that in teh 1960's you see the remnants of the depression that actually moved more wealthy people out of the top incomes, you see the wealth distribution happening in the 1960s (consolidation) and you see post 60's the increase in wealth following straigth intot he technology revolution , this clearly shows the recessionary periods as well, which you of course chose to ignore.

below is the poverty rate. You try to say people attacked social welfare programs but it's very clear that is not the case, since the 60's you can see that the poverty rate has gone done and plateau'd. The reason being is the safety net and the reason those incomes don't rise is because the safety net has not risen with inflation and the people in the safety net aren't moving out of the "poverty" line. It's not because of any attack , because more people are outside the poverty measure than compared to the 1960's. The safety net is a catch 22....it's a net that people are stuck in.

so actually look at real stats that correspond to the discussion it's obvious that the disparity as happened partly to do with those in the safety net not being able to move beyond it. the new deal is providing a safety net yes, but it's ensuring those in it don't get out.


2) when you start telling me I said something that I didn't say, is when the discussion ends. Wealthy people have motivations to stay wealthy and not be poor. It's common sense again. I'll leave you with this great article.

To Fix Income Inequality, The Have-Nots Must Become The Do-Somethings

The second problem with the argument that so-called “wealth inequality” alarmists are far too fond of can be summed up as a general disdain for capitalism and oblivious fascination with socialism. Let’s get something straight once and for all. Socialism is not to be satirically “dreaded,” it is to be summarily avoided at all opportunities. Socialism is economic insanity. There is no more adequate way to describe it. Even if we were to tolerate the folly of redistribution, for instance through taxation and welfare transfer payments, this is merely the least offensive socialist idea.

Socialism entails nationalization, the state management of the means of production and resources. The state is the main employer and therefore the main benefactor. People are reliant on the whims of leaders and technocrats to determine a fair compensation for their labor. Because the state sets prices arbitrarily, rationing inevitably follows. Black markets become a necessity. Socialism is an economic system that requires a shadow economy to operate. It is at every level inefficient and global history more than proves this by now.

Look at a satellite image of the Korean peninsula at night. North Korea is pitch black. The rest of the world glows while they dwell in darkness. Who could wish that on anyone? We shouldn’t be quick to praise seemingly less totalitarian socialist nations either. As many noted after the death of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela may have lifted up its poor through oil subsidies, but it is one of the most violent countries in Latin America and has one of the highest inflation rates in the world. As for the soft welfare-state socialism of Europe, that’s not to be admired either. They are facing a serious crisis. Spain and Greece have unemployment rates above 25%. In Greece, it’s giving rise to neo-Nazis.

This is not surprising. Socialism is not a democratic system. There’s a reason it has always been accompanied by autocracy—it cannot work any other way. In order for the state to be able to set prices, wages, and benefits, in order for it to manage all of these resources that the market otherwise would, it has to be centralized. It may seem to raise up the impoverished, but socialism most certainly does not give these disadvantaged classes a voice. Socialism silences people. It strips them of the liberty to buy, sell, work, and live how they would see fit. Anyone who promotes socialism as a way to empower the masses in America should be shamed out of the public sphere.

Capitalism is not the enemy. Not for a free people who have prospered because of it, at least. Capitalism has done more to save and enrich lives in Western civilization than we can possibly enumerate. Perhaps that’s the problem. Most Americans don’t know any other way of life. They don’t understand how miserable, sick, and poor we’d be without the creative power of a free market.

They don’t grasp how disturbing socialism has been in practice. In the 1930s, in the larger cities of the Soviet Union, abortions outnumbered births. People had no incentive even to carry life on into the next generation. People need incentives. They need to believe that their children will thrive and prosper. The only system to successfully and consistently instill that kind of confidence is capitalism. So, yes, socialism is rightly to be dreaded and no, the returns of capitalism are not to be viewed with scorn.

