Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

 

Socialism is not welfare. Next.

Where did I say that it was?  Apparently you did not take heed of my previous recommendation for you to look into adult literacy classes in your area so you could learn simple reading comprehension.  You know, like most children learn by the time they graduate from elementary school.  Lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Phoenix68 said:

 

.....Specifically, the back-stabbing, hypocritical-"conservatives".....

 

jesusdoontoothers.gif

Luke 6:31

 

 

18 minutes ago, kfools said:

Is that so?

 

 

WallStreet_3321n.png

 

lead_720_405.jpg?mod=1533691636

 

9973724_orig.jpg

 

4385825.jpg

newadv-32.jpg

stack.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leftwinger said:

 

 

Okay.

This is what passes for winning a debate in your tiny little empty head?  Lol...

 

Again- if I am really a "dumbass", then is should be extremely easy for one of you idiot libs to finally prove me wrong for a change instead of always cowardly running away while I continually bump just about any thread in which I participate to deafening silence.  So what the fuck are you all waiting for?

 

Good luck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most millennials have no clue about socialism, they live in America where everything is easy for  them, they take things for granted, I wish they would visit Denmark , Sweden and Norway and see what life is like for those who are poor compared to the USA.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, chairmanOFTB said:

most millennials have no clue about socialism, they live in America where everything is easy for  them, they take things for granted, I wish they would visit Denmark , Sweden and Norway and see what life is like for those who are poor compared to the USA.

 

 

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nighthawk said:

I really don't get why this is so hard for you dimwitted idiots to comprehend.  Are you truly too damn retarded to see the difference between taxing someone and giving them a service in return for their money, such as military protection for example, and simply taking their money in order to hand it over to someone else?  While the act of forcing someone to buy a service may have questionable morality, at least the person gets something in return.  But the latter of these 2 things is very clearly outright theft and is therefore clearly wrong & immoral.  Period.

 

Seriously, this should be simple enough for even a dull-witted child to understand.  So why the hell can't you morons grasp it???

It’s not simply handing it over to “someone else”.  The social safety net applies to all of us.  You want your money back?  Cool.  Quit your job and apply for welfare.  

 

Also, no one asked you or me if it was okay for the gov’t to take my money and use it how they see fit ...  But you don’t hear me complaining about it.  

 

The biggest issue w/ social programs or welfare programs is that it is abused by some who work the system, and no one on either side is for moochers and freeloaders.  

However, as I explained earlier... 80% of people on social assistance are in the workforce.  So you want to get people off welfare/social programs?  Cool... campaign for companies to pay living wage to workers.  If you work fulltime and still can’t afford the basic necessities, something isn’t adding up.

 

Wanna get the freeloaders off welfare?  Enforce the system.  Quit renewing people who have no issue working.  Lets also incentivize the freeloaders to work.  Reality is, welfare is often more lucrative than flipping burgers.  Is that the person on welfares fault?  No... they see a chink in the system and they exploit it. 

 

What needs to happen to minimize social assistance is to incentivize/entice people to work.  And you can’t use the ol “eating is my incentive” argument... bcus in the end, it costs more to care for people via social programs than it is for employers to pay their employees a living wage.  

 

You can either campaign for employers to pay their employees or you can campaign for social safety nets... but you can’t be against both.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chairmanOFTB said:

most millennials have no clue about socialism, they live in America where everything is easy for  them, they take things for granted, I wish they would visit Denmark , Sweden and Norway and see what life is like for those who are poor compared to the USA.

 

 

In Sweden and Norway? The poor are well taken care of in those countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kfools said:

In Sweden and Norway? The poor are well taken care of in those countries.

 

Yes, I kind of lost his point there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welfare is more money if you're low skilled or have no skill or education to get  a job

 

This is what socialists don't understand, if you take away the incentive to work you create dependency, this is what is happening in inner cities and places like the appalachians.

what you create is a system of dependency and the skills to defraud.

 

The media cant tell us that there isn't fraud in the welfare system, whether its Food stamps or ( I cant remember the name of the card) one uses to purchase groceries with.

 

I dont know what the number is but a number of them shouldn't be on welfare when they are capable of working.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kfools said:

In Sweden and Norway? The poor are well taken care of in those countries.

