USA poll - Red, Blue, or Purple?

[OtherJen]

FYI Bill and Melinda Gates pledged $2 billion dollars for access to birth control throughout the world. It's certainly not fiscally conservative by any means yet it's a great step in getting women out of poverty. And a great way to reduce abortion.

I disagree with the bolded. There is evidence that increased abortion access translates to higher levels of education and workplace participation, which strengthens the economy. It's also a lot cheaper to pay for birth control/abortions than it is to pay for prenatal care, delivery, postnatal care, and societal impacts of unprepared parents.

From the Gates foundation site:

Voluntary family planning is one of the most cost-effective investments a country can make in its future. Every dollar spent on family planning can save governments up to 6 dollars that can be spent on improving health, housing, water, sanitation, and other public services.

Regarding marriage equality - taxes may not pay for the ceremonies, but it does mean more access to marriage tax benefits.

This is a really good point. The financial benefits of improved family planning access take a while to kick in but they are quite large.

There are a lot of situations, like this one, where I think part of the problem is that people are bad at estimating or factoring in externalities. If externalities and delayed costs are taken into account, there are a lot of things -- like family planning or reducing/mitigating climate change or some types of early childhood support intervention that reduce crime rates as adults -- that make a lot of sense even from a purely dollars and cents fiscal conservative perspective.

In related news a Republican president nominated and a Republican senate confirmed a new federal judge who is rated as unqualified, and is fiercely anti-contraception and anti-fertility treatment. Not just as a personal opinion but as a legal philosophy.

Yep. And at the state level, the Ohio GOP now wants to mandate the reimplantation of ectopic embryos (which is not medically possible), and the Pennsylvania GOP wants to require death certificates for every fertilized but non-implanted ovum.

At this point, I don't see how a vote for the GOP could not be viewed as a vote against women.

[MasterStache]

Just pointing this out with no intention to discuss further but socially liberal while also being fiscally conservative is not really a viable ideology. I understand what you are trying to represent and it sounds great in theory. But you really need to understand how social programs, social issues etc. are deeply intertwined with fiscal issues. For example the poverty cycle is greatly influenced by fiscal issues. I am only bringing his up because I used to claim to be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" until I truly understood that you can't really be both. It's ripe for discussion in another thread. Don't want to thread hijack.

As far as this thread is concerned I am an independent, I guess. I don't like labels and simply vote for who I think the best candidate is. Labels just lead to division.

Maybe it isn't viable the way you think about it, but for me it's perfectly viable.

Socially liberal:  If gay people want to get married, women want abortions, people want to smoke pot, etc. etc. go for it....

Fiscally conservative: ... just don't ask me to pay for it.

I would also place getting the countries' fiscal house in order(not running record deficits to fund recurring expenses) as part of being fiscally conservative.

To be fair only the abortion issue is something your tax money would go towards. Tax money doesn't pay for gay marriage ceremonies nor for folks to smoke some pot. Fiscal conservatism would actually support banning abortions so money would not be designated for places like Planned Parenthood. Sure you can support their right to choose, but when they have no place to turn to or financial means to do so, then the choice was made for them.

FYI Bill and Melinda Gates pledged $2 billion dollars for access to birth control throughout the world. It's certainly not fiscally conservative by any means yet it's a great step in getting women out of poverty. And a great way to reduce abortion.

I disagree with the bolded. There is evidence that increased abortion access translates to higher levels of education and workplace participation, which strengthens the economy. It's also a lot cheaper to pay for birth control/abortions than it is to pay for prenatal care, delivery, postnatal care, and societal impacts of unprepared parents.

From the Gates foundation site:

Voluntary family planning is one of the most cost-effective investments a country can make in its future. Every dollar spent on family planning can save governments up to 6 dollars that can be spent on improving health, housing, water, sanitation, and other public services.

Regarding marriage equality - taxes may not pay for the ceremonies, but it does mean more access to marriage tax benefits.

I was responding to the underlined part posted by Indexer. Apparently I am confused as it seems fiscal conservatism means different things to different people. Increased abortion access would mean funding organizations like Planned Parenthood, which of course is via tax dollars. Which means "don't ask me to pay for it" doesn't equate.

I agree with everything you stated. Which is why I am all for not being fiscally conservative in areas such as abortion, birth control, regulation, social programs to help reduce poverty etc. etc.