The problem that video and Thompson’s post highlight, this distractingly termed “wealth inequality,” is a diversion. The real issue that ignites anger, fear, and sadness is poverty. We need to concentrate on that and finally forget our misguided and nihilistic inclinations to pillage the wealthiest among us. Why should we hate them? We should want to be them. To achieve that, we must unleash our creative forces. Let people make and exchange more useful and agreeable things, it’s the best way.

3.

K-12 is free, due to socialist policies, and robust investment in it is a progressive, socialist policy! I've never in my life heard of a progressive that was against more investment in public schooling. It's almost always conservatives touting the "no free lunch" ideology that you've been displaying that have acted to starve public schools, and they've used your idea that it will separate the deserving wheat from the indolent chaff as justification. Free college is just a natural extension of free K-12 that acknowledges we live in a modern world and economy in which knowledge work is becoming increasingly centralized, and social education policy should reflect that.

utter bullshyt, both liberals and conservatives agree with schooling kids and agree to investment in schools. The way to hold teachers accountable to ensure improved education is the biggest issue, where Dems want to hid behind unions and not hold teachers or the system responsibile for failing education scores! conservatives just punt the issue and say if we can afford it, we will allow to subisidies to private instiatutions to keep our kids out of the failing public schools that liberals continue to destroy. free college is not a natural extension not when the k-12 system is broken. It's like having a car that does't run and say we need to add new wheels to it....it doesn't work, why are you wasting time adding wheels. fix the motor first!

 

[Perfectson]

Brehski you're really in here arguing against "welfare" state while at the same time arguing for using military for job creation

There are a lot more efficient ways of stimulating economy, improving society and increasing productivity than continuing to make obsolete F-Whatever fighter jets and fighting trillion dollar wars.

you can't go full welfare state - you need a military that isn't privatized for obvious reasons and the military has a program of defend, education, and productivity that really is unrivaled from a stimulus standpoint. You thinking military is some sort of welfare state is very unintelligent. Government required jobs is not welfare states when their productivity behind it. Kinda of mind boggling that you associated the two and that you have actual posters dapping you like you said something smart.

 

[Perfectson]

You're acting like Republicans haven't been trying to throw the kitchen sink at AOC. She's faced more Republican fury than just about anyone in Congress right now. They're obsessed with trying to own her. This is all they have, and she's still golden. They can't step to her, she awkward she box lefty. I don't know who this Great Republican Hope you're terrified of is, these people are mental midgets, and it's AOC who's banking the easy wins. You're out here trying to tell Barry Bonds to bunt .

bro - they are doing to her what Dems did to Sarah Palin. You're just not seeing how air headed AOC is that's the funny part. Do you believe she's a smart politician. Yes or no?


what sucks is I loathe Sarah Palin but you're so biased and prejudicial that you can't even see you're literally doing the same thing tea partiers did 10 years ago! LOL

 

[Perfectson]

Do those ideas and thoughts keep the same energy when it comes to her dad?

Meghan has nothing to do with Trump and his policies. That was one politician talking to another. But if Meghan wants to bring up people's war records and who they associated with, then she should be prepared when they bring up her father's skeletons.

doesn't make any sense.

She attacked AOC on something AOC did, so you attack her by attacking her dead father? SMH

I'm done with this one, will focus on the poverty and wealth disparity arguements going forward. Yall are going off the rails coo koo right now.

 

[Perfectson]

Obamacare is not free BTW. And it costs more than a phone bill now. lol

bro - you're right. Nothing is free. Get off that point, you keep popping up saying this and it's beating a dead horse. WE all know it's being funded. It's easier to say free and both sides use that terminology so stop it.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

bro - you're right. Nothing is free. Get off that point, you keep popping up saying this and it's beating a dead horse. WE all know it's being funded. It's easier to say free and both sides use that terminology so stop it.

No citizens have to pay. This is not like the previous free college conversation.

