# Who will stand up for the little guy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 18, 2016, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082 "2016-05-18T13:43:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/61 "2016-05-18T21:45:44Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I’m talking about the people who fall below that line. The quality of their lives hang by a thread. You haven’t looked at all the data if you don’t realize the lower 40% of the income range has been consistently falling further behind the 60% above them. You think the quality of life for 40% of Americans is hanging by a thread? That’s absurd hyperbole. I want to see some cites to support that. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/62 "2016-05-18T22:28:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I think the issue is less about who cares about the little guy, so much as what does the little guy need? What does the little guy want? What are the actual barriers to success for the little guy? I’m not sure that trained lawyers with 20,000 square foot houses are the most qualified people to judge this, which is why even if they mean well they probably aren’t going to get far. I’m not sure what lawyers have to do with it, but I very strongly object to the implication that somehow all we need is the folksy homespun wisdom of the little guy. What’s going to give you more bang-for-your-buck when using limited funds to try to improve quality of life in a struggling neighborhood, tax incentives to lure in new businesses, investments in infrastructure, or investments in programs to improve civic responsibility and career possibilities among the youth? Beats me. But whatever the answer it is, it demands actual knowledge and study and expertise, in fields like urban development and political science and economics and sociology, not just common sense. Granted, taking that position too far leads to an attitude of “oh, we know much better than you do what’s good for you”, and certainly some people who are theoretically experts have come up with some bizarrely boneheaded ideas. But if fixing the lot of poor Americans was so simple that it just required some good old common sense, it would have happened already. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/63 "2016-05-19T03:38:11Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > “Recent violent offenses”? That’s it? You want to make it against the law for a company to refuse to hire a convicted embezzler who wants to join their finance department? > > Even outside such blatant examples, why should the employer assume they are willing to obey the employer’s instructions when they have proven by their own actions that they are not willing to obey the law? No, you’re right, people who commit identity theft should be nowhere near customer info, for example. But we should set a standard that if you’ve kept your nose clean for X amount of years that it should no longer come up on background checks. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/64 "2016-05-19T03:40:44Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Everyone should contribute taxes or labor to the nation if the nation is expected to provide for them. What is freely given is treated with contempt. Everyone pays sales and payroll taxes and excise taxes. Income taxes do not have to apply to everyone, and already don’t apply to 47% of taxpayers. But many of those non-taxpayers are pretty well of, while some minimum wage workers have to come up with as much as $50-100/month to meet their tax bill. Taking that off their shoulders would increase their quality of life a great deal. > [@](#): > > Do you plan on sinking container ships and barring international communications? If not, the genie is out of the bottle with regards to global trade. I’m all in favor of free trade and i recognize that we can’t do much about outsourcing. But importation of cheap labor is something we can do something about as a sovereign nation that ostensibly controls its own borders. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/65 "2016-05-19T03:46:21Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I’m not sure what lawyers have to do with it, but I very strongly object to the implication that somehow all we need is the folksy homespun wisdom of the little guy. What’s going to give you more bang-for-your-buck when using limited funds to try to improve quality of life in a struggling neighborhood, tax incentives to lure in new businesses, investments in infrastructure, or investments in programs to improve civic responsibility and career possibilities among the youth? Beats me. But whatever the answer it is, it demands actual knowledge and study and expertise, in fields like urban development and political science and economics and sociology, not just common sense. > > Granted, taking that position too far leads to an attitude of “oh, we know much better than you do what’s good for you”, and certainly some people who are theoretically experts have come up with some bizarrely boneheaded ideas. But if fixing the lot of poor Americans was so simple that it just required some good old common sense, it would have happened already. This is one area where Barack Obama has been literally the best President we’ve ever had: he’s attacking the causes of poverty more directly than any other President in history, because his years as a community activist gave him knowledge about what actually keeps poor people poor. So he’s adjusting overtime rules, making it easier for poor people to access health care, and he’s working on getting minor offenders out of prison and getting them access to the job market(which admittedly is the thorniest issue out there). HE’s even vocally criticized parents for lack of accountability, telling them to turn off the TV and get their kids to do their homework. He’s even addressed the racial aspect(black kids who study being accused of “acting white”). Now of course Obama is a lawyer and didn’t grow up poor, but he did deeply immerse himself in these issues at the ground level. We need more of those, rather