Duke4.net Forums: Political Shitshooting - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

Hide message Show message
Welcome to the Duke4.net Forums!

Register an account now to get access to all board features. After you've registered and logged in, you'll be able to create topics, post replies, send and receive private messages, disable the viewing of ads and more!

  • 12 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Political Shitshooting  "previously: YEAH! WOOHOO! Liberals got the same healthcare pla"

#91

View PostTrooper Dan, on 25 July 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

If that were a good form of argument, it could justify almost any bad practice that a government engages in (i.e. the government's policy regarding X is justified because it has a similar policy regarding Y). Moreover, the differences between X and Y in this case are relevant. For example, I actually do have a choice as to whether to own a car; in fact I know some working people who do not own cars -- they use public transportation, or car pools, or simply live close enough to their jobs that they can bike. Also, driving a car puts the public at additional risk in ways that merely being alive does not.


Unless every single place where humans live turns into a super-dense metropolis, most people will still be car slaves with no viable alternative for transportation.

When businesses start providing corporate housing, then we can all relax and not need cars anymore. I'm not holding my breath.

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 25 July 2012 - 06:46 PM

0

User is offline   Trooper Dan 

  • Duke Plus Developer

#92

View Postwayskobfssae, on 25 July 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Unless every single place where humans live turns into a super-dense metropolis, most people will still be car slaves with no viable alternative for transportation.

When businesses start providing corporate housing, then we can all relax and not need cars anymore. I'm not holding my breath.


Well I guess you just choose to not believe what I said, but that's fine. I would rather talk about health care. I wonder what you think of the main part of my post about Obamacare (the part you did not reply to)?
0

#93

View PostTrooper Dan, on 25 July 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

Well I guess you just choose to not believe what I said, but that's fine. I would rather talk about health care. I wonder what you think of the main part of my post about Obamacare (the part you did not reply to)?


I've heard about this before - though not so much about the doctor shortage. I can easily believe it, considering the situation Canada is in right now. But as I said in my original post on this thread, I know very well it's not the perfect solution, and has a lot of flaws. Obviously it's much better to find a way to make medical care less expensive, or get all the people to a point where they don't have to balance which is more important, medical care or food on the table. But sadly, this is the one that had the best chance of getting passed. Anything else would be even more radically bold and get shot down faster than a duck in an Elmer Fudd cartoon.
0

User is offline   Trooper Dan 

  • Duke Plus Developer

#94

View Postwayskobfssae, on 25 July 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

I've heard about this before - though not so much about the doctor shortage. I can easily believe it, considering the situation Canada is in right now. But as I said in my original post on this thread, I know very well it's not the perfect solution, and has a lot of flaws. Obviously it's much better to find a way to make medical care less expensive, or get all the people to a point where they don't have to balance which is more important, medical care or food on the table. But sadly, this is the one that had the best chance of getting passed. Anything else would be even more radically bold and get shot down faster than a duck in an Elmer Fudd cartoon.


Perhaps what you mean is that it was the most radical, expensive and complicated bill that they could get Democrats to vote for (it had zero Republican support). They certainly could have passed any number of smaller reforms (for example, the part of Obamacare that concerns consumer protections and is less controversial). But the smaller reforms would not have achieved the objective of dramatically increasing the power of the federal government over medical care.

I have yet to meet any informed person who actually believes it is a good bill as it stands. Instead, what I hear from its supporters is that the bill is a way of establishing a new relationship between the government and its citizens. It's a stepping stone on the way to a system like Canada has, or the U.K. Unfortunately, the U.S. is not Canada -- we suck at socialism. I don't even think the Canadian system is going to turn out well in the long term, but I concede it's looking pretty good right now compared with Obamacare. And actually I think that most Obamacare supporters would agree with that assessment (that something like the Canadian system would be better).
0

User is offline   Martin 

#95

National Healthcare is expensive. That's all there is to it. I do have sympathy for you, Trooper Dan (I did read your post about your situation). This is a brand new thing for America, and hopefully they can work the kinks out over time. Socialism has become sort of a dirty word, like communism (which isn't fair either, if you ask me). There's nothing wrong with a government centralising essential services like education and healthcare. In the UK, we hold healthcare up there with education. We believe healthcare should be free to all our citizens. If you're wealthy enough, you're free to go the private route, which will mean you get seen sooner and receive a better quality of treatment. NHS hospitals have various issues (mostly to do with under-staffing), but ultimately you can have any problem, and worrying about the money or the insurance doesn't become part of or compound the problem. You go, they fix you up, you thank the doctors, nurses and surgeons. You go home. You haven't spent a penny.

My only personal experience with actually going to hospital myself, for myself, is when I broke my wrist (fell out of a tree when I was young lol). I sat on the ward with the broken wrist and no painkillers for a good couple of hours. I'm not sure how much it hurt to be honest, it was a long time ago and I was a child. I was probably more shocked than anything. Still, it would have been nice for some pain relief, and to be seen sooner. Still, our hospitals are busy (and under-staffed), so maybe some idiot kid who fell from a tree and has a mere hairline fracture in his wrist isn't a priority. You wouldn't be sat there for hours with severe life-threatening injuries waiting to be seen for hours. You'd get seen as soon as you were brought in.

My sister has Endometriosis, and once every few years she has this laser treatment to burn away the accumulated scar tissue. In America, I'm not sure how she would afford this. The operation literally costs thousands. She doesn't pay a penny, and doesn't have to worry about it. All she has to worry about is living with endo. It's a weird one in that many cases of endo can be somewhat mild. My sisters' is ferocious. The rate at which scar tissue builds up in her body is alarming. Doctors are always telling her they've seldom seen a case as bad as hers. At times, she is completely debilitated by it. Post-op, she experiences a kind of temporary euphoria whereby she can move without agonising spasms. Slowly but surely, the endo comes back over the next year or two. By the time she has another op, she's almost totally house-bound.

The point here is that with illness, there's often enough to worry about without having to worry about paying for it, or keeping up with some insurance plan. I obviously don't know the ins and outs of the American healthcare system, but honestly every American I've met who has come over here has had nothing but praise for our system. They are amazed that I can just walk into a hospital and get seen, whatever my problem, however much it may cost, and actually pay nothing*. The cost of it doesn't even cross your mind at all.