 

[nyknick]

you can't go full welfare state - you need a military that isn't privatized for obvious reasons and the military has a program of defend, education, and productivity that really is unrivaled from a stimulus standpoint. You thinking military is some sort of welfare state is very unintelligent. Government required jobs is not welfare states when their productivity behind it. Kinda of mind boggling that you associated the two and that you have actual posters dapping you like you said something smart.

I didn't say any of that shyt you just went on about


Here you go:
Military, budget, wellfare, Scandinavian, Bernie Sanders, unions, socialist

Have fun breh

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You're acting like Republicans haven't been trying to throw the kitchen sink at AOC. She's faced more Republican fury than just about anyone in Congress right now. They're obsessed with trying to own her. This is all they have, and she's still golden. They can't step to her, she awkward she box lefty. I don't know who this Great Republican Hope you're terrified of is, these people are mental midgets, and it's AOC who's banking the easy wins. You're out here trying to tell Barry Bonds to bunt .

Keep that same energy

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Keep that same energy

I wonder how many people slammed Trump on Twitter before he became president. lol

 

[King Kreole]

1) Breh you're 100% wrong. I didn't go researching charts and stats, so my years may have been off but at least you should post accurate stats that convey the points. You failed to mention that 1970's we were in a recession which is why teh top % decreases compared to the impovered who were supported by the safety net and we were out of the recession late/early 80s. SMH

Below shows that in teh 1960's you see the remnants of the depression that actually moved more wealthy people out of the top incomes, you see the wealth distribution happening in the 1960s (consolidation) and you see post 60's the increase in wealth following straigth intot he technology revolution , this clearly shows the recessionary periods as well, which you of course chose to ignore.


below is the poverty rate. You try to say people attacked social welfare programs but it's very clear that is not the case, since the 60's you can see that the poverty rate has gone done and plateau'd. The reason being is the safety net and the reason those incomes don't rise is because the safety net has not risen with inflation and the people in the safety net aren't moving out of the "poverty" line. It's not because of any attack , because more people are outside the poverty measure than compared to the 1960's. The safety net is a catch 22....it's a net that people are stuck in.




so actually look at real stats that correspond to the discussion it's obvious that the disparity as happened partly to do with those in the safety net not being able to move beyond it. the new deal is providing a safety net yes, but it's ensuring those in it don't get out.

A lot of fundamental changes to the underlying structure of American society took place during the 20th Century, so it's important to be precise on the years we're talking about. You've mentioned a lot here, and certain lines of your thought don't connect from my perspective, so I'm going to try restate and synthesize my argument. The progressive policies that were enacted during the FDR administration and the LBJ administration provided (and continue to provide) a critical buffer from the depths of economic and social depravation for many in the American underclass. They're both moral and economically productive sets of policies.

That first chart you posted justifies my historical narrative and overall point about the usefulness of progressive policies. What we see is a peak of income concentration at the top (aka income inequality) in the late 1920s to early 1930s, which is obviously caused by the Great Depression (1929). We start to see a decline of that income inequality in the mid-1930s, which coincides with the introduction of FDR's progressive New Deal policies (1933). This trough continued on a stable trajectory throughout the 1960s and introduction of LBJ's progressive Great Society policies (1964) until the 1980s, in which the resurgent right under the Reagan Administration started attacking labour and progressive protections. We've been living in a post-Reagan society ever since, which is why income inequality has continued to rise since that period. The big change periods were the late 1920s and 1980s, not the 1960s, as you've claimed. Recessions are cyclical and usually happen about once a decade, so you'll have to spell out your point about them to me.

As for your second chart, America's wealth has risen exponentially in that same period, yet, as you point out, the poverty rate has plateaued. That's a deep sign of wealth inequality. We've seen some of the most incredible expansion of wealth over the last 50 years, yet the poor have been running in place. It's because of the attacks on labour, and the normalization of extreme pro-corporatist and pro-wealth inequality policies by both Republicans and Democrats. Socialism has arisen as a natural corrective to that unjust state of affairs. People aren't getting stuck in the social safety net, they're being held down in it. Remove the pressure by giving them the tools to climb up (universal healthcare, free college, modern minimum wage, etc). To refuse to upgrade the social welfare apparatus is to pretend as though the state of things has been frozen for the past 50 years. It's nonsense.