Speaking of poverty, I noticed not a single "socially liberal fiscally conservative" person touched the question I posed about poverty. Ahh, oh well. 

[MasterStache]

There are two separate issues here. Failing to provide funding for Planned Parenthood is not equivalent to banning abortion.

Sure it's not, I agree. Supporting planned parenthood means supporting your tax dollars funding the non-profit. That is most certainly not "don't make me pay for it." (which is what the poster said whom I responded to).   

Generally fiscal conservatives aren't in favor of banning anything as bans require enforcement and enforcement costs money.

Yeah now you are venturing into some seriously gray areas. Bans are absolutely necessary in terms of short term and long term climate impacts. Banning single use plastics is one that comes to mind. It's going to cost money to enforce. It's likely to cost companies money. But what are the long term impacts? How about banning the development of new oil, gas, and petrochemical infrastructure?   

Which brings me to my next point, if we follow your strict requirement that fiscal conservatives always favor the short term* lower cost option

That is absolutely not my requirement. Again I was responding to a poster via their designation for what they believe fiscal conservatism represents. Often times favoring the "short term" and possible long term higher cost option is more socially responsible.

*I say short term because the argument can be made for many socially liberal programs that they cost money now but will save money in the long run, like rehab programs and planned parenthood. Some would argue that this makes them fiscally conservative but that's a separate point that I'm not getting into right now.

I think it's important to consider this. The definition of fiscal conservatism makes no distinction between short term vs long terms spending. To me if someone says they are fiscally conservative but they are for increasing spending for a bunch of social programs, even if it means long term the impacts may mean spending less, that doesn't technically fit the definition. I mean it would seem to me we are all fiscally conservative then, no matter if you want reduced spending now or reduced spending later. And we haven't even factored in the other aspects of fiscal conservatism, reduced government debt, less taxes. Increasing spending short term, even if long term financial gains are a goal, contradicts both of those.

[Bloop Bloop]

Allowing anyone who wants an abortion to have an abortion is probably the single best way to reduce future government expenditures. It's the children of parents on the brink who are most likely to cause the most societal problems later on.

I answered libertarian as I am strongly socially left wing (pro affirmative action, pro abortion, pro queer rights/gender fluidity, pro migrant) but economically I believe in the free market in most cases with only enough intervention to prevent people going without food or water or warmth.

[Davnasty]

There are two separate issues here. Failing to provide funding for Planned Parenthood is not equivalent to banning abortion.

Sure it's not, I agree. Supporting planned parenthood means supporting your tax dollars funding the non-profit. That is most certainly not "don't make me pay for it." (which is what the poster said whom I responded to).   

So your stance is that one must not only support abortion rights but also support giving tax payer money to planned parenthood in order to claim they are socially liberal?

Generally fiscal conservatives aren't in favor of banning anything as bans require enforcement and enforcement costs money.

Yeah now you are venturing into some seriously gray areas. Bans are absolutely necessary in terms of short term and long term climate impacts. Banning single use plastics is one that comes to mind. It's going to cost money to enforce. It's likely to cost companies money. But what are the long term impacts? How about banning the development of new oil, gas, and petrochemical infrastructure? 

I should have been more specific here. I meant banning personal choices like drug use. What I was really getting at is that social conservatives support banning recreational drugs. Banning recreational drugs costs more than not banning them and so if we follow the logic you're using to say one cannot be both socially liberal and fiscally conservative then it is also true that one cannot be socially conservative and fiscally conservative. Do you agree?

[Davnasty]

*I say short term because the argument can be made for many socially liberal programs that they cost money now but will save money in the long run, like rehab programs and planned parenthood. Some would argue that this makes them fiscally conservative but that's a separate point that I'm not getting into right now.

I think it's important to consider this. The definition of fiscal conservatism makes no distinction between short term vs long terms spending. To me if someone says they are fiscally conservative but they are for increasing spending for a bunch of social programs, even if it means long term the impacts may mean spending less, that doesn't technically fit the definition.

Aren't these statements contradictory?

I mean it would seem to me we are all fiscally conservative then, no matter if you want reduced spending now or reduced spending later. And we haven't even factored in the other aspects of fiscal conservatism, reduced government debt, less taxes. Increasing spending short term, even if long term financial gains are a goal, contradicts both of those.