 

not in the ghettos there not, Ive been there and was lucky enough to see it , there is a growing resentment towards the migrants , africans, albanians and some syrians 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chairmanOFTB said:

Welfare is more money if you're low skilled or have no skill or education to get  a job

 

This is what socialists don't understand, if you take away the incentive to work you create dependency, this is what is happening in inner cities and places like the appalachians.

what you create is a system of dependency and the skills to defraud.

 

The media cant tell us that there isn't fraud in the welfare system, whether its Food stamps or ( I cant remember the name of the card) one uses to purchase groceries with.

 

I dont know what the number is but a number of them shouldn't be on welfare when they are capable of working.

 

 

Welfare has it's issues I agree. Fraud being a large one.

 

I wonder though without such a system how we deal with people who depend on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

not in the ghettos there not, Ive been there and was lucky enough to see it , there is a growing resentment towards the migrants , africans, albanians and some syrians 

 

 

Ya, but that isn't because of welfare. That's due to a lack of cultural integration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jrock2310 said:

It’s not simply handing it over to “someone else”.  

Yes, it most certainly is, moron.

 

Quote

The social safety net applies to all of us.  You want your money back?  Cool.  Quit your job and apply for welfare.  

Just because I can also choose to be the recipient of stolen goods does not magically mean it is no longer theft, dimwit.

 

And I never said a damn thing about wanting my money back, twit.  I was just very clearly explaining to you the difference between normal taxation and theft, as you apparently were too damn retarded to understand it by yourself.

 

Quote

Also, no one asked you or me if it was okay for the gov’t to take my money and use it how they see fit ... 

Which is why I clearly stated- "While the act of forcing someone to buy a service may have questionable morality."  I said this because it does- but it is still a lesser evil than outright theft.

 

Quote

But you don’t hear me complaining about it.  

So because someone doesn't "complain" about theft of their property, it makes the theft of other people's property okay, nimrod?

 

Quote

 

The biggest issue w/ social programs or welfare programs is that it is abused by some who work the system, and no one on either side is for moochers and freeloaders.  

However, as I explained earlier... 80% of people on social assistance are in the workforce.  So you want to get people off welfare/social programs?  Cool... campaign for companies to pay living wage to workers.  If you work fulltime and still can’t afford the basic necessities, something isn’t adding up.

 

Why the hell are these the only 2 conceivable options for helping the poor in your feeble little mind, dunce?  Is that because this is what your liberal masters told you when they were brainwashing the everliving fuck out of you and you just blindly swallowed it like a good little week-minded sheep?

 

Quote

Wanna get the freeloaders off welfare?  Enforce the system.  Quit renewing people who have no issue working.  Lets also incentivize the freeloaders to work.  Reality is, welfare is often more lucrative than flipping burgers.  Is that the person on welfares fault?  No... they see a chink in the system and they exploit it. 

Or, we could do the moral and correct thing and completely abolish all forms of welfare.  Problem solved.

 

Quote

What needs to happen to minimize social assistance is to incentivize/entice people to work.

Or, we could do the moral and correct thing and completely abolish all forms of welfare.  Problem solved.

 

Quote

 And you can’t use the ol “eating is my incentive” argument... bcus in the end, it costs more to care for people via social programs than it is for employers to pay their employees a living wage.  

So if you idiot libs get your precious living wage laws, where the hell do you think all the extra money any workers who are lucky enough to stay employed is going to come from in the long term?  You think some magical fairy from the gumdrop forest is going to swoop in on her purple flying unicorn and sprinkle all the good little workers with cash?  Lol...


 

Quote


You can either campaign for employers to pay their employees or you can campaign for social safety nets... but you can’t be against both.  

Well sit the fuck back and watch me, dumbass.  I will be glad to easily destroy and humiliate you just like I have every other idiot lib that was foolish enough to try me.  Go ahead, search my previous posts and see how the majority of the threads in which I participate usually turn out- Link.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kfools said:

Ya, but that isn't because of welfare. That's due to a lack of cultural integration.

 

that is true, but many of them are exploiting the welfare system which forced the Danish government to adopt harsher immigration laws

 

I will provide a link to a story the NY times did last jan 2018

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/europe/denmark-immigrant-ghettos.html

 

as in for welfare here, it has to be blown up and start from scratch, there is no incentive for people to leave, one must provide incentive vs just throwing money at the issue

 

this is what bernie doesn't get 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chairmanOFTB said:

 

that is true, but many of them are exploiting the welfare system which forced the Danish government to adopt harsher immigration laws

Right. That said though let's test a hypothetical.