2) when you start telling me I said something that I didn't say, is when the discussion ends. Wealthy people have motivations to stay wealthy and not be poor. It's common sense again. I'll leave you with this great article.

I'm not trying to putting words in your mouth, I'm just following through on your logic. You claim that by giving people "free stuff" like healthcare and comprehensive modern education, it deincentivizes them from being productive. You then claim that the wealthy are exempt from this system of motivation for some vague reason. Somehow, the wealthy have found a way to be productive absent of poverty nipping at their heels. Moreso, you're fetishizing poverty because it "gives people motivation" to get out, yet you're robbing them of the tools (healthcare, education) to do so effectively. Drowning in debt because you committed the crime of getting sick while poor (which is no coincidence, as the poor live in the worst conditions and get the worst resources) is not a healthy or sustainable motivation to become a productive member of society. It's just cruel. Drowning in debt because you committed the crime of not having trust fund parents to fund your prohibitively expensive yet increasingly necessary college education is not a healthy or sustaintainable motivation to become a productive member of society. It's just cruel. There is no lesson to learn from poverty induced by a rigged system. America really hates poor people because a central tenet of American ideology is that people are ultimately deserving of whatever their life station is. "If you're poor, don't look to change the society that set the rules against your favour, just hustle harder!" It's an idea that trickles down from the wealthy to keep their pockets lined while others scratch and claw for a decent life.

utter bullshyt, both liberals and conservatives agree with schooling kids and agree to investment in schools. The way to hold teachers accountable to ensure improved education is the biggest issue, where Dems want to hid behind unions and not hold teachers or the system responsibile for failing education scores! conservatives just punt the issue and say if we can afford it, we will allow to subisidies to private instiatutions to keep our kids out of the failing public schools that liberals continue to destroy. free college is not a natural extension not when the k-12 system is broken. It's like having a car that does't run and say we need to add new wheels to it....it doesn't work, why are you wasting time adding wheels. fix the motor first!

You can both bolster the K-12 system AND roll out free college tuition. It's not an either/or. Treating it as such is just sweeping the large and imminent student debt crisis under the rug. Again, no progressive is against improving the K-12 system. You just can't stop there in 2018. It's not 1950, we don't live in a rural society. Our idea of a comprehensive education needs to be modernized, and in fact it already has been with peak levels of students acquiring post-secondary educations. The problem is the state hasn't caught up with that reality by making it free like K-12, so the youth are being saddled with absurd amounts of debt, which is a massive deincentivation factor for productivity, and a ticking time bomb for the economy as a whole.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I wonder how many people slammed Trump on Twitter before he became president. lol

more left wingers



I'm telling yall...this shyt is cute, but the race to the bottom of hot takes only helps Trump. People need to smarten up.

 

[King Kreole]

Keep that same energy

PLEASE TAKE THIS TO THE TULSI GABBARD THREAD THANK YOU GOODBYE

Or better yet, follow this advice by the campaign you proclaim as a flawless masterclass that I guess never clapped back on twitter



Keep that same energy

 

[AnonymityX1000]

A lot of fundamental changes to the underlying structure of American society took place during the 20th Century, so it's important to be precise on the years we're talking about. You've mentioned a lot here, and certain lines of your thought don't connect from my perspective, so I'm going to try restate and synthesize my argument. The progressive policies that were enacted during the FDR administration and the LBJ administration provided (and continue to provide) a critical buffer from the depths of economic and social depravation for many in the American underclass. They're both moral and economically productive sets of policies.