I agree, if we make the definition too broad then it becomes meaningless. In my opinion the label of fiscally conservative isn't particularly useful as most people claim they are one. At best it's a way of signaling priorities rather than absolute beliefs.

Perhaps in most cases it would be more useful to express these ideas as small government vs. big government rather than fiscally conservative vs. fiscally liberal?

[GuitarStv]

Perhaps in most cases it would be more useful to express these ideas as small government vs. big government rather than fiscally conservative vs. fiscally liberal?

Small / big government is problematic too.

Having a large government is essential for certain things.  Like preventing the elderly from starving to death in unheated apartments in their twilight years . . . or preventing corporations from polluting the world to unlivable levels . . . or preventing slavery.

I'd prefer to keep government to the smallest size possible to provide what I see as basic needs of the people . . . but depending on who you talk to, that makes me small government (when talking to a communist) and big government (when talking to a Libertarian).

[MasterStache]

So your stance is that one must not only support abortion rights but also support giving tax payer money to planned parenthood in order to claim they are socially liberal?

No I am saying that support shouldn't just be a word. I supported my 14 year old niece's right to choose. However, if I didn't support having a support system in place and the financial and medical means to carry out the choice, then her ability to make a choice doesn't really exist. I understand that you can support the right to choose while not wanting to "pay for it." But it greatly diminishes that person's ability have an actual choice. Therefore I don't believe that's being fully supportive. Also in keeping with the discussion, is it more fiscally conservative to put tax money towards better access and a support system now, or pay for it later when no system is in place?

Generally fiscal conservatives aren't in favor of banning anything as bans require enforcement and enforcement costs money.

Yeah now you are venturing into some seriously gray areas. Bans are absolutely necessary in terms of short term and long term climate impacts. Banning single use plastics is one that comes to mind. It's going to cost money to enforce. It's likely to cost companies money. But what are the long term impacts? How about banning the development of new oil, gas, and petrochemical infrastructure? 

I should have been more specific here. I meant banning personal choices like drug use. What I was really getting at is that social conservatives support banning recreational drugs. Banning recreational drugs costs more than not banning them and so if we follow the logic you're using to say one cannot be both socially liberal and fiscally conservative then it is also true that one cannot be socially conservative and fiscally conservative. Do you agree?

I am saying the position is invalid if one embraces all socially liberal issues. Based on the conversation so far, it appears only some socially liberal positions are being considered. I think that is where I differ from others and ultimately disagree.

However, I wouldn't limit "bans" to personal choice. I don't disagree with what you are saying about personal choice FYI.  Climate change is a socially liberal issue (to me it is anyways). And as you said, bans often cost money. Is it fiscally conservative to institute bans on items, coal factories, etc. to help combat climate change? Probably not. There is so much gray area in what constitutes fiscally conservative. I really think anyone could make a case that they are fiscally conservative. 

[Davnasty]

So your stance is that one must not only support abortion rights but also support giving tax payer money to planned parenthood in order to claim they are socially liberal?

No I am saying that support shouldn't just be a word. I supported my 14 year old niece's right to choose. However, if I didn't support having a support system in place and the financial and medical means to carry out the choice, then her ability to make a choice doesn't really exist. I understand that you can support the right to choose while not wanting to "pay for it." But it greatly diminishes that person's ability have an actual choice. Therefore I don't believe that's being fully supportive. Also in keeping with the discussion, is it more fiscally conservative to put tax money towards better access and a support system now, or pay for it later when no system is in place?

The support system and the financial and medical means to carry out the choice do not need to be provided by the government in order for them to exist. In fact planned parenthood only receives about 1/3rd of their funding from the government.

The right to choose and a support system to help with that choice are two separate issues. It's not a question of full or partial support, it's two separate questions.

Generally fiscal conservatives aren't in favor of banning anything as bans require enforcement and enforcement costs money.

Yeah now you are venturing into some seriously gray areas. Bans are absolutely necessary in terms of short term and long term climate impacts. Banning single use plastics is one that comes to mind. It's going to cost money to enforce. It's likely to cost companies money. But what are the long term impacts? How about banning the development of new oil, gas, and petrochemical infrastructure? 