 

If Denmark never imported immigrants or refugees would they have any trouble with thier massive social safety nets?

 

I think the answer is likely no.

Just now, chairmanOFTB said:

 

I will provide a link to a story the NY times did last jan 2018

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/europe/denmark-immigrant-ghettos.html

 

as in for welfare here, it has to be blown up and start from scratch, there is no incentive for people to leave, one must provide incentive vs just throwing money at the issue

 

this is what bernie doesn't get 

 

 

Perhaps, but now there is a system of dependent people. How do we cut them loose without catastrophic consequence? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kfools said:

Right. That said though let's test a hypothetical.

 

If Denmark never imported immigrants or refugees would they have any trouble with thier massive social safety nets?

 

I think the answer is likely no.

Perhaps, but now there is a system of dependent people. How do we cut them loose without catastrophic consequence? 

 

an act from God himself

 

seriously, it will take a politician of enormous strength and thick skin to make the tough choices , I doubt congress as a whole will do anything as they are too afraid of displaying tough measures against certain communities as it will be seen as racism

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

Yes, it most certainly is, moron.

 

Just because I can also choose to be the recipient of stolen goods does not magically mean it is no longer theft, dimwit.

Then you’re basically calling the fabric of our social construct theft.  Bcus as I analogized earlier... taxes can be thought of as theft.  Regardless if you believe its for the greater good or not.

Quote

 

And I never said a damn thing about wanting my money back, twit.  I was just very clearly explaining to you the difference between normal taxation and theft, as you apparently were too damn retarded to understand it by yourself.

Since you are unable to discuss issues w/out ad hom attacks, you illustrate to the board who the real “twit” is.  

Quote

 

Which is why I clearly stated- "While the act of forcing someone to buy a service may have questionable morality."  I said this because it does- but it is still a lesser evil than outright theft.

No idea what this statement implies.  It sounds like you’re just selectively outraged and over what a civilized society expects from you.

Quote

 

So because someone doesn't "complain" about theft of their property, it makes the theft of other people's property okay, nimrod?

That’s right.  We live in a society that has long decided as we live in this country, we are agreeing to the stipulations setforth by the country.  If you think social assistance is theft, bcus you don’t like it... by definition you must also consider taxes to build roads, schools, police also theft.  

 

You simply have selective outrage of what constitutes theft.  You’re fine as long as its for roads and police.  But if its for other social programs, it becomes theft.

Quote

 

Why the hell are these the only 2 conceivable options for helping the poor in your feeble little mind, dunce?  Is that because this is what your liberal masters told you when they were brainwashing the everliving fuck out of you and you just blindly swallowed it like a good little week-minded sheep?

Ad homs aside (which is the only thing you’ve offered), what other options do you suggest?

Quote

 

Or, we could do the moral and correct thing and completely abolish all forms of welfare.  Problem solved.

You don’t even recognize that you create a larger more expensive issue by not having social programs.   You’re going to have a society LITERALLY flummoxed w/ homelessness, starvation, disease, etc.... 

 

This is now your “moral” dilemma.  You haven’t actually fixed anything, you just made it worse.

 

You’ve simply created a society of the haves and have not.

 

That apparently is your moral utopia:   A society of the uber rich and the indigent. 

Quote

 

Or, we could do the moral and correct thing and completely abolish all forms of welfare.  Problem solved.

See post above 👆

Quote

 

So if you idiot libs get your precious living wage laws, where the hell do you think all the extra money any workers who are lucky enough to stay employed is going to come from in the long term?

Corporations and CEO’s hoarding wealth.  

 

The IRS annually reports over $300 BILLION in unreported (non-taxed) income.  That money is lining the pockets of those who are already insanely wealthy.

 

The issue isn’t that corps can’t pay living wage that matches inflation - they just don’t want to.

Quote

 

You think some magical fairy from the gumdrop forest is going to swoop in on her purple flying unicorn and sprinkle all the good little workers with cash?  Lol...

This is precisely why we have social programs you hate so much.  If employers/corps can’t afford to pay living wage, then you get social programs that help to bridge that gap.

 

So which is it — living wage or social programs?   But don’t cry about both.  