That first chart you posted justifies my historical narrative and overall point about the usefulness of progressive policies. What we see is a peak of income concentration at the top (aka income inequality) in the late 1920s to early 1930s, which is obviously caused by the Great Depression (1929). We start to see a decline of that income inequality in the mid-1930s, which coincides with the introduction of FDR's progressive New Deal policies (1933). This trough continued on a stable trajectory throughout the 1960s and introduction of LBJ's progressive Great Society policies (1964) until the 1980s, in which the resurgent right under the Reagan Administration started attacking labour and progressive protections. We've been living in a post-Reagan society ever since, which is why income inequality has continued to rise since that period. The big change periods were the late 1920s and 1980s, not the 1960s, as you've claimed. Recessions are cyclical and usually happen about once a decade, so you'll have to spell out your point about them to me.

As for your second chart, America's wealth has risen exponentially in that same period, yet, as you point out, the poverty rate has plateaued. That's a deep sign of wealth inequality. We've seen some of the most incredible expansion of wealth over the last 50 years, yet the poor have been running in place. It's because of the attacks on labour, and the normalization of extreme pro-corporatist and pro-wealth inequality policies by both Republicans and Democrats. Socialism has arisen as a natural corrective to that unjust state of affairs. People aren't getting stuck in the social safety net, they're being held down in it. Remove the pressure by giving them the tools to climb up (universal healthcare, free college, modern minimum wage, etc). To refuse to upgrade the social welfare apparatus is to pretend as though the state of things has been frozen for the past 50 years. It's nonsense.


I'm not trying to putting words in your mouth, I'm just following through on your logic. You claim that by giving people "free stuff" like healthcare and comprehensive modern education, it deincentivizes them from being productive. You then claim that the wealthy are exempt from this system of motivation for some vague reason. Somehow, the wealthy have found a way to be productive absent of poverty nipping at their heels. Moreso, you're fetishizing poverty because it "gives people motivation" to get out, yet you're robbing them of the tools (healthcare, education) to do so effectively. Drowning in debt because you committed the crime of getting sick while poor (which is no coincidence, as the poor live in the worst conditions and get the worst resources) is not a healthy or sustainable motivation to become a productive member of society. It's just cruel. Drowning in debt because you committed the crime of not having trust fund parents to fund your prohibitively expensive yet increasingly necessary college education is not a healthy or sustaintainable motivation to become a productive member of society. It's just cruel. There is no lesson to learn from poverty induced by a rigged system. America really hates poor people because a central tenet of American ideology is that people are ultimately deserving of whatever their life station is. "If you're poor, don't look to change the society that set the rules against your favour, just hustle harder!" It's an idea that trickles down from the wealthy to keep their pockets lined while others scratch and claw for a decent life.


You can both bolster the K-12 system AND roll out free college tuition. It's not an either/or. Treating it as such is just sweeping the large and imminent student debt crisis under the rug. Again, no progressive is against improving the K-12 system. You just can't stop there in 2018. It's not 1950, we don't live in a rural society. Our idea of a comprehensive education needs to be modernized, and in fact it already has been with peak levels of students acquiring post-secondary educations. The problem is the state hasn't caught up with that reality by making it free like K-12, so the youth are being saddled with absurd amounts of debt, which is a massive deincentivation factor for productivity, and a ticking time bomb for the economy as a whole.

Basically 'free stuff' > the motivation and death the status quo currently provides.

 

[Perfectson]

A lot of fundamental changes to the underlying structure of American society took place during the 20th Century, so it's important to be precise on the years we're talking about. You've mentioned a lot here, and certain lines of your thought don't connect from my perspective, so I'm going to try restate and synthesize my argument. The progressive policies that were enacted during the FDR administration and the LBJ administration provided (and continue to provide) a critical buffer from the depths of economic and social depravation for many in the American underclass. They're both moral and economically productive sets of policies.

