Revamping the Republican Strategy
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
apple0154
MEOW
Goal posts? Children dying in another country due to a lack of resources are children outside the goal post? Is that it? A little less human? Easily replaced?
apple0154
MEOW
I don't insist on bringing more unwanted children into the world when hundreds are dying every day. Of course, we all know the value you and Repubs put on human life. They claim they care about the fetus but the reality is they can't stand women having a good time. To hell with the children already here who are dying and when ever there's the possibility of getting a good war going they jump up and down with glee at the prospect of carnage and death. That's the Repub morality.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
chopped up baby parts are the liberal morality.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
so feed them......heal them.....what the fuck is wrong with Canadians anyway......why do you expect us to solve the world's hunger problems for you........
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Nope. I was informed what NOT to call you, and I haven't called you that word. YOU, on the other hand, were publicly castigated for your butt-hurt overuse of 'cunt' in my direction. Keep it up, pathetic loser-boy. The only one being made a fool is you.
the admins brokered a ceasefire......you violated it.....
apple0154
MEOW
It's worked better than no minimum wage. And pople are obliged to look for work and if they turn down a job they lose their benefits so, yes, they are obliged to work.
You wrote, "I'm fine with no minimum wage and some people being able to work for next to nothing, if it suits them." The problem is they wouldn't have a choice. As I stated above they are obliged to take a job, regardless, or lose benefits.
Are you saying they should work for the government? You want the government involved to that extent, supplying and supervising jobs for welfare recipients?........OK. The game is over. Who hacked Dixie's account? Government involvement to that degree? This is not Dixie talking.
Yes, Dix, you are confused. Clear your head and try to concentrate.
OK. Yes, there are many gated communities and it has to do with income disparity. Yes, the poor are better off than they were but so is everyone else. For example, technology has improved food production so there is more food for everyone, the wealthy and the poor. That does not mean the poor are better off vis-a-vis the wealthy and that's the point you are unable to grasp. The poor are better off than they were 60 years ago but the wealthy are much better off than they were 60 years ago. Statistics have consistently shown that. Wages are one example.
Compare the wages of the average worker to the wages/bonuses of top management. Both have increased in actual numbers, however, the average worker is really earning less value-wise. They are better off than they were 60 years age regarding, say, food because the cost of production of food has fallen. It's not because their wage has increased. The problem is the gap between the wealthy and the poor has increased and that is what determines poverty.
While the cost of certain goods have dropped over the years due to technological innovation, resulting in the poor being better off, the cost of services have increased. From the dentist to the plumber their wages have increased quicker than the income of the poor because the wealthy can afford to pay more. For example, let's say a specialized accountant makes $50/hr. They call a plumbing company and their rate is $75/hr for a plumber. The plumber comes by for 2 hours and the bill is $150 or 3 hours pay for the accountant. If a guy who is making $10.00/hr calls the plumber it's going to take 15 hours of his pay to reimburse the plumber.
See what happens to the minimum wage guy? He can buy more food today than he could 60 years ago and more clothes made in China or Bangladesh but when it comes to buying services from his fellow citizen he has a problem and the problem is increasing because we live in a society that prices things according to the what the market will bear. If there are sufficient wealthy people in the community the cost of a service will be high.
Now do you understand? To simplify, the poor are better off when it comes to food and clothing but not when it comes to dentists and plumbers and almost everything else. Poverty is the relationship between people in the community because we all depend on each other for a number of things. The greater the disparity between citizens the greater the poverty.
As for my grandchild if he turns out to be anything like you I hope he doesn't reproduce either!
apple0154
MEOW
Really? Give me the birth date of ONE baby that was chopped up.
apple0154
MEOW
I don't expect anything from you except to cease spreading the vile idea woman should bear children they do not want when hundreds are dying every day. Is that too much to ask?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Impossible to make this argument, you don't know how things would have worked with no minimum wage. All we have to go on, is what has happened with a minimum wage, and you say that things are terrible and getting worse for the poor. How can things be better if they are getting constantly worse? Seems to contradict logic and reality, doesn't it?
What the fuck are you talking about? Unemployment benefits? Because, that's not "welfare." That is an insurance program we pay into when we're employed, and can obtain a benefit from when out of work. Welfare is a host of programs like AFDC, which have no requirement or expectation for the person to work. Other useful and beneficial social programs have been bastardized into welfare programs, like the Social Security Disabilities program. We don't expect disabled people to work, but "disability" now includes people who are obese or hooked on drugs.
Again, you are talking about the unemployed, not people on welfare. Let's be clear, I don't want people to have a choice between accepting work or collecting welfare. I think having that choice is a problem.