than John Edwards types who talk a lot about poverty but don’t really know much about poverty beyond what they’ve read from their briefing books. And I still would like to see more poor and lower middle class workers actually elected to Congress. Lack of a degree should not be an effective political attack on someone running for office if they seem to know what they are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/66 "2016-05-19T11:07:27Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > There is no doubt that the Democratic party has done more for the little guy than the Republicans for many decades. But for the recent decades the party has focused on winning each election by compromising the principles it used to stand for. Small increases in minimum wage look like pandering to me, not actual progress. It’s not that the Democrats are doing nothing for the lower strata, but they seem to do only enough to get their votes. People are still suffering in this country, there have always been people in that condition, but this is not one of those times where they could look ahead to a better future. Just out of curiosity, what makes people so sure that doubling the minimum wage overnight is such a great idea? I’m in total agreement that there is a great wage disparity that needs to be addressed. I’m not completely sure how we do that. I’m not an economist but I’ve leaned more toward taxing the upper end of the economy, either on income or wealth, and redistributing to the lower end. The minimum wage is a tool in the toolbox but I don’t get the fixation over $15 per hour. It seems reasonable to incrementally increase wages to see what the effects of an increase would be. That’s my take anyway. > [@TriPolar](#): > > I understand the conundrum, without winning elections no party or politician can actively change the system. But is that winning just for winning’s sake, or should there be a goal to achieve? Does anyone but Bernie Sanders say that we cannot allow the country to continue consolidating the wealth and power of the nation into fewer and fewer hands? He is an old man, this election cycle will be his last hurrah. I don’t see anyone who will carry forward the tradition of fighting for the common man, to say that all of us must benefit before we lavish the spoils of success on the few and leave the rest behind. I disagree that it’s winning for winning’s sake. The reality is the United States is an extremely politically diverse nation, divided along the lines of race, religion, geography, educational attainment, and class. We’re not all going to agree, and I sometimes have to remind myself of this, so I’m not saying I’m any better. But compromise is how you make progress. Even if you enact legislation along purely partisan lines like Obamacare, you still have dissenters within one’s own party for those reasons mentioned above. There’s still some crossover and compromise. It’s utterly impossible to achieve everything progressives want in the time and in the manner that they want. No legislation happens that way. Not Obamacare. Not New Deal. Not the Civil Rights Acts. Nothing. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/67 "2016-05-19T11:09:27Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This is one area where Barack Obama has been literally the best President we’ve ever had: he’s attacking the causes of poverty more directly than any other President in history, because his years as a community activist gave him knowledge about what actually keeps poor people poor. So he’s adjusting overtime rules, making it easier for poor people to access health care, and he’s working on getting minor offenders out of prison and getting them access to the job market(which admittedly is the thorniest issue out there). HE’s even vocally criticized parents for lack of accountability, telling them to turn off the TV and get their kids to do their homework. He’s even addressed the racial aspect(black kids who study being accused of “acting white”). > > Now of course Obama is a lawyer and didn’t grow up poor, but he did deeply immerse himself in these issues at the ground level. We need more of those, rather than John Edwards types who talk a lot about poverty but don’t really know much about poverty beyond what they’ve read from their briefing books. And I still would like to see more poor and lower middle class workers actually elected to Congress. Lack of a degree should not be an effective political attack on someone running for office if they seem to know what they are talking about. Solid analysis on your part. I appreciate the balance post even if we sometimes disagree. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/68 "2016-05-19T12:04:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This is one area where Barack Obama has been literally the best President we’ve ever had: he’s attacking the causes of poverty more directly than any other President in history, because his years as a community activist gave him knowledge about what actually keeps poor people poor. So he’s adjusting overtime rules, making it easier for poor people to access health care, and he’s working on getting minor offenders out of prison and getting them access to the job market(which admittedly is the thorniest issue out there). HE’s even vocally criticized parents for lack of accountability, telling them to turn off the TV and get their kids to do their homework. He’s even addressed the racial aspect(black kids who study being accused of “acting white”). > > Now of course Obama is a lawyer and didn’t grow up poor, but he did deeply immerse himself in these issues at the ground level. We need more of those, rather than John Edwards types who talk a lot about poverty but don’t really know much about poverty beyond what they’ve read from their briefing books. And I still would like to see more poor and lower middle class workers actually elected to Congress. Lack of a degree should not be an effective political attack on someone running for office if they seem to know what they are talking about. For a guy with whom I seldom agree, and one who has taken great pains to disparage Obama at every opportunity, this is one post I solidly agree with. It’s heartening to see a staunch Republican admit that Obama has a good side. If I ever find good in Trump, I’ll be sure to let everyone know. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/69 "2016-05-19T12:14:56Z")
He’s decisive. That’s about all I can think of right now. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/70 "2016-05-26T19:47:45Z")