Also, it depends what kind of society you want to live in. I don't want to live in a world where children can't receive free education and every citizen doesn't receive free healthcare. I know I keep mentioning education, but that's for a reason. Our public sector is one of the greatest jewels in our crown. I believe that education and healthcare go together. Every man, woman and child in this nation can expect free education until they are 18 (compulsory education ends at 16), and free healthcare for their entire lives. This is why Englishmen generally get up in arms if you threaten their National Health Service, because for them it's as bad as saying there will be no more public schools.

Do you want to live in a society that farms out all critical social services to private institutions? To have everything privately run and governed? I don't. Parliament will burn to the ground with all the nation's leading politicians inside long before the NHS is dissolved.

Free healthcare goes hand-in-hand with free education. A humane society holds these beliefs, an inhumane one does not.

*They are also generally amazed if you turn on the TV. The lack of adverts gives them such a hardon. Especially the BBC, which literally has none.

This post has been edited by Martin: 26 July 2012 - 03:01 AM

0

User is offline   Mikko 

  • Honored Donor

#96

View PostHendricks266, on 25 July 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

I would agree with Mikko's positions as they are backed with extensive rationales but they suffer from problems of putting the theoretical over the practical, difficulty in bootstrapping, and loss of the human element.


The theoretical models are backed by vast quantities of historical data (in fact, it was first-hand experience that led to trade theories in the first place, to explain observed phenomena) whileas the anti-trade crowd only has populist rhetoric and anecdotes to rely on. Blaming free trade has become the new "blame the jew/speculator", a lazy populist argument against a non-existent problem.

Quote

For example, take outsourcing. If a manufacturer moves manufacturing from the US to another country, there are two immediate results: more money for the company, and a lot of angry rednecks. How exactly can this help the country as a whole? I can consider that prices may drop, but if you are unemployed, good luck coming up with the cash in the first place. For sure, new jobs are not created to the same number as the ones lost, and any that are made are not immediate. The benefits only appear to apply to the few at the top. Any effects must take time to spread, and while that happens, it does hurt the people.


The benefits of trade accrue to the population as a whole whileas only a few people momentarily lose their jobs. Employment is gained in other sectors as a result of cost savings and increased consumption. This is what I meant when I said that a few people (the "angry rednecks") should not be allowed to hold the entire country hostage. The number of jobs in an economy is not fixed: growth is not a zero-sum game. However, there are ways to prevent laid-off people from finding new jobs such as a minimum wage that's set too high (above the productivity level of the laid-off people), welfare handouts that are too generous, etc.

Quote

Any sort adaptation or upward mobility comes at an up-front cost that many people just can't advance, hence bootstrapping. Going from unskilled labor to skilled, "high-tech" jobs takes a college education, for better or worse.


As I said, people update their skills all the time. Tens of millions of occupations that existed only a few decades ago are now gone (fortunately so) and yet there's been a downward trend in the unemployment rate since the '80s. Shifts in technology tend not to be too sudden. Even the IT boom was associated with a decreasing unemployment rate.

Quote

On the matter of taxes, it would be best to have a simple linear ratio of wealth to tax. That way, there is no true penalty for success because the curve never accelerates.


The biggest acceleration of the tax schedule occurs when you hit the first tax bracket so acceleration is not the problem at higher incomes.

There could be a simple flat tax with a deductible part, say, $5000. If you make just $5000 a year, you pay no taxes, but any income above that is taxed at a flat rate.
2

#97

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 26 July 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

The theoretical models are backed by vast quantities of historical data (in fact, it was first-hand experience that led to trade theories in the first place, to explain observed phenomena) whileas the anti-trade crowd only has populist rhetoric and anecdotes to rely on. Blaming free trade has become the new "blame the jew/speculator", a lazy populist argument against a non-existent problem.


LOL this nation was founded with an aggressive regulatory system in place, it's just that nobody ever wants to acknowledge that, because A. Nobody in the secular world wants to admit that there were actual good things that came from religion (whether intentionally or not), B. because there's no way to accurately measure its impact, and C. Anyone who brings it up automatically gets pinned as a radical Catholic who is trying to force the Church back into politics.

I'm not saying that the U.S. needs to go back to that, but people need to take it into consideration whenever they talk about the "good old days." The government didn't NEED to regulate things as much in the past because the system was more or less self-regulating. But under a free-trade system, it would NOT be as self-regulating now. People had a fear of God, more specifically, the fear of an all-powerful all-seeing being who would send you to Hell if it didn't like what it saw. This factored into people's minds a lot more than it does now, and certainly factored into business. Not that this means there weren't still a lot of evildoers executing all sorts of unfair trade practices, but overall in many parts of the private sector, there was a lot less underhanded crap to worry about.

We're already in situations where prices are manipulated to the extreme (like paying farms to not produce food so that the price of food goes up). Things like this are completely unacceptable. Business can not possibly be left unregulated because it no longer has any sense of morals. It operates under the mindset of, "If people are willing to pay for it, then I'm not charging too much", ignoring the fact that most people are complete gullible morons who will buy anything just for the convenience of it, or because they've been conned into wanting something they don't even remotely have a use for, or because they failed to read a contract that nobody should ever have to waste an hour of their life reading, just to ensure that they didn't just give away their soul. Were that not the case, there are countless successful products and services in existence today that shouldn't even remotely have a shot at being successful, and yet they are. But then that gets right down to one of the basic reasons that societies need a governmental body in the first place: the general population is too stupid to handle things on their own.

Quote

However, there are ways to prevent laid-off people from finding new jobs such as a minimum wage that's set too high (above the productivity level of the laid-off people), welfare handouts that are too generous, etc.


What good is a job if it can't pay the bills? There's a reason many people stay on welfare instead of getting a job, the main one being, it wastes less money to just keep collecting welfare. All you need to do is sit on your butt. If the pay is the same, you actually lose money. You now have to spend more on the commute, and in the case of labor jobs, you need to spend more on food to keep yourself going.

If minimum wage can't give a person all the living necessities, it's still too low. Period. If people who are employed can't get out of poverty, that is a very serious issue, and not one to be taken lightly the way you do. Maybe I'm wrong, but you're talking like the stereotypical 1% who only sees people as equations and has no time to think about well-being because you're too busy thinking about the bottom line.

Quote

As I said, people update their skills all the time..


With what money? The world changes faster than ever in history, and you think people can just afford to run back to college for a new degree everytime this happens? Most can't even to afford it once.

