I Nearly Choked On My Coffee After This Fox News Host Suggested Workers Making $20/Hr

Port Tack said:
No stupid, it just means those corporations will be making millions instead of billions.
Click to expand...

And...

The money those corporations could have invested in new products, research, expanded product lines, or lowering costs to buyers instead is squandered by government and the unproductive on welfare.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Since when should I be required / forced to give others anything to subsidize or support them? What you are calling for is forced altruism enforced by government, otherwise known as socialism and it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the bleeding hearts want to save all the puppies and kittens while you don't give a shit, I hope you understand that, at some level, there is a national interest in having a healthy, educated citizenry to serve as workers and voters.

I don't have kids, but I support public education since I'd rather have those kids working and paying taxes into social security rather than trying to steal my car.
 
Doc Dutch said:
While I agree that the bleeding hearts want to save all the puppies and kittens while you don't give a shit, I hope you understand that, at some level, there is a national interest in having a healthy, educated citizenry to serve as workers and voters.

I don't have kids, but I support public education since I'd rather have those kids working and paying taxes into social security rather than trying to steal my car.
Click to expand...

There is, but there has to be a balance. If you can work, you should be working, not on welfare. The system shouldn't be generous either. It should provide the basics and no more.
Social Security was supposed to be a retirement plan you paid into to ensure you had some minimum retirement. It wasn't supposed to be the only thing you'd be retiring on, but it has become that because the plan was poorly executed in many ways. But that is government for you...

I support public education, but given what a shitty job the government often does of it today, I think that a voucher system and privatization are the answer to insanely bad public schools (some not all), teacher's unions that have gone off the deep end of the Leftist pool, and all the rest of the problems we have with our education system.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
There is, but there has to be a balance. If you can work, you should be working, not on welfare. The system shouldn't be generous either. It should provide the basics and no more.

Social Security was supposed to be a retirement plan you paid into to ensure you had some minimum retirement. It wasn't supposed to be the only thing you'd be retiring on, but it has become that because the plan was poorly executed in many ways. But that is government for you...

I support public education, but given what a shitty job the government often does of it today, I think that a voucher system and privatization are the answer to insanely bad public schools (some not all), teacher's unions that have gone off the deep end of the Leftist pool, and all the rest of the problems we have with our education system.
Click to expand...
Agreed on balance.

Agreed SS is a supplement, not a retirement plan.

Was public education shitty back in your and my day? No. When did it turn shitty? IMO, when the Republicans started chipping away at it to support parochial schools as you pushing.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed on balance.

Agreed SS is a supplement, not a retirement plan.

Was public education shitty back in your and my day? No. When did it turn shitty? IMO, when the Republicans started chipping away at it to support parochial schools as you pushing.
Click to expand...

I say it turned shitty when Progressives and Leftists took over colleges of education in the 70's and the teacher's unions took a hard turn to the Left. In Arizona, there's lots of charter schools now that are better than public ones, and there's a voucher program that the state will pay parents to send their kids to whatever school, public or private they choose.
The teacher's union is livid with hate over it, the Democrats denounce it, but parents love it. Go figure...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I say it turned shitty when Progressives and Leftists took over colleges of education in the 70's and the teacher's unions took a hard turn to the Left.

In Arizona, there's lots of charter schools now that are better than public ones, and there's a voucher program that the state will pay parents to send their kids to whatever school, public or private they choose.
The teacher's union is livid with hate over it, the Democrats denounce it, but parents love it. Go figure...
Click to expand...
I fail to see how that affects public school funding. Your hatred of the right of free assembly in favor of corporate overlords is noted, Terry.

No doubt. Rich people can afford really nice schools. Go figure. The problem isn't the rich getting quality educations, but those American families who can't afford private schools. It's in the nation's best interests that they receive a quality education and a healthy upbringing in order to maximize their abilities as workers and leaders.
 
Althea said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Okay, here's the thing:


One of my pet peeves in the political analysis world is the constant pegging of people into categories; the college educated as opposed to working class (assuming there was no community college educated or upgrade in their jobs via experience).

It's easy to point to and exploit the yahoos and willfully ignorant folk who support someone you find reprehensible, but what about all those "college educated, middle and upper middle class" folk? Remember, the people in Congress, the lobbyist, etc. are all college or ivy league university educated, many with law degrees or degrees in business, etc. That goes for all Trump and GOP voters in the general public.

So have a care not to fall into the stereotype, because that is how you can be easily manipulated.
Click to expand...


There are Republicans/Democrats/Independents.

Millions of educated Republicans voted for trump twice because they either want to pay less in taxes, or they obsess over their guns. Nothing more.

This is not the MAGA base. The above referenced held their collective noses and voted for trump. Many don't want to discuss it.

The MAGA 'base' is those I mentioned earlier, and those are the ones trump targets. The morons who never paid attention to politics, but are impressed by everything trump.

Similar to millions of non white voters who never participated because they felt that they had no representation, but were inspired by Obama. This group saw severely declining numbers when Hillary was the candidate, and it put trump in the W.H.

Same for youth voters
Click to expand...

Let's get a few things straight:

1. The "educated" Republicans voted for Trump for the same reasons the non political "morons" did .... he told them what they wanted to hear, and they were "impressed". Just like Reagan did, just like the Bush Crime family did. 24 years of variations of "trickle down" economics that JUST DID NOT WORK. Like the old saying goes, insanity is repeating the exact same thing in hoping for a different outcome.