Quote


 

Well sit the fuck back and watch me, dumbass.  I will be glad to easily destroy and humiliate you just like I have every other idiot lib that was foolish enough to try me.

Internet tough guy.  Scary.

 

*yawn*

Quote

 

Go ahead, search my previous posts and see how the majority of the threads in which I participate usually turn out- Link.

Are you ever going to contribute to the discussion or are you going to continue giving everyone your message board resume?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do everything I can to battle the evils of socialism.  I do think it would be fun to physically fight one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skans said:

I do everything I can to battle the evils of socialism.  I do think it would be fun to physically fight one.

 

you'd wet your pants, you sissy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

you'd wet your pants, you sissy

I never have before; don't know why I'd start now.  Should I just throw a short sidekick to the socialist's shin scraping the skin off with my boots as he tries to round-house punch me like a queer, or a little higher to shatter his knee followed up by an uppercut, a few jabs and a strike to his thorax?  Decisions decisions....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2019 at 5:26 AM, jrock2310 said:

Then you’re basically calling the fabric of our social construct theft.  Bcus as I analogized earlier... taxes can be thought of as theft.  Regardless if you believe its for the greater good or not.

 

No idea what this statement implies.  It sounds like you’re just selectively outraged and over what a civilized society expects from you.

That’s right.  We live in a society that has long decided as we live in this country, we are agreeing to the stipulations setforth by the country.  If you think social assistance is theft, bcus you don’t like it... by definition you must also consider taxes to build roads, schools, police also theft.  

 

You simply have selective outrage of what constitutes theft.  You’re fine as long as its for roads and police.  But if its for other social programs, it becomes theft.

Why do you keep acting like the distinction that I and other intelligent conservatives are making between when taxes are and are not theft is just something completely arbitrary or irrelevant, dolt?  It is not like we quibbling over the government spending money on fighter jets versus tanks or something with essentially meaningless differences.  As I very, very, very clearly explained to you above- if money is simply taken from someone by force just to hand it over to someone else, then this is nothing more than outright theft and it is therefore immoral and wrong.  Period.  This is clearly not in the same category as money taken from someone to provide a service that benefits them as well, such as military protection or roads.  Again- this should be simple enough even for a dull-witted child to comprehend, so what the hell is wrong with you that you can’t seem to grasp it???

 

Quote

Since you are unable to discuss issues w/out ad hom attacks, you illustrate to the board who the real “twit” is.  

 

If you don’t like being ridiculed for you stupidity and ignorance, then the solution is quite simple- quit making stupid & ignorant posts.  Problem solved. 

Good luck.

 

Quote

That’s right.  We live in a society that has long decided as we live in this country, we are agreeing to the stipulations setforth by the country.

Just because “society” has agreed that something should be legal, it does not magically make it moral, dimwit.  For most of recording human history, your precious “society” thought slavery was just fine and dandy, for example.  So using your moronic reasoning, would you argue that slavery was a moral and good thing during all those years?  Come on now, you are not going to backtrack on your idiotic argument of “society” being the unquestioned moral arbiter, are you?  I can’t wait to see how you try to spin your way out of this one, assuming you don’t just cowardly run away like most idiot libs usually do…

 

Good luck.

 

Quote

Ad homs aside (which is the only thing you’ve offered), what other options do you suggest?

So you are admitting you don’t know of any solutions other than the stupid, immoral, and frequently COUNTERPRODUCTIVE ones your liberal masters have programmed into you?  Here are a few easy ones for starters-

 

1. All unnecessary government regulations and red tape that prevent people from starting their own businesses should be completely abolished.  Take moronic occupational licensing laws, for one example of many.  In some states, you have to have a license to do something as mundane as arranging flowers for Pete’s sake.  These kinds of regulations trap many poor people from escaping their poverty, and you idiot libs apparently don’t give a flying shit.

 

2.  Since you are an idiot lib, you have probably never so much as opened a basic economics book, but here is a passage out of an excellent one on how to help the poor workers naturally get higher wages to become better off-

 

Economics In One Lesson

All this is not to argue that there is no way of raising wages. It is merely to point out that the apparently easy method of raising them by government fiat is the wrong way and the worst way.