You might as well offer free college instead of free healthcare if you think that this kind of adaptation would help anything. Because it WON'T. People update their skills today all the time. Is it helping them get jobs? Occasionally. Often it doesn't matter HOW skilled people are though, they still can't find work. Even the doctors that are in short supply. The high demand for more of them suggests that nobody fresh out of med school would have trouble finding work. And yet, mysteriously, they do.

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 26 July 2012 - 07:18 AM

0

User is offline   Inspector Lagomorf 

  • Glory To Motherland!

#98

Jesus H. Christ, the 99%-1% dichotomy that's been thrown out nowadays thanks to OWS makes me retch. For many reasons. Won't go into too much detail, but...

View Postwayskobfssae, on 26 July 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

What good is a job if it can't pay the bills? There's a reason many people stay on welfare instead of getting a job, the main one being, it wastes less money to just keep collecting welfare. All you need to do is sit on your butt. If the pay is the same, you actually lose money. You now have to spend more on the commute, and in the case of labor jobs, you need to spend more on food to keep yourself going.

If minimum wage can't give a person all the living necessities, it's still too low. Period. If people who are employed can't get out of poverty, that is a very serious issue, and not one to be taken lightly the way you do. Maybe I'm wrong, but you're talking like the stereotypical 1% who only sees people as equations and has no time to think about well-being because you're too busy thinking about the bottom line.


Question:

If you raise the minimum wage to $10.00 (which is what the vast majority of proponents are proposing), how do you think companies will react?

This post has been edited by Achenar: 26 July 2012 - 08:43 AM

0

User is offline   Martin 

#99

View PostAchenar, on 26 July 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

If you raise the minimum wage to $10.00 (which is what the vast majority of proponents are proposing), how do you think companies will react?


Some businesses will leave your country, others will make cuts elsewhere, be it staffing, safety, what have you.
0

User is offline   Trooper Dan 

  • Duke Plus Developer

#100

There are several fallacies that people use to support the idea of a minimum wage. One of them (expressed above by wayskobfssae) is the idea that it is wrong to pay a wage that the recipient would not be able to make a living on. As a matter of fact, many people find it useful to take low paying jobs if the alternative is not having a job. In households with multiple incomes, the extra income from a low paying job can often make a big difference. For example, suppose the wife has a decent job but doesn't make enough to cover all the expenses, and the husband is unemployed. If he could make even $6 an hour for 30 hours a week, he could bring in enough money to pay for food and a few other bills. Plus he gets job experience and makes contacts, which makes it more likely he will be able to get a raise or a better job later. Instituting a minimum wage of $10 does not mean that the husband now makes $10 -- more likely it means that the job either will not exist at all (because the employer can't afford to pay that much) or the job will go to someone more qualified, because it will attract more qualified applicants. There are lots of similar scenarios. Teenagers or young adults living with their parents need incomes to pay for entertainment (helps the economy) or save up for buying a car. Retirees often need the extra income because their social security and/or pensions don't cover costs. Ironically, people at the margins are the ones who get hurt by minimum wage.
2

#101

View PostTrooper Dan, on 26 July 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

There are several fallacies that people use to support the idea of a minimum wage. One of them (expressed above by wayskobfssae) is the idea that it is wrong to pay a wage that the recipient would not be able to make a living on. As a matter of fact, many people find it useful to take low paying jobs if the alternative is not having a job. In households with multiple incomes, the extra income from a low paying job can often make a big difference. For example, suppose the wife has a decent job but doesn't make enough to cover all the expenses, and the husband is unemployed. If he could make even $6 an hour for 30 hours a week, he could bring in enough money to pay for food and a few other bills. Plus he gets job experience and makes contacts, which makes it more likely he will be able to get a raise or a better job later. Instituting a minimum wage of $10 does not mean that the husband now makes $10 -- more likely it means that the job either will not exist at all (because the employer can't afford to pay that much) or the job will go to someone more qualified, because it will attract more qualified applicants. There are lots of similar scenarios. Teenagers or young adults living with their parents need incomes to pay for entertainment (helps the economy) or save up for buying a car. Retirees often need the extra income because their social security and/or pensions don't cover costs. Ironically, people at the margins are the ones who get hurt by minimum wage.


I think the possibility of multiple incomes making it balance out, came to an end long ago. Consider that before the women's liberation movement, when all females were more or less expected to just clean house and raise the kids, just one man could earn enough money to own a house and feed his whole family. And then one day the women decided they wanted the option to work instead of stay at home. And then once they got that, businesses somehow arrived at the logical conclusion that, "If both husband and wife are making an income now, we can charge the family twice as much." Now we have the opposite of the pre-lib era. Instead of being forced to stay at home, they're forced to work.

And saying, "It'll be fine because everyone has a spouse to help them" is a really foolish standpoint anyway. Do you really want us to degrade ourselves back to the times of "marriages of convenience?" Women used to have to marry even if they couldn't find anyone they cared for, simply because without that they had almost no shot at survival. If that's going to make a comeback, that's really sad, and another indication of just how screwed up everything is.

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 26 July 2012 - 12:26 PM

0

User is offline   Trooper Dan 

  • Duke Plus Developer

#102

View Postwayskobfssae, on 26 July 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

I think the possibility of multiple incomes making it balance out, came to an end long ago. Consider that before the women's liberation movement, when all females were more or less expected to just clean house and raise the kids, just one man could earn enough money to own a house and feed his whole family. And then one day the women decided they wanted the option to work instead of stay at home. And then once they got that, businesses somehow arrived at the logical conclusion that, "If both husband and wife are making an income now, we can charge the family twice as much." Now we have the opposite of the pre-lib era. Instead of being forced to stay at home, they're forced to work.

And saying, "It'll be fine because everyone has a spouse to help them" is a really foolish standpoint anyway. Do you really want us to degrade ourselves back to the times of "marriages of convenience?" Women used to have to marry even if they couldn't find anyone they cared for, simply because without that they had almost no shot at survival. If that's going to make a comeback, that's really sad, and another indication of just how screwed up everything is.


