Is there a reason why Republicans never actually do anything to help poor people?

[Badger]

Republicans try to cut taxes and regulations all the time. How else do you propose to sustainably help poor people?

"cut taxes" uhh...yeah, that extra $36 a year will really bring them out of poverty huh?  I believe that was the average saving for middle class people from the 2017 cuts (and conveniently those are temporary).

I don't see how cutting regulations is supposed to help poor people, the only regulations they cut help big business.    If the regulation helps keep poor people down like regs limiting unionization or marijuana prohibition the Republicans always seem happy to keep the system in place.

Regulations keep big businesses afloat by removing their competition: small businesses who cannot compete with them. Having many small businesses do something rather than one large corporation will tend to employ more people and give consumers (who are often poor) more choices and greater satisfaction.

Cutting taxes for businesses will also allow them to hire more, as recent American history has repeatedly shown.

I don't want to say Republicans are perfect (very, very far from it), but Democrats rarely suggest these tried-and-true solutions at all (though, to their credit, not never).

To argue that big businesses don't strenuously put for government deregulation at every turn possible chose a truly astonishing level of ignorance regarding history, as well as the modern-day world.

There are people who I disagree with, and then there are people who have just mind blowing levels of self-delusion.

The reason America became far greater than any European nation in history is cause of our emphasis on individual freedom which includes the free market

I'd argue there are a number of important things that objectively are better in most European countries. A more robust social safety net, nearly 100% healthcare coverage in a public-private system, paid sick leave, paid family leave, better protections for employees and workers, better public transportation, especially highspeed rail, a smaller prison population and much higher voter turnout (or voting in general). Just to name a few.

The US is better in individualism and promoting innovation though. A raw comparison between an European country and the US is hardly possible in terms of absolute numbers. You'd have to compare the EU as whole then.

Well for some of your points id say there are tradoffs though like while there are more protections for employees and workers that also means it makes it harder for career advancement too for employees too which then does limit innovation as its those employees who advance quickly who many times make the innovation.

As for public transportation, a huge reason why its much better in Europe is due to the fact that European nations generally are much more urban than the US and imo a suburban environment is better for raising families than an urban one . Reasons for that is suburbs have more "low rise" style apartments that give kids more room to play and adults more room to walk, generally are safer in terms of crime and are much cheaper as well.



I will agree though Europe is better when it comes to Healthcare than the US but I do prefer the other aspects of American society more.

Just curious. In your mind what aspects of American society would be fundamentally compromised by having a more egalitarian health system like most European countries?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Republicans try to cut taxes and regulations all the time. How else do you propose to sustainably help poor people?

"cut taxes" uhh...yeah, that extra $36 a year will really bring them out of poverty huh?  I believe that was the average saving for middle class people from the 2017 cuts (and conveniently those are temporary).

I don't see how cutting regulations is supposed to help poor people, the only regulations they cut help big business.    If the regulation helps keep poor people down like regs limiting unionization or marijuana prohibition the Republicans always seem happy to keep the system in place.

Regulations keep big businesses afloat by removing their competition: small businesses who cannot compete with them. Having many small businesses do something rather than one large corporation will tend to employ more people and give consumers (who are often poor) more choices and greater satisfaction.

Cutting taxes for businesses will also allow them to hire more, as recent American history has repeatedly shown.

I don't want to say Republicans are perfect (very, very far from it), but Democrats rarely suggest these tried-and-true solutions at all (though, to their credit, not never).

To argue that big businesses don't strenuously put for government deregulation at every turn possible chose a truly astonishing level of ignorance regarding history, as well as the modern-day world.

There are people who I disagree with, and then there are people who have just mind blowing levels of self-delusion.

The reason America became far greater than any European nation in history is cause of our emphasis on individual freedom which includes the free market

The American Economy surged past the Europeans Economies in the Gilded Age during which time:

1. The US industry functioned behind a wall of tariffs
2. With massive subsidization for it lead industry (rail) and it secondary (steel).
3. With a direct and assertive effort to link the country via infrastructure after the Civil War (rail again)
4. financed with loads of cheap money
5. assisted by direct gifts of land to farmers to encourage settlement of the Prairies (which would not have been economically viable without gov't support and post Depression history and emptying out of that territory has proven several fold)
6. also assisted by land grants for the formation of colleges, and expansion of access to education and literacy.

There is this big lie that comes from neoliberals in the world of finance, finance journalism, economics departments at major universities and the world of business, that this country was built solely by free trade, freedom and lassiez faire. All discussion or talk of nationalist economic schools of thought are buried or white washed from history with over emphasis on Smoot-Hawley and not enough emphasis on impact 70 years earlier, to promote generalized statements of "free trade - the source of all things great" and "protectionism causes war and depression".

If we actually did take that approach some 200 years ago, we would be an economic backwater, we will still have slavery and we would be at the mercy of whichever was the latest foreign power who decided to take a crap all over the fanciful delusions of utopians (right or left) and manipulate the market to their own benefit. Economically speaking the Civil War and the abolishing of slavery played out as America's rejection of the international trade system (namely with Free Trade Britain buying cheap American cotton grown by unpaid slaves) alongside of the tariffs and other polices, in favor of domestic manufacturing.

It was not in John Tyler's, Martin Van Buren's or Grover Cleveland's administration that the US surpassed Great Britain. It was during Rutherford B Hayes'.

Manipulating the market for domestic benefit is the policy used by rising powers (Britain in the 16th-18th centuries, US in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, China Now), free trade is the policy used by ascended powers to cash in on their dominance (Britain in the 19th century, US in the 20th Century).

Furthermore, population size and growth is the main driver of GDP once all other factors are accounted for, something that Japan has learned the hard way as its nominal GDP has stagnated even as its per Capita GDP mirrors that of most developed nations.

Essential factors thus in the US and its ability to surge economically past Europe was its vast size, resources and population.

All of this need to be considered alongside its history and legacy of freedom and such forth.