Yes, I am saying that people should earn what they receive. I would much rather have them work for the government than to mooch from the government. Housing projects need people to pick up trash and do maintenance, poor people who are trying to work and not on welfare, need people to watch their kids while they work. Hospitals need staff to care for the indigent. There are plenty of things a welfare recipient could do to earn what they receive in benefits. And you know what fascinating things comes from people actually earning what they receive as opposed to it simply being handed to them? Self worth, self respect, dignity. These are all much more valuable than a monthly check.
So your methods and programs have failed. By your own admission, the programs you continue to insist we keep pouring money into, have not worked to raise people out of poverty or change the disparity between the poor and wealthy. Now your solution to this dynamic, is to make wealthy people poor, so that everyone is poor, and give the money to the government to pay for our welfare. The problem with you fantasy solution is, without wealthy people, you don't have any money to give to government or fund welfare programs.
And let's just say that we wave your magic wand and make every rich person poor. Do you not believe there are certain people who will have more drive and ambition to gain wealth, than others? As long as this is the case with human beings, we will continue to have a problem with wealthy people becoming wealthier and poor people lagging behind them. So we'll have to eliminate ambition. Demotivate people who want to become successful, and encourage them to remain impoverished, because we must fight disparity in incomes. I would say, destroying the capitalist system is a good first step. This is precisely what Chairman Mao did in China. The result? 60 million dead.
So yet AGAIN, you point out the fact that your social welfare programs have failed miserably. The cost of food has not fallen over the past 60 years, I don't know what planet you're living on there, or if you've been to the grocery store lately. Wages have increased dramatically over the past 60 years as well, again, don't know what planet you're living on when you claim they haven't. Now the gap between rich and poor is growing, and it probably always will grow, regardless of anything you can do, unless you do like Chairman Mao and start executing the rich and stealing their wealth. Is that what you think we need to do?
Well, first of all, you have not shown us where ANY goods have dropped over the past 60 years in price. I want some examples of this before I accept it as a fact. What is cheaper now than 60 years ago, because of technology? As for your pay examples, the guy who is making $10hr, can't do the skilled work of a plumber or dentist, so he has to pay the person who has that skill accordingly. Now, if $10hr guy wants to go to night school and earn a degree in plumbing or dentistry, he can then use his skill to do the work himself, or even do it for others who are seeking people with that skill. But I doubt he'll want to do it for $10hr., after all that hard work and expense of education.
Nope, minimum wage guy can't buy more than he could 60 years ago. You've not given us an example of this yet. You keep claiming it, and basing an argument on it, but you've not shown where this is the case. Yes, capitalism works by prices being set by what the market will bear, and every attempt government has ever made to restrict that, has ended in failure.
The poor are not better off when it comes to anything. You've not made that case. In fact, you will drone on and on about how things are getting worse for the poor, not better. The problem is, we keep doing the programs you claim with fix the problem, and they aren't fixing the problem. You'll never fix the problem of the growing disparity between wealthy and poor people, because it's part of human nature in a free capitalist society. As long as men are free to succeed, some will have that ambition and some won't. Some will have a lot of motivation and drive, and others won't. The ONLY way to fix that, is to make it where ambition, drive, motivation, determination to succeed, are irrelevant. Then we'll all be prisoners of the State. Things won't be "better" for anyone then.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
Gobblement checks were the main reason for Obama votes, those that were real, anyways
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
If they didn't want children they shouldn't have become pregnant. What about women who had a child and then realized it was hard being a parent? Why should we force them to go through 18 years of raising the rug rat they wished they didn't have? We could pass a law that it's their "right" to kill the child before it learns to talk, or while it still depends on others to care for it? Is that too much to ask?
Look... If women just up and became pregnant for no apparent reason, and it was completely out of their hands, I could understand the "woman's choice" argument. Under such criteria, it would be reasonable to say that they should have the right to bear children or not, and we should all stay out of it. But the fact is, the woman did something to become pregnant with child, and that has to come with a responsibility to that human being. Women don't have the right to end the life of another, and that is what abortion does. Women should have the right to choose, whether or not to engage in activity that could result in pregnancy, but once they've made the choice to engage in that activity, they should have to accept the consequences, and they shouldn't be given the choice to end the life of another.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
On the plus side, how many abortions go to OWEbama Baby Mamas?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
a million a year, apple......all of them victims of lack of love, I suppose....../
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
no, I don't think its too much to ask that a woman give birth to a child she conceived.....if she doesn't want it she could either give it up for adoption or sell it to a liberal who wants to kill it......
apple0154
MEOW
A birth date? A name?
apple0154
MEOW
Talking about logic how would the poor earning less result in them being better off?
After unemployment runs out one relies on welfare. Some places require welfare recipients to attend classes in order to help them find employment. Why have classes/training if one is not expected to work? Put another way is one entitled to welfare if they specifically state they have no intention of seeking work? Or is one expected to seek work?