Pretty much your entire post is a red herring, since the married couple example was just one scenario of many in which having a low paying job can be beneficial. And I know that the scenario is real, because I have lived it at times and have known others who have lived it. You make some ...provocative... historical claims, but they have nothing to do with whether a minimum wage is justified, and in particular whether it should be $10. I don't doubt that minimum wages have been helpful to some people, but keep in mind that if minimum wage is greater than a worker's economic value to an employer, then that worker won't be hired.
0

#103

View PostTrooper Dan, on 26 July 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

Pretty much your entire post is a red herring, since the married couple example was just one scenario of many in which having a low paying job can be beneficial. And I know that the scenario is real, because I have lived it at times and have known others who have lived it. You make some ...provocative... historical claims, but they have nothing to do with whether a minimum wage is justified, and in particular whether it should be $10. I don't doubt that minimum wages have been helpful to some people, but keep in mind that if minimum wage is greater than a worker's economic value to an employer, then that worker won't be hired.


I'd love to hear more examples of how this is beneficial then. Unless you're suggesting that people just need to get used to rooming together more. But even that typically accomplishes nothing, since landlords tend to charge rent on a per-person basis.

If the job doesn't pay the bills, what other alternatives are you suggesting... BESIDES getting married?

What is this situation you have been in that has been beneficial? And is it really something anyone can rely on? Because more often than not, "If it worked for me, it'll work for anyone" is a bogus statement.

View PostAchenar, on 26 July 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

Jesus H. Christ, the 99%-1% dichotomy that's been thrown out nowadays thanks to OWS makes me retch. For many reasons. Won't go into too much detail, but...

Question:

If you raise the minimum wage to $10.00 (which is what the vast majority of proponents are proposing), how do you think companies will react?


Granted... on the 1% comment, I only said it seemed that way. I know fully well one doesn't have to be super-rich to completely devalue human life.

I haven't even said that minimum wage needs changing as a solution. All I'm saying is that no job should be incapable of keeping a thrifty person above the poverty line.

The way in which the value of things in the economy has shifted over the decades is downright disgusting. The only reason wages have probably shifted AT ALL is because of minimum wage, and yet the cost of living has been succumbing to inflation like crazy the entire time. If absolutely everything needs to be regulated in order to get everyone to play fairly again, then so be it. It's either the wages go up, or the cost of living goes down. Neither of which the haves are ever going to be happy with, because they like being able to charge people an arm and a leg for their shiny dog turds.

Even in wealthy corporations, they've had to deal with some of this crap. One needs only to look at the length of the average commercial break 50 years ago and compare it with today. Heck, the entire concept of cable television was to have the audience actually pay for TV stations, and in return, the stations wouldn't have to rely on sponsors for funding. Now they have to rely on BOTH. :D This trend of outrageously widening ratios is utterly ridiculous and should be stopped, one way or another.

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 26 July 2012 - 02:09 PM

0

User is offline   Trooper Dan 

  • Duke Plus Developer

#104

View Postwayskobfssae, on 26 July 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

I'd love to hear more examples of how this is beneficial then. Unless you're suggesting that people just need to get used to rooming together more. But even that typically accomplishes nothing, since landlords tend to charge rent on a per-person basis.

If the job doesn't pay the bills, what other alternatives are you suggesting... BESIDES getting married?

What is this situation you have been in that has been beneficial? And is it really something anyone can rely on? Because more often than not, "If it worked for me, it'll work for anyone" is a bogus statement.


Look, it's not that complicated, and I already gave common examples: young adults who still live with their parents and need some extra cash, retirees who need to supplement their SS or pension. And people who will work to get the experience on the expectation they will get raises later. Of course no one wants to make less than minimum wage, but given the economic realities some people will be better off if they can (because it's better than being completely unemployed).

Minimum wage is a reduction in economic freedom. It is a restriction on the contracts that people are allowed to enter into. Therefore, the burden of proof should be on those who claim that the restriction is justified. In general, everyone recognizes that just because money changes hands, that doesn't mean it's supposed to be enough money to fully support the recipient. When my wife sells commissions for her art on deviantart, for example, it's not with the idea that she will make enough to live on that way -- but every little bit helps. Whether she makes enough money that way or how many different sources of income it takes to make ends meet should not be the concern of the government. So why is it that hourly wages are treated differently from other transactions? If someone can sell art for the equivalent of $5 an hour (when you consider how long it took to make the art), then why shouldn't that person be allowed to sell their hourly labor at the same price? It's an arbitrary distinction.
0

#105

View PostTrooper Dan, on 26 July 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

Look, it's not that complicated, and I already gave common examples: young adults who still live with their parents and need some extra cash, retirees who need to supplement their SS or pension. And people who will work to get the experience on the expectation they will get raises later. Of course no one wants to make less than minimum wage, but given the economic realities some people will be better off if they can (because it's better than being completely unemployed).

Minimum wage is a reduction in economic freedom. It is a restriction on the contracts that people are allowed to enter into. Therefore, the burden of proof should be on those who claim that the restriction is justified. In general, everyone recognizes that just because money changes hands, that doesn't mean it's supposed to be enough money to fully support the recipient. When my wife sells commissions for her art on deviantart, for example, it's not with the idea that she will make enough to live on that way -- but every little bit helps. Whether she makes enough money that way or how many different sources of income it takes to make ends meet should not be the concern of the government. So why is it that hourly wages are treated differently from other transactions? If someone can sell art for the equivalent of $5 an hour (when you consider how long it took to make the art), then why shouldn't that person be allowed to sell their hourly labor at the same price? It's an arbitrary distinction.


People who are supplementing their "free" income are an exception to the population. Entire towns have a tendency to live under the delusion that every person who lives and works there, is a highschooler still living with his or her parents.

But OK, I'll bite...

Most here who are opposed to the idea of a minimum wage increase are saying the main reason it will only worsen matters is that companies will just lay off more workers, or raise prices to compensate. Alright, fine. I actually have little doubt of that. But I feel that getting rid of the min wage will be like opening Pandora's Box.

Businesses will cut corners anywhere they can. I don't think there's anyone here who will deny it. But let's say we axe the minimum wage. Where's the guarantee that the cost of living will go down with it? It has already proven to not go up proportionally to the minimum or average wage of citizens. So how do we know it will go down? Because people can't afford the products? They already can't afford a lot of things, but that isn't making those things any cheaper. Prices generally go up no matter what kind of crisis we find ourselves in, and I believe they would continue to go up, even if businesses used the removal of minimum-wage to take their employee-raping to the maximum. There's no proof that it wouldn't. And just imagine with how many unfair things businesses already do, how much worse it would be if even less regulations were imposed.