I should have been more specific here. I meant banning personal choices like drug use. What I was really getting at is that social conservatives support banning recreational drugs. Banning recreational drugs costs more than not banning them and so if we follow the logic you're using to say one cannot be both socially liberal and fiscally conservative then it is also true that one cannot be socially conservative and fiscally conservative. Do you agree?

I am saying the position is invalid if one embraces all socially liberal issues. Based on the conversation so far, it appears only some socially liberal positions are being considered. I think that is where I differ from others and ultimately disagree.

However, I wouldn't limit "bans" to personal choice. I don't disagree with what you are saying about personal choice FYI.  Climate change is a socially liberal issue (to me it is anyways). And as you said, bans often cost money. Is it fiscally conservative to institute bans on items, coal factories, etc. to help combat climate change? Probably not. There is so much gray area in what constitutes fiscally conservative. I really think anyone could make a case that they are fiscally conservative.

Yes, this is definitely where your opinion differs from others. If we only apply labels like socially liberal to those who agree with every policy under the umbrella of that label, it would apply to very few people. I don't think this is how those labels are typically used. My understanding is that the purpose of such labels is to give a general idea of one's policy preferences, not fully explain them.

To be fair, I think I understand your contention that the label "fiscal conservative" is overused to the point where it carries little meaning and I agree that some people claim fiscal conservatism when they really mean that they just don't like wasting money. No one likes wasting money*. My disagreement is with the hard line that these labels are mutually exclusive.

*The antimustachian wall of shame and comedy would beg to differ

[ctuser1]

Climate change is a socially liberal issue (to me it is anyways).

The biggest environmental impact that any American president ever had was by a conservative - Teddy Roosevelt. NRA supported him, back then!!

https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/historyculture/theodore-roosevelt-and-conservation.htm

"Conservation" is "Conservative"!! Don't let Orwellian re-labeling fool you from actual history and logic.

As far as I can gather from my reading of history, Lincoln and Teddy R would not recognize the post-Nixon conservatives and would likely consider them - well - "un-american"!!

[Indexer]

Speaking of poverty, I noticed not a single "socially liberal fiscally conservative" person touched the question I posed about poverty. Ahh, oh well.

My reply was meant to address my socially liberal fiscally conservative views on poverty.

Socially liberal:  If gay people want to get married, women want abortions, people want to smoke pot, etc. etc. go for it....

Fiscally conservative: ... just don't ask me to pay for it.

What I was getting at is that I'm socially liberal when it means giving everyone more freedom, but I'm fiscally conservative in the sense that I feel the government already spends and taxes enough. When I say I'm Socially Liberal I don't mean I agree with current political Liberals(Bernie Sanders) on every social issue. 

I mean I'm liberal per the definition of the word Liberal: "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism


Poverty is a reality. How society addresses it is another issue. Do we solve it by increasing taxes on the middle class and rich to give money to people in poverty so they aren't poor anymore? As a fiscal conservative, my answer will be no. Our country already provides the very best solution to poverty available: a free education. Now that is something I'm in favor of because while expensive, free K-12 education more than pays for itself in creating an educated liberal(actual definition, not political party) society. The percentage of high school drop outs in poverty is over double that of HS graduates. (Some people have disabilities so an education isn't the solution to all poverty. We also already have programs for them.)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/233162/us-poverty-rate-by-education/

How do we encourage more people to take their education seriously? How do we decrease crime in problem areas so children can focus on their education? Etc. These solutions will cost money, but likely a very small amount compared to massive income redistribution programs.

[ctuser1]

Do we solve it by increasing taxes on the middle class and rich to give money to people in poverty so they aren't poor anymore? As a fiscal conservative, my answer will be no.

As a fiscal conservative, do you rather like the fact that I pay > 30% of my income in taxes while the rich pay < 15%?

How about a taxation such that the marginal utility of the last tax dollar is "similar"? Should the rich pull their weight, or freeload because they are "rich"?

These solutions will cost money, but likely a very small amount compared to massive income redistribution programs.

Aren't you ignoring the massive income redistribution .... upwards?? If you count the government "poverty" benefits paid to employees of Macdonald or Walmart as corporate welfare, add the money paid to big oil, farming - then that would not be too much less than the wrong kind of "massive income redistribution" programs you speak of.

Look up a David Koch video on youtube that explains corporate welfare.

[Dancin'Dog]

Trump & the GOP seem to be "against more than they are for".