2. When Slick Willy got a monster share of the "non-white" vote, the MSM media snidely referred to him as the "first black president". So along comes Obama and suddenly black folk were scrutinized for essentially voting their interests. That was NOT the case with Hillary, of whom despite the media hype was NOT particularly favored among "non-white" voters. She had no real political history, carpet bagged into NY senator seat and had a lackluster performance as Secretary of State. Her popular vote win in 2016 was based on the monster women's vote.

And remember, Obama's first term disappointed a LOT of people who voted for him, so much so that they sat out the subsequent Congressional elections in protest ( a win for the GOP).

Also, Bernie Sanders had an unprecedented popularity with the young voters....something Hillary did not. But the party machine in the DNC weren't ready for the few radical changes he would make, so they sandbagged him in favor of Hillary. And the rest (sadly) is history.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Welfare is paid from taxes. Therefore welfare is paid for by taxpayers. When welfare becomes too generous and can be gotten for a lifetime, some will take advantage of that. When taxes become too onerous to bother to work for pay, people will take those generous benefits that aren't taxed instead. Forced altruism does not work.
Click to expand...

Taxes have done nothing but go down for 75 years. Under Eisenhower and Kennedy the rich would pay as much as 80% even more. The maximum today is like 38% and nobody even pays that after their deductions.

Nobody living off welfare has it great.
 
Port Tack said:
Taxes have done nothing but go down for 75 years. Under Eisenhower and Kennedy the rich would pay as much as 80% even more. The maximum today is like 38% and nobody even pays that after their deductions.

Nobody living off welfare has it great.
Click to expand...

And they, along with government and government spending should go down a lot more.
 
Doc Dutch said:
I fail to see how that affects public school funding. Your hatred of the right of free assembly in favor of corporate overlords is noted, Terry.

No doubt. Rich people can afford really nice schools. Go figure. The problem isn't the rich getting quality educations, but those American families who can't afford private schools. It's in the nation's best interests that they receive a quality education and a healthy upbringing in order to maximize their abilities as workers and leaders.
Click to expand...

Schools don't teach you to be a leader or a worker, Sybil.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Let's get a few things straight:

1. The "educated" Republicans voted for Trump for the same reasons the non political "morons" did .... he told them what they wanted to hear, and they were "impressed". Just like Reagan did, just like the Bush Crime family did. 24 years of variations of "trickle down" economics that JUST DID NOT WORK. Like the old saying goes, insanity is repeating the exact same thing in hoping for a different outcome.
Click to expand...
What 'trickle down economics'?? Fascism is not capitalism, Sock.
What crimes?
Taichiliberal said:
2. When Slick Willy got a monster share of the "non-white" vote, the MSM media snidely referred to him as the "first black president". So along comes Obama and suddenly black folk were scrutinized for essentially voting their interests. That was NOT the case with Hillary, of whom despite the media hype was NOT particularly favored among "non-white" voters. She had no real political history, carpet bagged into NY senator seat and had a lackluster performance as Secretary of State. Her popular vote win in 2016 was based on the monster women's vote.
Click to expand...
The President is not elected by popular vote, Sock.
Taichiliberal said:
And remember, Obama's first term disappointed a LOT of people who voted for him, so much so that they sat out the subsequent Congressional elections in protest ( a win for the GOP).
Click to expand...
The President is not elected by popular vote, Sock.
Taichiliberal said:
Also, Bernie Sanders had an unprecedented popularity with the young voters....something Hillary did not. But the party machine in the DNC weren't ready for the few radical changes he would make, so they sandbagged him in favor of Hillary. And the rest (sadly) is history.
Click to expand...
So?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
And they, along with government and government spending should go down a lot more.
Click to expand...

Since the federal government is broke, it's only a matter of time before that spending will end, probably in an uncontrolled manner. It won't be pretty.
That time may not be far off either. Already people are losing faith in the Federal Reserve Notes we call 'dollars'.

(A dollar was originally a unit of weight.)
 
Did you actually listen to it? He asks a question, the guy informs him it is a little over 40K , he says, "If your husband or your wife also works there you are making nearly..."

He never says that $20 per hour is $100K per year.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
And they, along with government and government spending should go down a lot more.
Click to expand...

You're not making sense. The man just pointed out that taxes for rich folk have dropped significantly in 75 years....whom do you think picks up the slack in the national revenue? As for gov't spending, it's always social services for the non wealthy that is the target....as if that's going to fill the void of rich folk and corporate taxes. And DON'T get me started on the tax exemptions for organized religions!

No my friend, Waters is as he always was .... a goofy looking stooge for some conservative hack .... as he was for that chowderhead Bill O'Reilly, as he is no for Trump via Fox News.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You're not making sense. The man just pointed out that taxes for rich folk have dropped significantly in 75 years....whom do you think picks up the slack in the national revenue? As for gov't spending, it's always social services for the non wealthy that is the target....as if that's going to fill the void of rich folk and corporate taxes. And DON'T get me started on the tax exemptions for organized religions!

No my friend, Waters is as he always was .... a goofy looking stooge for some conservative hack .... as he was for that chowderhead Bill O'Reilly, as he is no for Trump via Fox News.
Click to expand...

And I pointed out that taxing the rich doesn't fucking work. They didn't get rich by being stupid with their money. On the other hand, giving money without close supervision, to the poor who are stupid with their money doesn't work either.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
And I pointed out that taxing the rich doesn't fucking work. They didn't get rich by being stupid with their money.

On the other hand, giving money without close supervision, to the poor who are stupid with their money doesn't work either.
Click to expand...

What is your opinion of a flat tax, no deductions? Say 20%. Give the poor a break at $30K or whatever the poverty level was at the time. Notice the problems of such a cutoff level.

Agreed. I'm against just giving cash. Provide shelter and food but no cash is a good start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top