Also, with the $5/hour element you're referring to, you're assuming that there's a lot of people out there who want to work for less money than what can sustain them. And that's possible. But the moment that happens, it will tailspin, the same way overachievers cause such things in the opposite manner. And by that I mean, every business has some guy who wants to work twice as hard and twice as fast at the expensive of his own well-being, because some people are just psychotic like that. And then what happens? The standard for everyone else gets raised, until everyone's lives are equally a living Hell. The same thing will happen with a removed minimum wage, but it will be about people willing to do the same job for less. Competition will drag the average hourly rate down to virtually nothing. That is the only reason I can agree that raising the minimum wage isn't a solution to anything. In the end, everything ends up being to the advantage of the businesses rather than the consumers/workers. It will just get negated in the end.

If this trend of one-sidedness is to ever stop, a total paradigm shift in work ethic needs to take place. Which even in a fairer world it is highly unlikely, but its even more so here, considering some of the nations we're in competition with.

It'd be equally bad if workers controlled everything. I kinda agree with how Mitt Romney feels about labor unions. But some moderation on both sides would be nice. Shift the balance of power a little.

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 26 July 2012 - 04:37 PM

0

User is offline   Mark 

  • Honored Donor

#106

View Postwayskobfssae, on 25 July 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Unless every single place where humans live turns into a super-dense metropolis, most people will still be car slaves with no viable alternative for transportation.

When businesses start providing corporate housing, then we can all relax and not need cars anymore. I'm not holding my breath.

To me, your's would be a scary world. Cars gave us freedom to pursue our own lifestyles. I shudder to think of living in a society packed like sardines in megacities with only public transportation. Subject to the whims of the government that controls it.

This post has been edited by Marked: 26 July 2012 - 06:31 PM

0

#107

View PostMarked, on 26 July 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

To me, your's would be a scary world. Cars gave us freedom to pursue our own lifestyles. I shudder to think of living in a society packed like sardines in megacities with only public transportation. Subject to the whims of the government that controls it.


I don't like it either. :D Trooper Dan was suggesting that car insurance laws are nothing like government healthcare, because we can all choose whether or not we own a car. But the only way that could be true is in the megalopolis scenario.

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 26 July 2012 - 06:35 PM

0

User is offline   Trooper Dan 

  • Duke Plus Developer

#108

View Postwayskobfssae, on 26 July 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Businesses will cut corners anywhere they can.


They already do. But when they cut corners too much, it adversely affects their business (loss of customers to their competition, lawsuits), and the problem is corrected. Or maybe you think it isn't so easily corrected...but in any event it has nothing in particular to do with minimum wage.

View Postwayskobfssae, on 26 July 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

But let's say we axe the minimum wage. Where's the guarantee that the cost of living will go down with it?


In my opinion, the cost of living would probably not decrease if the minimum wage were abolished. But that was never the issue (at least, I never raised it). The points that I raise against the minimum wage are variations of some of the standard arguments, like those presented here: http://www.balancedp...inimum_wage.htm (that link also has arguments on the other side).


View Postwayskobfssae, on 26 July 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Also, with the $5/hour element you're referring to, you're assuming that there's a lot of people out there who want to work for less money than what can sustain them.


What I was saying is that people are better off when they have the option of working for less. Of course everyone wants to make as much money as possible, but often it is advantageous to be able to work for a small wage, when one considers the alternatives. Recall the example of someone who does artwork commissions on the side, for an equivalent of $5 an hour. If that's legal and ethical (and it is), then why should that person not be allowed to work for a $6 an hour wage? The bottom line is that it shouldn't be our right to tell that person what they can and can't do.
0

User is offline   Mad Max RW 

#109

I stopped reading those walls of text a page or two ago. Anyway, this guy explains why things are so fucked up in simple terms:

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=F1YQDjpuY_U

This post has been edited by Mad Max RW: 27 July 2012 - 06:32 AM

0

#110

View PostTrooper Dan, on 26 July 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

They already do. But when they cut corners too much, it adversely affects their business (loss of customers to their competition, lawsuits), and the problem is corrected. Or maybe you think it isn't so easily corrected...but in any event it has nothing in particular to do with minimum wage.


Businesses already have little trouble "starving" their employees while still keeping the consumers pouring in. That will not balance itself more equally if you remove restrictions on wages. If one doesn't take the cost of living into account on issues like this, they shouldn't even be debating it, since the true 'bottom line' isn't profit. It's survival.

Quote

In my opinion, the cost of living would probably not decrease if the minimum wage were abolished. But that was never the issue (at least, I never raised it). The points that I raise against the minimum wage are variations of some of the standard arguments, like those presented here: http://www.balancedp...inimum_wage.htm (that link also has arguments on the other side).


If one doesn't take into account the cost of living, one shouldn't be debating this. The true "bottom line" isn't profit, it's survival. On the points cited on that link - I don't want to burn through five screens worth of text, so I'm going to try and summarize most of it, with what I've already said. The businesses aren't going to cut prices nearly as much as they cut wages. As long as the desire is to maximize profit, removing minimum wage will come nowhere close to accomplishing the things on that list, at least not as much as the optimists believe.

Take for example, competing with third world countries. Removing minimum wage won't help, UNLESS the cost of living in the U.S. becomes comparable to theirs. It's like asking a dog to compete with a fish's ability to hand deliver mail to King Neptune. The dog is going to drown, no matter how much he swallows his pride.

Minimum wage encourages companies to replace humans with automation? OK. So if the minimum wage is abolished, will that automation all disappear? No. Why should it? It's already there. And then there's the question of how much cheaper do wages have to get before its cheaper than automation? It's probably a pretty frightening number. And businesses would STILL convert to automation, if for no other reason than the machines are still going to be faster than humans, AND machines never complain, unionize, take vacations or sick leave, etc.

Quote

What I was saying is that people are better off when they have the option of working for less. Of course everyone wants to make as much money as possible, but often it is advantageous to be able to work for a small wage, when one considers the alternatives. Recall the example of someone who does artwork commissions on the side, for an equivalent of $5 an hour. If that's legal and ethical (and it is), then why should that person not be allowed to work for a $6 an hour wage? The bottom line is that it shouldn't be our right to tell that person what they can and can't do.