That first chart you posted justifies my historical narrative and overall point about the usefulness of progressive policies. What we see is a peak of income concentration at the top (aka income inequality) in the late 1920s to early 1930s, which is obviously caused by the Great Depression (1929). We start to see a decline of that income inequality in the mid-1930s, which coincides with the introduction of FDR's progressive New Deal policies (1933). This trough continued on a stable trajectory throughout the 1960s and introduction of LBJ's progressive Great Society policies (1964) until the 1980s, in which the resurgent right under the Reagan Administration started attacking labour and progressive protections. We've been living in a post-Reagan society ever since, which is why income inequality has continued to rise since that period. The big change periods were the late 1920s and 1980s, not the 1960s, as you've claimed. Recessions are cyclical and usually happen about once a decade, so you'll have to spell out your point about them to me.

As for your second chart, America's wealth has risen exponentially in that same period, yet, as you point out, the poverty rate has plateaued. That's a deep sign of wealth inequality. We've seen some of the most incredible expansion of wealth over the last 50 years, yet the poor have been running in place. It's because of the attacks on labour, and the normalization of extreme pro-corporatist and pro-wealth inequality policies by both Republicans and Democrats. Socialism has arisen as a natural corrective to that unjust state of affairs. People aren't getting stuck in the social safety net, they're being held down in it. Remove the pressure by giving them the tools to climb up (universal healthcare, free college, modern minimum wage, etc). To refuse to upgrade the social welfare apparatus is to pretend as though the state of things has been frozen for the past 50 years. It's nonsense.


I'm not trying to putting words in your mouth, I'm just following through on your logic. You claim that by giving people "free stuff" like healthcare and comprehensive modern education, it deincentivizes them from being productive. You then claim that the wealthy are exempt from this system of motivation for some vague reason. Somehow, the wealthy have found a way to be productive absent of poverty nipping at their heels. Moreso, you're fetishizing poverty because it "gives people motivation" to get out, yet you're robbing them of the tools (healthcare, education) to do so effectively. Drowning in debt because you committed the crime of getting sick while poor (which is no coincidence, as the poor live in the worst conditions and get the worst resources) is not a healthy or sustainable motivation to become a productive member of society. It's just cruel. Drowning in debt because you committed the crime of not having trust fund parents to fund your prohibitively expensive yet increasingly necessary college education is not a healthy or sustaintainable motivation to become a productive member of society. It's just cruel. There is no lesson to learn from poverty induced by a rigged system. America really hates poor people because a central tenet of American ideology is that people are ultimately deserving of whatever their life station is. "If you're poor, don't look to change the society that set the rules against your favour, just hustle harder!" It's an idea that trickles down from the wealthy to keep their pockets lined while others scratch and claw for a decent life.


You can both bolster the K-12 system AND roll out free college tuition. It's not an either/or. Treating it as such is just sweeping the large and imminent student debt crisis under the rug. Again, no progressive is against improving the K-12 system. You just can't stop there in 2018. It's not 1950, we don't live in a rural society. Our idea of a comprehensive education needs to be modernized, and in fact it already has been with peak levels of students acquiring post-secondary educations. The problem is the state hasn't caught up with that reality by making it free like K-12, so the youth are being saddled with absurd amounts of debt, which is a massive deincentivation factor for productivity, and a ticking time bomb for the economy as a whole.

the poor has stayed in the same place, because to the point I've continued to make. They aren't looking to move and the safety net is working ...working to well. they aren't incentived to move out of the safety net. That's the entire point to all of this.

you say in your last paragraph, it's not either/or. You can also give everyone a million dollars too that is in poverty but that's not helping the fundamental problem, which is people are incentivized to move out of their state and free college doesn't help that. they will get a degree (which in my eyes will be lowered in value since everyone will have one, like highschool diplomas and then the next thing is masters and phds will be held in higher regard). There's so many dynamics that you either are ignoring or not aware of that this is a poor idea vs. the one thing you keep spouting, which is that it will benefit poor people but even you can't articulate what will happen. The poor doesn't just disappear because they have degrees!!!

America doesn't dislike poor people...poor people hate Americans that are getting up and getting it every day and thats why they crowd around people like tea partiers, trump, and now AOC.