So you're saying one can collect welfare even if they state they have no intention of ever working again. Is that correct?
Then you support government help. Excellent!
For some reason you are having difficulty grasping the basic reality. Before there were social programs it didn't matter what the cost of supplies (food, clothing, etc.) were as people had no money. If a loaf of bread was a dollar or 10 dollars it didn't make any difference to someone who had zero dollars. Social programs allowed people to purchase the basic necessities. While still poor they could at least keep living.
You have to realize that many years ago the wealthy and the poor had few differences unless the wealthy were extremely wealthy. Someone living in the northern climes did not eat fresh lettuce in the winter because there wasn't any way to get fresh lettuce to them. Before central heating and electricity everyone had to throw a log on the fire to keep warm unless they had domestic servants. Regardless of how much money they had they didn't have a phone or a TV or an iPod.
With all the advancements we still have people struggling to obtain enough food. It's insane. Families, 5 or 6 people, living in motel rooms when communities like the one in Nevada letting 150,000 new homes rot. Are you unable to see the insanity of it?
Where do you get the idea the rich will be poor? Even if inheritances were taxed at 90% the rich would still be rich until they died, right? Imagine the influx of dollars if wealthy people either spent their money or left it to the government by way of taxes. But that aside how does an extra 10% tax result in a rich person being poor? If the average rich person had 10% less money would they be considered poor? No, they would not so your nonsense idea of the rich becoming poor is just silly.
Sure, some people are less motivated. However, some people don't get the breaks. Do you ever watch those talent shows? Why weren't those people "discovered" before? How many others are just as talented and educated and capable of doing a high paying job but don't get a break? Just as there are lazy people there are people who, for one reason or another, don't get an opportunity.
It's fine to talk about everyone having equal opportunity but if there is only one job opening only one person is going to get that job. It doesn't matter if two people are equal in every possible way. One of them is not going to get that job. Before one comments about the laziness of anyone give them a job and let's see if they are lazy. The fact they are not working proves nothing.
Many food prices have dropped in comparison to wages. Better processing (harvesting, packaging, etc) and transportation have resulted in fresh fruit and vegetables being available at reasonable prices. Fruits and vegetables packaged/transported in special containers and atmosphere. I can buy a garden salad mix (lettuce, spinach, carrots, etc) that has been prepared a week ago some 3,000 miles away. Try doing that 60 years ago. Raspberries, blueberries, blackberries.....Frozen foods prepared and have a " shelf" life over a year. Then there's the harvesting with machinery that wasn't available.
Yes, prices have recently increased (the last few years) but it's not due to shortages or spoilage. Its due to greed. The average individual earning $60,000/yr+ is not going to concern themselves with a 25 cent increase in the cost of a lettuce but it will affect someone getting $400/mth on welfare and talking about welfare one of my tenants, years ago, brought something to my attention.
Where I lived people received their welfare checks on the first day of the month. One tenant told me to check out the food prices at the local grocery store during the month and then check the prices on the first of the month and for a week after. The grocery store owners knew the welfare recipients would be shopping when they got their check as they probably lived on noodles for the last week of the preceding month. They scraped and struggled to make ends meet and resources (food, cleaning products, etc) were depleted. Now, when they are able to purchase items the prices were jacked up. Good, old capitalism at work.
See above.
As for the failure of government to interfere it can't interfere half way. As someone said many years ago social programs can not work on a small or limited scale. There will always be people trying to beat the system but my point is the government doesn't have to interfere in the way capitalism works. Let it rock on. The only stipulation is to ensure everyone survives in a decent fashion. Fashion, as in having sufficient food and shelter and medical care.
An employer doesn't want to pay medical premiums. No problem. Raise taxes on capital gains and inheritances and investments and implement a government medical plan. An employer doesn't want to offer a decent wage or full time positions. No problem. Institute a guaranteed wage. The ill, the disadvantaged, the poor....there's more than one way to look after them. And as you suggested the government can even go as far as offering jobs to people. (I have to admit you did shock me. I may have misjudged The Dix.
Programs can fix the problem and Obama has just implemented one program that fixes a major problem, that being medical care. Other countries have been successful and the US will be successful, as well.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I don't know that they would earn less. My guess is, without welfare, they would EARN more, out of necessity.
There is no such program in the US. I have no idea what you're talking about.
No, I am saying that one can not collect welfare because we don't have welfare anymore. People can work for and earn what they receive.
I support welfare recipients working for the government to earn their keep, yes.
No, that is very clearly YOU.
It is insane to keep doing the very things that haven't worked. I agree!
No they haven't. You've not given one single solitary example. You keep saying this, as if we are to just accept it.
No problem, the business closes it's doors and goes out of business. Investments are moved overseas, where there is no tax to pay.