They care more about "themselves" than they care about the country.  Instead of embracing our differences and making the most of the strengths that diversity offers they choose to use it to weaken and divide us. 


We need a government that understands respect is far more powerful than fear.  Our government needs to respect its citizens and we need a government that we can respect.  We are all Americans and our leaders need to focus on uniting us instead of dividing us.   Instead of labeling us by our gender, race, income, etc. they need to just see us all as people with the same basic needs from our government.  Don't separate us into unequal groups, and wonder why the groups don't like each other.  Be united "leaders" that know how to build and maintain strong relationships with all of your people, and also with the countries around the world.  [size=78%] [/size]
[/size]
We need leaders that are wise and mature.  Is that impossible?


I find it sad when there's an important issue and the response is "how will be pay for it?"  The USA has walked on the moon.  We have the most powerful military that the world has ever known.  But when we the discussion turns to the environment, or education, or infrastructure, or social programs we often hear "how will we pay for it?".  All these issues are important and worthy investments that will pay for themselves in ways that are sometimes hard to measure, but it all adds up to a higher standard of living for our entire country.  That should be the goal of government.  Why pour trillions of dollars in building a military that is protecting a country that "can't afford" to improve anything else.  Why bother protecting ourselves if we don't even like each other? 












[/size]


[/size]

[Omy]

^This.

[maizefolk]

We are all Americans and our leaders need to focus on uniting us instead of dividing us.   Instead of labeling us by our gender, race, income, etc. they need to just see us all as people with the same basic needs from our government.  Don't separate us into unequal groups, and wonder why the groups don't like each other.

I really REALLY wish more politicians understood this and how well it does work at getting American people united again.

On either side of the aisle or both.

[Indexer]

Do we solve it by increasing taxes on the middle class and rich to give money to people in poverty so they aren't poor anymore? As a fiscal conservative, my answer will be no.

As a fiscal conservative, do you rather like the fact that I pay > 30% of my income in taxes while the rich pay < 15%?

How about a taxation such that the marginal utility of the last tax dollar is "similar"? Should the rich pull their weight, or freeload because they are "rich"?

These solutions will cost money, but likely a very small amount compared to massive income redistribution programs.

Aren't you ignoring the massive income redistribution .... upwards?? If you count the government "poverty" benefits paid to employees of Macdonald or Walmart as corporate welfare, add the money paid to big oil, farming - then that would not be too much less than the wrong kind of "massive income redistribution" programs you speak of.

Look up a David Koch video on youtube that explains corporate welfare.

You are taking complaints about policies you don't like and acting as if I agree with those policies when I said nothing to imply that. I didn't say the rich should pay less in taxes than anyone else, and I didn't say anything in favor of corporate subsidies.

I just watched a youtube video of Charles Koch on corporate welfare. (I didn't see any youtube videos on the subject by his brother David.) It didn't change my mind... because I already agree with him on this issue. Charles Koch is fiscally conservative so if you agree with him you might be too.

[TVRodriguez]

Trump & the GOP seem to be "against more than they are for".


They care more about "themselves" than they care about the country.  Instead of embracing our differences and making the most of the strengths that diversity offers they choose to use it to weaken and divide us. 


We need a government that understands respect is far more powerful than fear.  Our government needs to respect its citizens and we need a government that we can respect.  We are all Americans and our leaders need to focus on uniting us instead of dividing us.   Instead of labeling us by our gender, race, income, etc. they need to just see us all as people with the same basic needs from our government.  Don't separate us into unequal groups, and wonder why the groups don't like each other.  Be united "leaders" that know how to build and maintain strong relationships with all of your people, and also with the countries around the world.  [size=78%] [/size]
[/size]
We need leaders that are wise and mature.  Is that impossible?


I find it sad when there's an important issue and the response is "how will be pay for it?"  The USA has walked on the moon.  We have the most powerful military that the world has ever known.  But when we the discussion turns to the environment, or education, or infrastructure, or social programs we often hear "how will we pay for it?".  All these issues are important and worthy investments that will pay for themselves in ways that are sometimes hard to measure, but it all adds up to a higher standard of living for our entire country.  That should be the goal of government.  Why pour trillions of dollars in building a military that is protecting a country that "can't afford" to improve anything else.  Why bother protecting ourselves if we don't even like each other? 