 

This is perhaps as good a place as any to point out that what distinguishes many reformers from those who cannot accept their proposals is not their greater philanthropy, but their greater impatience. The question is not whether we wish to see everybody as well off as possible. Among men of good will such an aim can be taken for granted. The real question concerns the proper means of achieving it. And in trying to answer this we must never lose sight of a few elementary truisms. We cannot distribute more wealth than is created. We cannot in the long run pay labor as a whole more than it produces.

 

The best way to raise wages, therefore, is to raise marginal labor productivity. This can be done by many methods: by an increase in capital accumulation — i.e., by an increase in the machines with which the workers are aided; by new inventions and improvements; by more efficient management on the part of employers; by more industriousness and efficiency on the part of workers; by better education and training. The more the individual worker produces, the more he increases the wealth of the whole community. The more he produces, the more his services are worth to consumers, and hence to employers. And the more he is worth to employers, the more he will be paid. Real wages come out of production, not out of government decrees.

 

So government policy should be directed, not to imposing more burdensome requirements on employers, but to following policies that encourage profits, that encourage employers to expand, to invest in newer and better machines to increase the productivity of workers — in brief, to encourage capital accumulation, instead of discouraging it—and to increase both employment and wage rates.

 

3.  For the people that working to get out of poverty is simply not an option, such as the severely disabled or orphans, the obvious and best solution is something that is known as “private charity.”  I don’t know how the hell an adult living in the US today has never heard of this, but this is where people VOLUNTARILY, i.e. without a gun to their heads, help other people in need, and it is typically far, far, far more effective and efficient than any horrifically wasteful & evil government social program could ever dream of being.

 

I could go on, but the general point is that there are countless ways to help the poor that don’t require putting a gun to anyone’s head to steal from them, dipshit.  And do you know why your liberal masters never mention any of these other ideas?  I know the answer full well, but I am curious if you are bright enough to catch onto why they are deliberately misleading you?

 

Quote

 

You don’t even recognize that you create a larger more expensive issue by not having social programs.   You’re going to have a society LITERALLY flummoxed w/ homelessness, starvation, disease, etc.... 

 

This is now your “moral” dilemma.  You haven’t actually fixed anything, you just made it worse.

 

You’ve simply created a society of the haves and have not.

 

That apparently is your moral utopia:   A society of the uber rich and the indigent. 

 

Wow, your liberal masters have done one hell of a job in brainwashing the everliving fuck out of you.  Do you just blindly swallow anything and everything they feed you, without question, like a good little weak-minded sheep?  Lol…

 

Quote

Corporations and CEO’s hoarding wealth.  

Why the hell do you think they would be the ones to pay for your dumb little schemes?  Is that something else your masters told you?  That may be who you wish would pay for it, but it is not who will actually pay it.  How do you think that would even work?  You think that say, all the McDonald's restaurant owners will just call up the evil CEO every week after you get your moronic living wage laws and ask him to send them a personal check to cover their increased payroll and he will just be happy to oblige?  Lol…

 

And even if you somehow came up with a way to divert the evil CEO’s pay to the workers, it typically wouldn’t even begin to be enough money to be a drop in the bucket to the increased costs from your moronic living wage laws.  Even if you convinced the evil CEO of McDonalds to work for ZERO and spread all that money to the other workers, it wouldn’t even come to an extra nickel/hr, dunce.  So where will you get the other $7+ per hour needed to get everyone to your precious $15/hr, idiot?

 

Now, do you want to try my simple question again, but perhaps without showing how unbelievably stupid you are this time? 

 

Good luck.

 

Quote

The IRS annually reports over $300 BILLION in unreported (non-taxed) income.  That money is lining the pockets of those who are already insanely wealthy.

 

Even if true, what the hell does that have to do with the topic at hand?  What's next, are you going to start citing the price of tea in China, moron?

 

Quote

 

The issue isn’t that corps can’t pay living wage that matches inflation - they just don’t want to.

This is precisely why we have social programs you hate so much.  If employers/corps can’t afford to pay living wage, then you get social programs that help to bridge that gap.

 

So which is it — living wage or social programs?   But don’t cry about both.  

 

No, as I posted above- there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for either of those stupid, immoral, and frequently COUNTERPRODUCTIVE policies, dumbass.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

Why do you keep acting like the distinction that I and other intelligent conservatives are making between when taxes are and are not theft is just something completely arbitrary or irrelevant, dolt?  It is not like we quibbling over the government spending money on fighter jets versus tanks or something with essentially meaningless differences.  As I very, very, very clearly explained to you above- if money is simply taken from someone by force just to hand it over to someone else, then this is nothing more than outright theft and it is therefore immoral and wrong.  Period.