See, the reason I brought up the "over achievers" is it's one of those subtle gradual processes that eventually drags an entire system to the point of impossibility. It isn't just harder to find work. Those who have it are far more burned out than their predecessors. This is due to the overachievers. Say you have a warehouse full of people carrying loads to the truck at 2 units per minute. Then one day someone shows up who types at 4 units per minute. The boss then decides to raise the standard and requires everyone to type at 3upm. Another overachiever shows up and pushes the envelope further. The standard gets raised again. Eventually you reach a point where the minimum standard is "as hard as humanly possible." That's slave work, no matter how much you're being paid. You'll be killing yourself by aging twice as fast as the previous generation. I have actually seen this happen to people, and it's utterly apalling that it's even happening in a place that calls itself "first world."

The same thing would happen without a minimum wage. People would offer less. Then the standard wage would lower. And then again, and again, and again. And the next thing you know, you'll have even more poverty than you did before, all because of a couple of extremists. This is totally unacceptable. If you think this is OK, why not just take away murder laws too? When you take away someone's wages, you're sentencing them to death anyway. Yeah, you can argue, "But it's not my fault if they can't find a better job that pays more." But it's just like horse thieving in frontier towns. That was punishable by death, even though it wasn't the thief's fault if the victim can't walk through the burning desert into town on their own without dying. :D Everyone wants to take all responsibility away from themselves so that they can be as selfish as possible at the expense of everyone else. It's the way things have been going, and it's the price we've paid for a greed-based society. Deregulate that further and you might as well just start fighting for anarchy. After all, if capitalism should be allows to run wild and unregulated, who is to say we should have a government at all? If people can handle regulating trade on their own, then nobody who believes that should dare be saying that people also can't handle regulating society on their own. B)

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 27 July 2012 - 08:21 AM

0

User is offline   Inspector Lagomorf 

  • Glory To Motherland!

#111

I don't have the time to respond to all of the post, mainly because it's too long (don't get me wrong, I read the whole thing, but it's difficult to have a conversation with that much text), so let me just respond to this point:

Quote

Businesses already have little trouble "starving" their employees while still keeping the consumers pouring in. That will not balance itself more equally if you remove restrictions on wages. If one doesn't take the cost of living into account on issues like this, they shouldn't even be debating it, since the true 'bottom line' isn't profit. It's survival.


You are no longer beholden by contract to work for a business indefinitely/until they decide to let you go; the U.S. economy is (ideally) structured that you can find other means of employment if the job you currently have is unsatisfactory for your needs. That is as it should be. When a business hires a laborer, it does so with the foreknowledge that the person will not continue to work that job if the wages are not satisfactory to uphold the cost of living. That's why you wouldn't have businesses that hire for $1/hr in the United States; people would not work those jobs. That would not happen in China since the human rights conditions in general there are dismal anyway. I will give credit to the labor unions in that they prevented such situations from being replicated in this country. However, they are no longer necessary now.

Jobs that are currently at the minimum wage level (McJobs) are not always sufficient enough to maintain one's standard of living; yes, that is true. Therefore, a prospective employee's concern should be towards advancement - gaining work experience, training, education in other fields - so that they can RIGHTFULLY earn a living wage. That is the basis of my philosophy; you have to earn your living. Your living cannot and should not be given to you without cost. Ideally, you start this process as early as high school, when you are not forced to maintain your own living.

No, it's not fair, but our economy cannot sustain itself by putting everyone on welfare.
0

User is offline   Mikko 

  • Honored Donor

#112

Martin said:

Some companies are more efficient than government, true. However, their motivations are not the health or well-being of the people. Their only motivation is profit and growth.


And what exactly is the motivation of those bureaucrats running government institutions? Profit and growth are good for the "well-being of the people", better than blind faith in the goodwill of the almighty government that you seem to love so much. Howabout we nationalize grocery stores as well, seeing how they're run by evil profit-driven people instead of enlightened bureaucrats?

Quote

I think you're stupid, to be honest. Not all obesity is because someone visits McDonalds every day. There are genetic factors, also.


Nonsense. The only reason why some people are fat is because they take in more food than what their bodies can process. The excess is then stored as fat.

Quote

Healthcare in this country is free at the point of delivery to any UK citizen. Despite the nitpicking you want to do, it's a humane society that decides education and healthcare are necessities, and are freely provided to the public through government-funding. Why stop at healthcare? Let's make all schools private, as well. Let's also ban Christmas.


Seriously, the two posts of yours that I'm quoting are full of reprehensible self-righteous "oh look how progressive we here in Britain are" ramblings. Is the degree of indoctrination really so high in Britain?

And yes, schools should be privatised as well. There's no reason (except positive externalities perhaps but they're extremely hard if not downright impossible to quantify and even if they could be quantified that'd merely call for subsidizing education, not providing it) why schools should be run by the government. You're talking as if education and health care wouldn't exist in a free society. Of course they would! In the Soviet Union there were actually generations of people who knew nothing but government-run grocery stores. If you had suggested to them that grocery stores and food production in general should be provided by the market, they'd have considered you insane. Your attitude is exactly the same. You've gotten so accustomed to the welfare state that you cannot imagine life without it. In reality the transition would be simple: the money people now use to pay taxes would be used to purchase health care and education services. In addition there'd be more competition and more growth because the government's influence wouldn't be so stifling.

Quote

NHS hospitals have various issues (mostly to do with under-staffing), but ultimately you can have any problem, and worrying about the money or the insurance doesn't become part of or compound the problem. You go, they fix you up, you thank the doctors, nurses and surgeons. You go home. You haven't spent a penny.


And then there's this. You keep talking about your welfare state as if it were free. Do you have any idea how much taxes you pay? At least in Finland you've got the income tax, the municipality tax and the sales tax. Out of every euro you make you get to spend less than fifty cents. My guess is that it's pretty much the same in the UK. The crazy part is that even such an incredible tax burden will not be enough in the long run!

Quote

This is why Englishmen generally get up in arms if you threaten their National Health Service, because for them it's as bad as saying there will be no more public schools.
...
Parliament will burn to the ground with all the nation's leading politicians inside long before the NHS is dissolved.


Your prediction of the possible consequences of any attempt to abolish the NHS is probably correct. But it only goes to show how stupid people are. You give them something and they think they're entitled to it. Of course, in a way they are entitled since they're paying taxes but the point is that the taxes they're willing to pay is not enough to maintain the system. They want to have the cake and eat it too.