Can you go run for office?  Or at least become a speechwriter please?  This is excellent.

[BlueHouse]

I would describe myself now as something completely different than how I described my views in 2015.  I'mpretty sure I'm now going to be a life long democrat. 

[Schaefer Light]

The two major parties will continually shift in ways that make the country as a whole purple.  It's why I identify more with libertarians now than I do with the GOP.  Libertarians don't shift their views in an effort to win votes.

[ctuser1]

Do we solve it by increasing taxes on the middle class and rich to give money to people in poverty so they aren't poor anymore? As a fiscal conservative, my answer will be no.

As a fiscal conservative, do you rather like the fact that I pay > 30% of my income in taxes while the rich pay < 15%?

How about a taxation such that the marginal utility of the last tax dollar is "similar"? Should the rich pull their weight, or freeload because they are "rich"?

These solutions will cost money, but likely a very small amount compared to massive income redistribution programs.

Aren't you ignoring the massive income redistribution .... upwards?? If you count the government "poverty" benefits paid to employees of Macdonald or Walmart as corporate welfare, add the money paid to big oil, farming - then that would not be too much less than the wrong kind of "massive income redistribution" programs you speak of.

Look up a David Koch video on youtube that explains corporate welfare.

You are taking complaints about policies you don't like and acting as if I agree with those policies when I said nothing to imply that. I didn't say the rich should pay less in taxes than anyone else, and I didn't say anything in favor of corporate subsidies.

I just watched a youtube video of Charles Koch on corporate welfare. (I didn't see any youtube videos on the subject by his brother David.) It didn't change my mind... because I already agree with him on this issue. Charles Koch is fiscally conservative so if you agree with him you might be too.

>> Charles Koch is fiscally conservative so if you agree with him you might be too.

I dunno. "Fiscal conservatives" won't support a tax law that increases deficit by $2Tln while providing 80% of the cash-flow benefits to the oligarchs. I have a slightly different definition of fiscally "conservative" behavior than running up the deficit to pay back the oligarchs.

Are there any fiscal conservatives left among what counts as "right wing" in the US since about 1980?

In NY State, the newbie "socialists in power" are now debating the new social programs they wish for - a bit too enthusiastically for my liking (because they cost money and I am a NY taxpayer who don't want my taxes to go further up). They, however, do show far more concern for deficits in words AND action (the second part is very important) than the right-wing has done ever since the invention of the "supply side economics".

>> I didn't say the rich should pay less in taxes than anyone else, and I didn't say anything in favor of corporate subsidies.

Correct, you didn't. That is why they stood out.

The wealth inequality in the US (and yes, it has gone up tremendously in the US, whereas the evidence is  murky in other, more socialist countries) is probably the biggest issue facing the country. And yet, the comments you do make in this context are:
"Poverty is a reality. How society addresses it is another issue."
"Do we solve it by increasing taxes on the middle class and rich to give money to people in poverty so they aren't poor anymore?"

- They do come across (at least to me) as dog-whistling in the financial context.

The day Romney starts paying something other than 15% tax rate, we will all be much better off.

[Indexer]

....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

What's the point of picking things in politics you don't like and then assuming I hold the opposing view when I didn't say anything to suggest that?

Fiscal conservative doesn't equal Republican. I'm not a Republican. I'm not in favor or corporate welfare, deficits, supply side economics, or wealth inequality, and I haven't said anything to suggest I am in favor of these views.

And yet, the comments you do make in this context are:
"Poverty is a reality. How society addresses it is another issue. Do we solve it by increasing taxes on the middle class and rich to give money to people in poverty so they aren't poor anymore?""

In context... the quote you took is the opening to my argument about why we need stronger education.

Our country already provides the very best solution to poverty available: a free education. Now that is something I'm in favor of because while expensive, free K-12 education more than pays for itself in creating an educated liberal(actual definition, not political party) society. The percentage of high school drop outs in poverty is over double that of HS graduates. (Some people have disabilities so an education isn't the solution to all poverty. We also already have programs for them.)

How do we encourage more people to take their education seriously? How do we decrease crime in problem areas so children can focus on their education? Etc. These solutions will cost money, but likely a very small amount compared to massive income redistribution programs.

Please drop the straw man arguments. They aren't productive.