As a lower middle class citizen, the ACA and mandatory purchase of skyrocketing health insurance has the greatest impact on my fiscal well-being. First it was $120 a month, then $180, then $225, now they want $280. I opted out and will dodge the tax refund penalty. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/71 "2016-05-29T17:54:27Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > There was an unprecedented increase in health insurance purchases _because the Democrats threatened to fine people if they didn’t buy it_. Quit patting yourself on the back for taking the “let them eat cake” approach to the problem. > The Democrats _did_ have control of Congress, and the ACA is what they chose to create. If you are going to bring up history… Many of the problems with ACA were caused by a unforeseen circumstance-the untimely death of Senator Kennedy and the loss of his seat to a Republican. Prior to that, the Democrats made many unfortunate compromises in the ACA with the Republicans to win some measure of bi-partisan support. They thought, reasonably enough, that if the Republicans didn’t deliver, the Democrats would take out the compromises and pass a better bill. With Republican support, they figured any really bad ideas would get fixed in the future like any other Government program. When Sen. Kennedy died the Democrats lost their ability to unilaterally make changes to ACA. The Republicans refused to make ANY changes and the Democrats were forced to enact the bill as passed by the House-warts and all. The Democrats didn’t choose the ACA as it is currently written, including the penalty for not having insurance. It was either that or nothing-due to unforeseen circumstances. Incidentally, I think the penalty for not having insurance is a very good idea, except that it is too small. The idea behind ACA is to cover the increased costs through more efficient medicine and a greatly enlarged ratepayer base. I agree with that strategy and I think most Americans do. No one likes being forced to do the right thing, but that is why we have speed limits and medical insurance penalties. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/72 "2016-05-29T22:59:14Z")
Speed limits and fines for speed limits are constitutional. Health insurance penalties are not. You can have a health insurance TAX, but at some point it becomes draconian enough that it would not be considered a mere tax and would get struck down by the courts. The Roberts decision pretty firmly established that the government cannot actually force people to buy health insurance, it can only incentivize it. Also helping the government’s case is that the tax cannot be collected by the normal means, making nonpayment a viable proposition that involves no criminal sanctions and no seizure of income other than tax refunds. If the government attempted harsher means, the victim of those means would just sue and SCOTUS would declare it unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/73 "2016-05-29T23:57:24Z")
And all of that will be fixed in the Republican alternative bill, right? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/74 "2016-05-30T00:17:22Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Cite? > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/why-cant-we-end-poverty-in-america.html?\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/why-cant-we-end-poverty-in-america.html?_r=0) > > _46 million Americans — 15 percent of the population — now counted as poor_ Exactly. It’s been almost two weeks. Where is TriPolar’s cite? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/75 "2016-05-30T00:39:40Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Is a minimal increase in minimum wage going to do it? $12.50 an hour is still not a living wage? What constitutes a “living wage” depends very much on where you live. Where I, personally, live it would constitute a living wage for my household. In Chicago, a mere 50 miles away, it would not. > [@ATLHawk](#): > > So, why do people of able-body and able-mind need others to stand up for them? Well… when you’re poor you’re perceived as not having power. Several years ago I had an employer, a small business, who “specialized” in hiring people who were down and out. And then she stopped paying us. Then she paid us with rubber checks. When I tried to talk to her she hung up the phone, wouldn’t respond to e-mail, etc. Basically, she assumed that I was powerless and she could whatever she wanted without consequences. At which point I hired a layer to “stand up” for me, even if I was able-bodied and able-minded. He agreed to a contingency fee, which is the only way I was able to afford his services, and we both profited. People of able mind and body need help, too, sometimes, because no one can do absolutely everything all of the time. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > Because not everybody has the skills needed to compete in the job market. The reason people work as maids or clerks and such is that they aren’t able to get higher paying jobs. Of course the standard reply is to get an education- but it’s hard to find the money and even harder to find the time when you’re working at least one full time job and often two just to stay alive. > [@ATLHawk](#): > > Are they unable to procure skills? > > Certifications and licenses come to mind. Not all require corresponding experience and/or courses, a good number are self-study. Heck, my low voltage license was completely open book - granted, you had to know where to look. You and your wife are young… you do not yet realize that there are age restrictions on many things. When I was laid off in 2007 I found most worker retraining programs offered were not available to me _solely because I was over 40_. That’s the only reason. There are a number of professions I was interested in that I could not enter _solely because I was over 40_ (Air traffic controller, for instance - the cut off to start training is 30. I missed it by 15 years). A LOT of people in the 40-65 age group laid off during the Great Recession fell into that giant crack in the safety net. I did, with persistence and _several years_ of searching eventually find an honest employer who genuinely did not give a damn about my age, only that I was capable of doing the work, and no rubber paychecks. Yay. Of course, it helps a great deal I only had one dependent, I could work any schedule because I didn’t have to worry about kids at home, I am basically healthy, and physically fit. There are people half my age who are physical wrecks, weighed down by dependents both young and old, and otherwise disadvantaged compared to myself. That doesn’t make it _impossible_ for them to get ahead but it does make is significantly harder, and it will take them longer. Age discrimination, like other forms of discrimination, is also a very real thing. It makes it much harder for people over 35 or 40 to start over after a lay off or some sort of catastrophe. > [@](#): > > Likewise, there is nothing extraordinary about grabbing a manual labor job. YOU try hiring out as a manual laborer as a small woman over the age of 45 and come back and tell me how easy it is - because it isn’t. People who employ folks for manual labor don’t take women as seriously as men, and don’t want “old folks” > [@adaher](#): > > I think the issue is less about who cares about the little guy, so much as what does the little guy need? What does the little guy want? What are the actual barriers to success for the little guy? I’m not sure that trained lawyers with 20,000 square foot houses are the most qualified people to judge this, which is why even if they mean well they probably aren’t going to get far. While I often disagree with **adaher** on these topics he does make a good point. We need to truly look for what is actually needed. Sometimes, that’s going to be annoying regardless of political outlook or personal belief. I think we need to stop treating the poor as a monolithic entity (I’m happy to say my state has made some strides in that direction). What a high school drop out 22 years old with three kids truly needs is very different than what someone who is 40 years old, single, and who is laid off and has obsolete skills needs. Someone with a criminal record who is having trouble finding a job needs something different than someone paralyzed in a car crash or an amputee war veteran needs. > [@](#): > > 1. Restrict occupational licensing to occupations where a lack of training presents a risk to the public. Occupational licensing is a growing problem that is creating major barriers to poorer workers who could easily pick up certain skills if they could receive on the job training, but can’t afford the schooling and other fees that go with acquiring a license. I call it “paper credentialism”. I’m old enough to remember when job positions asked for “X or equivalent experience”, now it’s either you have the slip of paper or nothing - and sometimes you have to have the paper from a particular school, even a competent, accredited school isn’t enough you have to have it from a subset of educational institutions. This just makes it harder for _anyone_ to either bootstrap themselves OR to start a new career when an old one become obsolete. > [@](#): > > 1. Don’t allow businesses to replace American workers with cheaper foreign workers. ^ This. Just about every other nation does this better than we do. > [@](#): > > 1. Restrict the ability of companies to deny employment based on criminal record. This also goes for occupational licensing. Prospective employees should only be excluded if they pose a clear threat to customers or fellow employees due to recent violent offenses. All offenses should be unavailable for most background checks after five years of release. Um… maybe we should look at categories of crime, but yes, after a certain period of time most offenses should be ignored if there have been no further offenses. > [@](#): > > 1. I know this is so Republican of me, but reduce taxes and unnecessary employment costs on employers. If we have progressive tax on individuals why not on businesses? (We have a bit of this already, with employers under a certain size exempt from certain regulations, but I’m talking a more robust version of this). Reduce the burdens most on small businesses to encourage their growth and success. Huge corporations, however, pay more just as the wealthiest individuals (in theory) pay more. I’m also OK with employer local contributions counting towards their tax bill - if a factory installs anti-pollution devices, for example, I’d be OK with that counting towards their share of paying for society because cleaner air is a definite benefit to the local community Of course, as always, the devil would be in the details. ---
**Author:** ![Foggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foggy/32/1082_2.png) [@Foggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foggy)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/76 "2016-05-30T00:40:48Z")
Kill the poor, problem solved. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/77 "2016-05-30T07:26:24Z")
> [@Foggy](#): > > Kill the poor, problem solved. ☹ Kill the conservatives. Problem solved. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/78 "2016-07-19T02:13:17Z")
[This article](http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/divided-america-trump-desperate-survival-bid-40663312) is a good read. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082/79 "2016-07-19T02:16:33Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Who will stand up for the little guy? [Dewey Cox will](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ADpsIb7vfs)! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-guy/755082.md?page=3)