That’s all taxes are you eunuch.  No one consulted w/ you over taxes.  You pay for military, roads and social programs whether you like it or not.  That’s why your entire position is selective outrage.  You don’t care about taxes when its spent on abc;  you only care when its xyz.

Quote

 This is clearly not in the same category as money taken from someone to provide a service that benefits them as well, such as military protection or roads.  Again- this should be simple enough even for a dull-witted child to comprehend, so what the hell is wrong with you that you can’t seem to grasp it???

You also pay for social programs as a safety net for not only others, but for yourself in the event you end up needing it later.

 

You’re simply cherry-picking what consitiutes theft.

Quote

 

If you don’t like being ridiculed for you stupidity and ignorance, then the solution is quite simple- quit making stupid & ignorant posts.  Problem solved. 

Good luck.

Coming from the guy who thinks taxes for abc are fine, but taxes on xyz are theft.  

Quote

 

Just because “society” has agreed that something should be legal, it does not magically make it moral, dimwit.

This is what I’m talking about... you’re assigning your definition/perception of morality as superior over all others moral outlooks.  

 

You believe its wrong to have a social safety net bcus its money being taken from tax payers to pay for something you don’t approve of;  but its perfectly moral if someone goes hungry, loses their home, or dies bcus they can’t meet the demands if basic necessities if not for that safety net.

Quote

 

 For most of recording human history, your precious “society” thought slavery was just fine and dandy, for example.

🤣🤣🤣 Whaaaaa.... ???

Quote

 

So using your moronic reasoning, would you argue that slavery was a moral and good thing during all those years?

Slavery has always been immoral.

 

Also side note:. I wasn’t around when slavery was prevelent in *AMERICAN* civilized society ... and neither were you.

Quote

 

Come on now, you are not going to backtrack on your idiotic argument of “society” being the unquestioned moral arbiter, are you?

I’m not sure if you’ve noticed or not, but, we kinda rectified the slavery issue in America.

 

Your failed attempt at hypocrisy would be true if we didn’t evolve away from slavery ... which we did btw.

Quote

 

 I can’t wait to see how you try to spin your way out of this one, assuming you don’t just cowardly run away like most idiot libs usually do…

 

Good luck.

The slavery conundrum?

 

Just did.  See above 👆

Quote

 

So you are admitting you don’t know of any solutions other than the stupid, immoral, and frequently COUNTERPRODUCTIVE ones your liberal masters have programmed into you?  Here are a few easy ones for starters-

Simply asserting yourself as the moral arbiter doesn’t make you right or moral.

Quote

 

1. All unnecessary government regulations and red tape that prevent people from starting their own businesses should be completely abolished.

Such as?   What specifically are you referring to...?

Quote

 

Take moronic occupational licensing laws, for one example of many.  In some states, you have to have a license to do something as mundane as arranging flowers for Pete’s sake.

Business licensing is largely about your plan to... wait for it ... run a business.  Not how you arrange flowers.

 

Taxes, equity, loans, distribution, supply & demand, insurance/liability, etc...

Quote

 

  These kinds of regulations trap many poor people from escaping their poverty, and you idiot libs apparently don’t give a flying shit.

Wait a minute...so you think any random joe blow should be able to open a business w/out qualifiaction ir regulation whatsoever?

 

excuse me for a second....

 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

Do you know 90% of all start-ups fail w/ people who are fully competent & licensed w/ loads of capital?

 

You clearly don’t know your ass from your elbow.

Quote

 

2.  Since you are an idiot lib, you have probably never so much as opened a basic economics book, but here is a passage out of an excellent one on how to help the poor workers naturally get higher wages to become better off-

Are you about to quote me art of the deal...

Quote

 

Economics In One Lesson

All this is not to argue that there is no way of raising wages. It is merely to point out that the apparently easy method of raising them by government fiat is the wrong way and the worst way.

 

Ah ha!  You’ve seemed make a giant leap from everything of the past 60 yrs from unions and labor laws to gov’t stipulation.

 

The working public once asked the gov’t to enforce a living wage... and what did we get .... a middle class.  But that time is coming due again thanks in part to the private sector long-standing abuse of employers from wage disparity w/ massive inflation.  From benefits, to indentured servitude (40/hr work week) to workers rights.