Quote

*They are also generally amazed if you turn on the TV. The lack of adverts gives them such a hardon. Especially the BBC, which literally has none.


Oh goodie, now you're praising a state-run news channel, a practice that belongs to North Korea. I guess we now know the source of indoctrination.
0

User is offline   Hendricks266 

  • Weaponized Autism

  #113

View PostMad Max RW, on 25 July 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

Hint: Anybody who cites FDR or Woodrow Wilson as inspiration. They are the fathers of the progressive movement.

Ah, I forgot about "classical" progressivism, about which you are correct in identifying in the list of politicians you named. My mind was more tuned into modern stuff, which I linked to previously.

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 26 July 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

The theoretical models are backed by vast quantities of historical data (in fact, it was first-hand experience that led to trade theories in the first place, to explain observed phenomena) whileas the anti-trade crowd only has populist rhetoric and anecdotes to rely on. Blaming free trade has become the new "blame the jew/speculator", a lazy populist argument against a non-existent problem.

The benefits of trade accrue to the population as a whole whileas only a few people momentarily lose their jobs. Employment is gained in other sectors as a result of cost savings and increased consumption. This is what I meant when I said that a few people (the "angry rednecks") should not be allowed to hold the entire country hostage. The number of jobs in an economy is not fixed: growth is not a zero-sum game. However, there are ways to prevent laid-off people from finding new jobs such as a minimum wage that's set too high (above the productivity level of the laid-off people), welfare handouts that are too generous, etc.

As I said, people update their skills all the time. Tens of millions of occupations that existed only a few decades ago are now gone (fortunately so) and yet there's been a downward trend in the unemployment rate since the '80s. Shifts in technology tend not to be too sudden. Even the IT boom was associated with a decreasing unemployment rate.

The biggest acceleration of the tax schedule occurs when you hit the first tax bracket so acceleration is not the problem at higher incomes.

Thanks for educating me. :D

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 27 July 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

The only reason why some people are fat is because they take in more food than what their bodies can process. The excess is then stored as fat.

This is true, but within "what their bodies can process" actually there such things as variations in metabolism, etc. However, more often than not, people claiming such reasons are ignorant or lying.
0

User is offline   Mark 

  • Honored Donor

#114

If someone has a family history of big and fat people then it is up to that person to come to grips with this "genetic condition" and and eat healthy. Not to use it as an excuse for their obesity.
0

#115

View PostAchenar, on 27 July 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

You are no longer beholden by contract to work for a business indefinitely/until they decide to let you go; the U.S. economy is (ideally) structured that you can find other means of employment if the job you currently have is unsatisfactory for your needs. That is as it should be. When a business hires a laborer, it does so with the foreknowledge that the person will not continue to work that job if the wages are not satisfactory to uphold the cost of living. That's why you wouldn't have businesses that hire for $1/hr in the United States; people would not work those jobs. That would not happen in China since the human rights conditions in general there are dismal anyway. I will give credit to the labor unions in that they prevented such situations from being replicated in this country. However, they are no longer necessary now.

Jobs that are currently at the minimum wage level (McJobs) are not always sufficient enough to maintain one's standard of living; yes, that is true. Therefore, a prospective employee's concern should be towards advancement - gaining work experience, training, education in other fields - so that they can RIGHTFULLY earn a living wage. That is the basis of my philosophy; you have to earn your living. Your living cannot and should not be given to you without cost. Ideally, you start this process as early as high school, when you are not forced to maintain your own living.

No, it's not fair, but our economy cannot sustain itself by putting everyone on welfare.


There seems to be this bizarre assumption everyone has that if everyone just keeps their nose to the grindstone, an unregulated economy will take care of everyone. This is highly illogical. It's also one of the reasons Obama concluded that a government healthcare system was needed. It's obvious the moment one of those people in the bottom of the bracket, who has somehow managed to work at minimum wage, keep his house, find a balance between food and heat, and through a lot of mechanical knowhow, keep his PoS car from breaking down, suddenly discovers he needs his appendix removed. BAM! And this is just one example.

Another problem with the "it'll all turn out fine" idea, is it's based on the fallacy that everyone who starts out at that unacceptable income level will be able to claw their way up. Just as there are not enough jobs now (no, it doesn't matter how hard people try to get jobs right now, some will still be jobless, NO MATTER WHAT), in a minimum-wage-free economy, there might be more jobs (it's still questionable if it means there will even be ENOUGH jobs) but still no guarantee that the ratio of sub-poverty income jobs will be at all proportional to the ratio of highschool kids. And in all likelihood it won't be even close, because we live in an age where businesses have absolutely no qualms about screwing over as many people as possible. And that's before factoring in the fact that we're killing ourselves to undersell places like China.

I'll give you one example of how business is already screwing people. Business has already found a way around the minimum wage, and I'm not talking about the hiring of illegal immigrants. Restaurants managed to convince the government long ago that because waiters will earn the remainder in tips, they don't have to pay them minimum wage. So, they don't pay waiters minimum wage. All of this is based on the assumption that customers will be generous enough to make up the difference. Once again, this is a huge and completely illogical assumption, and countless times it has been proven that far too often, tips won't make up the difference, regardless of how good the service is.

Furthermore, numerous municipalities, after a lot of arguing with waiters, have instituted mandatory tips. Tipping has been a requirement, rather than an option. So at the end of the day, the result of undercutting minimum wage is: consumers have to pay more. So much for the idea that removing the minimum wage would help cheapen costs.

Anyway, all the examples I cited above were mainly done to exemplify how unlikely it is that businesses won't take full advantage of an eliminated minimum wage, which will have the side-effect of plunging even more of the workforce into poverty. Businesses love to conspire, and even though they'll still compete in some ways, they are constantly making little deals that give all of them a mutual advantage. If all airlines can mutually agree to start charging ridiculous fees (that even a decade ago would've been viewed as highway robbery) to give consumers no alternative, then an equally ridiculous standard hourly wage will just as easily be agreed upon.

