The party of morons:
Liberal ideas move from fringe to front-burner for Democrats
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
Irish Exit
Verified User
Yes her husband has made a fortune being exempt from the laws prohibiting insider trading. That whole old guard of the DNC needs to be curbed. She is just one of them.
Irish Exit
Verified User
The problem has less to do with the working class and more to do with the can't/won't work class. The government only needs to be involved in filling the gap for one of those two types.
Most everyone who receives government assistance of some kind is employed...unless they're children.
If what they're offering in the way of skills isn't getting it done, they have two choices. Better their skills or tough shit.
As for their children, it's their responsibility to feed them not mine nor anyone else's place to do it for them.
There is a difference between the can't and won't work groups. A bigger problem is certain ideologies incorrectly tend to classify the won'ts into the can'ts. There's also another distinction that should be made between the didn't cause their situation and in that situation due to your own bad choices. When it comes to the won'ts and the caused their own problems by their bad choices, tough shit. It's not someone else's place to offset either one.
Irish Exit
Verified User
Thanks to Obamacare, but that apparently is changing
WTF?
Are you so dumb that you don't even know the first thing about single payer, which you oppose? Talk about uninformed.
All a single payer health care system does is create one single entity that reimburses providers for your care. So right now, there are thousands of different insurers that all administer premiums and payment to providers. All those different insurers have different contracts with different providers that have different levels of reimbursement. A single payer eliminates that, putting the bargaining power in the hands of the single payer to set rates and fees, rather than having the providers do that. A single payer puts the power to the patients. It's funded by payroll taxes, where everyone pays the same rate and that rate is the premium.
Are you trying to be ignorant or is this who you really are?
You don't understand that because you don't understand what health insurance is, what insurance companies do, and how any of it relates to your health care. And you never will because you refuse to learn because you're an ignoramus.
That is precisely how single payer works you stupid shithead.
Here's Britain's actual rates for their National Insurance. Go down to chart 2.2. As you'll see, once you reach a certain threshold, you pay 13.8%. If you earn above a certain amount, you pay an additional 2%. That, and the flat 13.8% tax employers pay, funds their entire national health care system. No co-pays, no deductibles, no drug costs, no coinsurance. Just two flat rates and that's it.
A mix of socialism and capitalism; in other words, democratic socialism.
If capitalism was able to provide an adequate standard of living for the workers, then there would be no need for welfare programs and government assistance programs since most people who receive that assistance are employed already.
Where is that in the Constitution? Does Cuba do a better job? How about Venezuela? Maybe China? Moron.
Where is it? Article 1 Section 8, General Welfare clause:
"lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."
So again, I reference the Constitution, a document of which you know nothing.
Democrats are accused of not having any ideas, and then when new approaches surface, they get attacked for the ideas being too radical or progressive
"Nordberg" and "Darth" had it correct above, well the latter partially right, the Democrats feel the need to move away from the Clinton middle and at the same time appeal to the Rust State voters
They'll throw several proposals out there and see which sells in thier election districts
And as a side note, I agree on some but not all of the proposals
"Nordberg" and "Darth" had it correct above, well the latter partially right, the Democrats feel the need to move away from the Clinton middle and at the same time appeal to the Rust State voters
They'll throw several proposals out there and see which sells in thier election districts
And as a side note, I agree on some but not all of the proposals
You're correct that there's government dependency, but you're wrong on who are the dependent ones; it's the business and corporations that rely on federal assistance programs to bridge the gap between the wages they pay their workers, and a wage that would be livable. It's proving my point that capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for workers, because employed workers qualify for government assistance programs thanks to their low wages.
So for example, Walmart employs about 1.2M workers, whose average wage is about $12/hr. $12/hr qualifies you for government assistance programs like SNAP. US taxpayers spend $6B on welfare for Walmart workers, while Walmart earns $14B in profit. So if Walmart paid their workers enough that they didn't have to rely on government assistance, like Costco does, then Walmart would have made $8B instead of $14B. Still hugely profitable.