 

Clearly you’re for corporations governing what people are worth.  Which is precisely what slavery was:  You’re worth/value is x and if you don’t like it - Bad word you.  I own you!

 

It’s precisely why we have these laws:  To protect us from corporate abuse.  

Quote

 

This is perhaps as good a place as any to point out that what distinguishes many reformers from those who cannot accept their proposals is not their greater philanthropy, but their greater impatience. The question is not whether we wish to see everybody as well off as possible. Among men of good will such an aim can be taken for granted. The real question concerns the proper means of achieving it. And in trying to answer this we must never lose sight of a few elementary truisms. We cannot distribute more wealth than is created. We cannot in the long run pay labor as a whole more than it produces.

This statement undercuts your own arguments.  People seeking living wage aren’t asking for more wealth than is created.  Quite the opposite.  Corps and CEO’s are hoarding astronomical amounts of wealth whilst controling inflation.

 

Corporations/CEO’s aren’t in the business of helping others.  They’re in business to accrue wealth.  And they can acheive this by keeping overhead low, labor costs low, and rising inflation.

Quote

 

 

 

The best way to raise wages, therefore, is to raise marginal labor productivity. This can be done by many methods: by an increase in capital accumulation — i.e., by an increase in the machines with which the workers are aided; by new inventions and improvements; by more efficient management on the part of employers; by more industriousness and efficiency on the part of workers; by better education and training. The more the individual worker produces, the more he increases the wealth of the whole community. The more he produces, the more his services are worth to consumers, and hence to employers. And the more he is worth to employers, the more he will be paid. Real wages come out of production, not out of government decrees.

 

No one disagrees w/ this.  However... if everyone is studeous enough to go to college and chase the same 500 corporate positions... who’s left working the low wage positions that make up a sizable proportion of our economy such as... retail, delivery drivers, janitors/housekeepers, caregivers, hospitality, food service industry: waiters, cooks, dishwashers, busboys, drive-thrus, etc...

 

Regardless of aspirational vision for all people and workers... these are still jobs that MUST be filled.  And if they must be filled, then employers must compensate workers to the rate of inflation.  

 

The idea of living wage isn’t to give low wage workers handouts.  It’s simply to meet or match costs of inflation.  Businesses are rasing costs of products and goods;  and in order for people to keep up w/ rising costs, they either must be paid in accordance to inflation, or corps need to stop arbitrarrily raising quarterly costs just to meet quota and demands of their bosses so they may add to their net worth.

Quote

 

So government policy should be directed, not to imposing more burdensome requirements on employers, but to following policies that encourage profits, that encourage employers to expand, to invest in newer and better machines to increase the productivity of workers — in brief, to encourage capital accumulation, instead of discouraging it—and to increase both employment and wage rates.

Yes!  It is this fervent captial greed that has led to labor laws and unions.  Corps have been taking advantage of workers forever.   

 

No one here is discouraging capitalism or innovation... but the other side of the coin is to take care of those who line the pockets of these corporations.  Living wage isn’t the notion that billionaires make their employers like them.  It’s simply the request and proposal of employees to employers that they treat and compensate them in line w/ rising costs aka inflation.  

 

It’s hard to argue this fact knowing that corps and ceo’s are handing down bonus’ in the six and seven figures ANNUALLY while reaping tax breaks from the gov’t, then whining that its low wage workers that are the problem w/ this country.

Quote

 

3.  For the people that working to get out of poverty is simply not an option, such as the severely disabled or orphans, the obvious and best solution is something that is known as “private charity.”  I don’t know how the hell an adult living in the US today has never heard of this, but this is where people VOLUNTARILY, i.e. without a gun to their heads, help other people in need, and it is typically far, far, far more effective and efficient than any horrifically wasteful & evil government social program could ever dream of being.

There’s a reason the middle class is in recession... it ain’t bcus they bust their ass 40-60 hrs a week.  It’s bcus corps have created a system of the haves and have nots.  

Quote

 

I could go on, but the general point is that there are countless ways to help the poor that don’t require putting a gun to anyone’s head to steal from them, dipshit.

You keep repeating this notion... but no gun was put to your head when you pay for roads, military, police, etc... just like no one put a gun to your head when they take out for social programs.  If you’ve elected to remain in this country, you’ve perhaps ignorantly, but willingly agreed to these terms.