Could I be wrong about this? Sure I could. We won't know for sure unless we kill the minimum wage, because theories are practically meaningless in a system as complex as humanity. BUT, as has already been demonstrated time and time again, once businesses get a certain advantage, they seldom ever lose it, or willingly give it back. And if America DID do away with the minimum wage, it will be VERY scary territory. The American workers have already had it up to their necks with bad business ethics. Killing the minimum wage could easily be the final straw that incites a revolt. And if they somehow manage to maintain their composure at that point, if things don't balance themselves out darned quick, or the plan fails to do what the 'pros' are hoping, the insane amount of poverty will definitely cause a revolt. I kinda wonder if America is already preparing itself for this, as indicated by their insane push for unfettered access to everyone's internet communications, and... let's just say that after all the whining about it that's been going on for nearly a decade (or is it more than that now?), it's hard not to raise an eyebrow at the coincidence that it was announced the Iraq troops finally get to come home, within months of the Occupy movement. Methinks someone is scared we don't have enough of a homefront defense.

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 28 July 2012 - 04:30 PM

0

User is online   Jim Rockford 

  • Banned on Rigel

#116

The unspoken message here is: Chaos is order. Chaos is the law. Chaos is fair. There's chaos in this beer.
0

User is offline   Martin 

#117

Lol Mikko, you thought you'd slip a retort in ages later.

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 27 July 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

And what exactly is the motivation of those bureaucrats running government institutions? Profit and growth are good for the "well-being of the people", better than blind faith in the goodwill of the almighty government that you seem to love so much. Howabout we nationalize grocery stores as well, seeing how they're run by evil profit-driven people instead of enlightened bureaucrats?


Because politicians are beholden to the public in a way that corporations are not. It's really very simple, and I know you understand even though you pretend not to.

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 27 July 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Nonsense. The only reason why some people are fat is because they take in more food than what their bodies can process. The excess is then stored as fat.


Yours is the nonsense, sir. You can easily find the research yourself. Genetics has an extremely large role in how your body captures and metabolises food.

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 27 July 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Seriously, the two posts of yours that I'm quoting are full of reprehensible self-righteous "oh look how progressive we here in Britain are" ramblings. Is the degree of indoctrination really so high in Britain?


You find it reprehensible, my statements are not reprehensible in and of themselves. Yes, we in Britain are all raised to salute Stalin and the hammer & sickle ;)

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 27 July 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

And yes, schools should be privatised as well. There's no reason (except positive externalities perhaps but they're extremely hard if not downright impossible to quantify and even if they could be quantified that'd merely call for subsidizing education, not providing it) why schools should be run by the government. You're talking as if education and health care wouldn't exist in a free society. Of course they would! In the Soviet Union there were actually generations of people who knew nothing but government-run grocery stores. If you had suggested to them that grocery stores and food production in general should be provided by the market, they'd have considered you insane. Your attitude is exactly the same. You've gotten so accustomed to the welfare state that you cannot imagine life without it. In reality the transition would be simple: the money people now use to pay taxes would be used to purchase health care and education services. In addition there'd be more competition and more growth because the government's influence wouldn't be so stifling.


I think grocery stores are rather more different. I could also make a totally equivalent throwaway comment about you being too used to everything being privately run to imagine life with out centrally run institutions. Ultimately, in Britain you can send your children to private schools, and you can use private healthcare. The idea behind public schools is that everyone, regardless of income, can expect their children to receive a good education. Of course there are examples of where this fails (bad schools), but there are many where it succeeds.

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 27 July 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

And then there's this. You keep talking about your welfare state as if it were free. Do you have any idea how much taxes you pay? At least in Finland you've got the income tax, the municipality tax and the sales tax. Out of every euro you make you get to spend less than fifty cents. My guess is that it's pretty much the same in the UK. The crazy part is that even such an incredible tax burden will not be enough in the long run!


View PostMartin, on 25 July 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

The NHS has always and will always be a huge drag. It's worth the downsides because of the considerable upsides.


and

View PostMartin, on 26 July 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

National Healthcare is expensive. That's all there is to it.


It's not like I haven't acknowledged the cost, Mikko. I hate being that guy that says "TRY ACTUALLY READIUNG MY POST BEFORE YOU REPLY!" but,um... yeah.


View PostMikko_Sandt, on 27 July 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Your prediction of the possible consequences of any attempt to abolish the NHS is probably correct. But it only goes to show how stupid people are. You give them something and they think they're entitled to it. Of course, in a way they are entitled since they're paying taxes but the point is that the taxes they're willing to pay is not enough to maintain the system. They want to have the cake and eat it too.


I highly doubt your knowledge of my country's finances goes that deep. Feel free to Google something.

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 27 July 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Oh goodie, now you're praising a state-run news channel, a practice that belongs to North Korea. I guess we now know the source of indoctrination.


It's not a news channel, lol. It stands for British Broadcasting Corporation (used to be 'Channel'). It's programming schedule covers so many different things. Comedy, science, nature, drama. Everything. You don't know the source of anything, since you clearly come to big conclusions with little or no actual information on what you are speaking. The BBC comment was just a fun little fact. Americans genuinely are astounded when you show them television with minimal or zero advertisements.

It wasn't me going "Capitalist dogs! Your puny capitalist television is no as good as Russia, yes?". I'd appreciate it if you didn't make me out to be some communist scumbag. But then again in Britain, we do swear allegiance to the hammer & sickle, and we do pray to our paintings of Kim Jong-il all around our homes. Don't you have Kim Jong-il bed sheets? I do.
0

User is offline   Mad Max RW 

#118

View PostMartin, on 29 July 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:


Because politicians are beholden to the public in a way that corporations are not. It's really very simple, and I know you understand even though you pretend not to.


Unfortunately, this isn't so true or very simple anymore. Most Democrats answer to unions and most Republicans answer to corporations. And both answer to Wall Street. Funnily enough, the top Democrats such as Pelosi and Obama have received far more donations from Wall Street than anybody in the opposing party. The liberal dominated media turns a blind eye because the truth doesn't fit their agenda of keeping Obama president another four years. If it wasn't for groups like the Tea Party and Ron Paul nobody would be talking about this stuff and we'd be mindless European drones watching BBC all day blindly accepting whatever your party of choice tells you.

This post has been edited by Mad Max RW: 29 July 2012 - 08:37 AM

0

User is online   Jim Rockford 

  • Banned on Rigel

#119

I'm calling bullshit. Conspiracy theorists don't need the Tea Party and Ron Paul.
0

User is offline   Mad Max RW 

#120

Verifiable facts are not theories.
0

Share this topic:


  • 12 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks are property of their respective owners. Instead of reading this text, you could be playing Ion Fury! ;) © 2019 Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options