So I agree that federal welfare programs create government dependency; the only thing is that the dependent ones are the business owners who rely on welfare to subsidize their profits.
You defend that because...why?
If you want fewer people on welfare, you have to raise wages. There's no other way.
No, they're getting a low wage because the business they work for are taking advantage of government welfare programs to subsidize their profits.
No matter what job you do, you should be paid a living wage.
If you as a business owner can't pay someone a living wage, then you have no entitlement to owning a business.
The true welfare queens are the businesses that pay their workers low wages, leaving government to pick up the slack so those businesses can maintain profits.
That's welfare dependency, pal.
rony from someone who is very full of themselves but lacks the basic intelligence God gave a lemming.
I am kicking your stupid ass all over these boards.
You've never worked a day in your life, apparently. You're just some moocher, aren't you? You have no standard when it comes to this, and I think you are trying to judge people because you recognize how deficient you are, personally.
Any job is hard work. Except the job of kicking your ass on these boards...that's really easy work.
cawacko
Well-known member
In the Democrats defense it's hard for a party out of power to create a national message when so much of the house and senate races are local. It's much easier in a Presidential election to create that national message. That being said almost all Democratic messages have been focused on the resistance and impeaching Trump if/when they win back power.
And this board isn't representative of America but how many threads have you seen started, or have you started yourself, about Democratic candidates for 2018 or 2020 or ideas mentioned in this OP or about the Democratic Party period? Almost every thread started has to do with Trump.
So that's why people question whether you have ideas.
So what? Still need to pay them a living wage. Get McDonald's off the government dole and have them pay their workers more so we don't have to pay their welfare. That's the equation, by the way:
Living Wage = Welfare + Wage
Living Wage is the constant, and Welfare and Wage are the variables.
The more you increase the Wage, the more you decrease the Welfare.
So if Living Wage (LW) = 3
That means Wage (W) = 0,1,2,3
Which means Welfare (E) = 0,1,2,3
So:
(LW) 3 = 0 (E) + 3 (W)
or
(LW) 3 = 1 (E) + 2 (W)
or
(LW) 3 = 2 (E) + 1 (W)
or
(LW) 3 = 3 (E) + 0 (W)
In all cases, the LW remains constant.
If businesses paid their workers a W = or > LW, then E = 0.
I can't make it any simpler than that.
cawacko
Well-known member
Actually forcing employers like McDonald's to pay a "living wage" = more automation = less jobs at McDonald's.
And it was working just fine until 1980, when scared by its success throughout the 60's and 70's, Conservatives started cutting those anti-poverty programs. Since the cuts are always operational, it causes the programs to fail. Then you point at the failing programs, that you caused to fail by cutting their operational funding, as justification to cut it further. But the whole time, you were the ones sabotaging it.
Notice how in the chart there the poverty rate plummeted through the 60's and early 70's, but then shot back up beginning around 1980. So hmmm, what happened during the 80's that caused the poverty rate to spike back up? Oh right, Reaganism and cutting of social programs. Why? Because the programs were working and Conservatives were wrong. So because they were wrong but are sociopaths who can't admit it, they cut spending on those programs, which caused the poverty rate to increase again.
So the growth in poverty rate is entirely, 100% on you.
Here's another chart that shows the poverty rate increases whenever there's a Republican in the White House:
No. The other option is paying workers more and moving businesses off the government dole. Businesses pay their workers shit wages because they know that government assistance programs exist to pick up the slack. So the real welfare dependents are the business and corporations who pay their workers so little, that they qualify for assistance programs.
Why do you want to subsidize corporate profits? Is it because you know most businesses can't succeed if they pay their workers a living wage? Because that's what it appears to be.
Thing is, most businesses can afford to pay their workers more. Like Walmart. Walmart made $14B in profit last year, yet US taxpayers shelled out $6B to pay for welfare for Walmart's workers. So if Walmart paid its workers enough that they didn't qualify for welfare, they would have still made $8B in profit.