Quote

 

  And do you know why your liberal masters never mention any of these other ideas?  I know the answer full well, but I am curious if you are bright enough to catch onto why they are deliberately misleading you?

 

Wow, your liberal masters have done one hell of a job in brainwashing the everliving fuck out of you.  Do you just blindly swallow anything and everything they feed you, without question, like a good little weak-minded sheep?  Lol…

More ad homs...

 

😴

Quote

 

Why the hell do you think they would be the ones to pay for your dumb little schemes?  Is that something else your masters told you?

You  rubes have this hard-on about “masters”.  Is it just totally inconceivable to you cucks that people who don’t think like you may just disagree w/ your political/economical/socio perceptions?

Quote

 

That may be who you wish would pay for it, but it is not who will actually pay it.

Welp... news flash... you do pay for it if you pay taxes.  Otherwise you wouldn’t be here bitching about it now.  

 

Sorry bout your luck.

Quote

 

How do you think that would even work?  You think that say, all the McDonald's restaurant owners will just call up the evil CEO every week after you get your moronic living wage laws and ask him to send them a personal check to cover their increased payroll and he will just be happy to oblige?  Lol…

You know the mcdoanlds empire has a net worth around $107 billion dollars that continues to profit?

Quote

 

And even if you somehow came up with a way to divert the evil CEO’s pay to the workers, it typically wouldn’t even begin to be enough money to be a drop in the bucket to the increased costs from your moronic living wage laws.

Sure it would.   Franchises like mcdonalds are privately owned.  Which means the burden of costs goes to owners while a % of profit goes to the franchise.  So it wouldn’t be the franchise ($107 b net) taking on all costs for employees.  It would simply be the individual owner accou ting for his employees, whatever that number entails.

 

In this equation its important to note that employees everwhere are now earning $15/hr.  Which means more people are incentivized to participate in the rat race which only helps the economy.

 

In summation:. Employers may have to pay more to employees... but more people will be apt to come to your mcdonalds and spend money now that they have more money to spend.

 

Living wage is everything trickle down promoted but actually achieves.  It’s just now we’re getting rid of the middle man which is corps promising to take care of their employees.

Quote

 

Even if you convinced the evil CEO of McDonalds to work for ZERO and spread all that money to the other workers, it wouldn’t even come to an extra nickel/hr, dunce.

This is blatantly ifnorant distortion of what you think living wage is and its application.

Quote

 

 So where will you get the other $7+ per hour needed to get everyone to your precious $15/hr, idiot?

Easy.

1 - more revenue to the public ensures redistribution via economic growth.  It’s cyclical — you give people more money, they’ll buy more of your products.  Which is the goal of business mind you.

2 -  If you’ll remember the IRS records that upwards of $300B of income/profit goes unreported.  This means CEO/Corps pocket untaxed profits.

Quote

 

Now, do you want to try my simple question again, but perhaps without showing how unbelievably stupid you are this time? 

 

Good luck.

More ad homs.

 

It’s half your thread.

 

Boring.

Quote

 

Even if true, what the hell does that have to do with the topic at hand?  What's next, are you going to start citing the price of tea in China, moron?

It means businesses scam not only employees, but the gov’t as well.  And they don’t do to keep their heads above water... they do it for greed.  Crony capitalism.  

 

There’s also another term for it — fraud.

Quote

 

No, as I posted above- there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for either of those stupid, immoral, and frequently COUNTERPRODUCTIVE policies, dumbass.

I think I just did a great job of dispelling you rebuttals.

 

Now, if you wish to continue w/ this convo... allow for some constructive criticism:  You’re thread is too long. Less is more.   Drop the ad homs.  They don’t further the conversation.  It may feed your ego to type them out, but generally speaking its mental masturbation.

 

Have a good evening.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2019 at 9:33 AM, chairmanOFTB said:

most millennials have no clue about socialism, they live in America where everything is easy for  them, they take things for granted, I wish they would visit Denmark , Sweden and Norway and see what life is like for those who are poor compared to the USA.

 

I lived in Denmark for a year.

It's a paradise compared to the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Toldya said:

 

I lived in Denmark for a year.

It's a paradise compared to the US.

 

yeah, where did you live and when were you there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×