Kamala reminds us all what the radical left wants for America.
Equity is communism.
Posts
Total:
66
-->
@Greyparrot
Kamala reminds us all what the radical left wants for Americ
they want to give every american the opportunity to chase the american dream... oh god, the horror. Don't they know that poor people are immoral and deserve to stay in poverty?
-->
@HistoryBuff
Don't they know that poor people are immoral and deserve to stay in poverty?
The war on poverty failed in getting the poor people out of poverty. They need jobs. The American dream is independence from the government, not government handouts.
-->
@TheUnderdog
The war on poverty failed in getting the poor people out of poverty.
because the war on poverty was largely run by right wing people. it was never designed to fight the actual causes of poverty, so it couldn't ever succeed.
They need jobs. The American dream is independence from the government, not government handouts.
true, but since corporations exist to make as much money as possible, by design, they pay their employees as little as they possibly can. With no government protections, this creates a permanent underclass. That is why america and the rest of the world have spent decades and even centuries adding more rights for workers and restricting the amount of abuse that employers can engage in.
Independence from government sounds nice on paper, but in practice this just means you have the freedom to be abused by the rich where no one has the power to help you.
-->
@HistoryBuff
because the war on poverty was largely run by right wing people.
It was made by Lyndon B Johnson, who was a lefty.
it was never designed to fight the actual causes of poverty, so it couldn't ever succeed.
The war on poverty was designed to fight poverty.
true, but since corporations exist to make as much money as possible, by design, they pay their employees as little as they possibly can. With no government protections, this creates a permanent underclass.
There should be some government protections, but we need to encourage workers to get jobs that are fine with paying very high wages as opposed to forcing businesses to pay lower wages than the alternative of hooking low income people up with better paying jobs.
Independence from government sounds nice on paper, but in practice this just means you have the freedom to be abused by the rich where no one has the power to help you.
It means the government doesn't pay you welfare benefits.
-->
@TheUnderdog
because the war on poverty was largely run by right wing people.It was made by Lyndon B Johnson, who was a lefty.
and ever since then the US has lurched to the right. The democrats are right wing, the republicans are really right wing. No one wants to actually address the causes of poverty because to do that they would need to go after the rich who benefit from it.
it was never designed to fight the actual causes of poverty, so it couldn't ever succeed.The war on poverty was designed to fight poverty.
true. but it was never designed to fight the causes of poverty. It's a bit like slapping a bandaid on a gun shot wound. it will deal with some of the visible symptoms, but it won't ever actually fix the problem. So there is no way to ever actually "win".
There should be some government protections, but we need to encourage workers to get jobs that are fine with paying very high wages as opposed to forcing businesses to pay lower wages than the alternative of hooking low income people up with better paying jobs.
i'm not really sure what you are arguing here. you want to encourage workers to get jobs that basically don't exist. then blame the government and workers when they can't find these non-existent jobs. don't get me wrong, high paying jobs definitely exist. But nowhere near enough of them. A large percentage of available jobs simply do not pay enough to keep people out of poverty. So while some workers will get high paying jobs, for about half of the populace of the US, it simply isn't possible. Corporations are very good at finding ways of suppressing wages and cutting costs. That's great for the wealthy shareholders, but extremely damaging to workers and the health of the economy as a whole.
Independence from government sounds nice on paper, but in practice this just means you have the freedom to be abused by the rich where no one has the power to help you.It means the government doesn't pay you welfare benefits.
that is, quite simply, a horrific plan. It would mean countless deaths and cause serious damage to the american economy. Welfare keeps lots of people alive as the look for work. If you cut it then thousands die and the economy takes huge damage. Not to mention it would destroy whatever political party allowed it to happen.
-->
@Greyparrot
Eh, too bad we live in a world where nice guys finish last and ruthlessness is rewarded. Too bad, unless you're an asshole like me >:-D
-->
@HistoryBuff
they want to give every american the opportunity to chase the american dream... oh god, the horror. Don't they know that poor people are immoral and deserve to stay in poverty?
Of course they dress it up all cute with that false analogy.
In reality, they bring down that top person a lot and push the bottom person up a tiny bit, then neither of them reach the summit. One climbs and the other sits back because they don't have to work hard to rise.
Everyone wants everybody to be able to follow the American dream, but you certainly don't accomplish it that way.
-->
@bmdrocks21
It's the land of meritocracy vs the land of mediocrity.
-->
@bmdrocks21
In reality, they bring down that top person a lot and push the bottom person up a tiny bit, then neither of them reach the summit.
strong economies are not pushed from the top, they are driven from the bottom. IE strong consumer demand for something creates business opportunities. This gives wealthy or just talented people the opportunity to meet that need an become wealthy. So the more money you can give to the people on the bottom of the system, the stronger the economy becomes. The more money you funnel to people at the top, the weaker it becomes. Helping people at the top go higher helps a small number of people. Helping people at the bottom helps everyone.
Everyone wants everybody to be able to follow the American dream, but you certainly don't accomplish it that way.
no, you accomplish it by funneling all the wealth to a tiny slice of society while everyone else slides lower and lower. That is what right wing economics does.
they are driven from the bottom.
Poor people don't create jobs. Investments come from the top.
The "driven from the bottom" is observable bullshit considering all the totalitarian communist countries with millions of poor unable to create a goddamn thing for themselves. See Venezuela.
funneling all the wealth
Wealth is NOT a static object. It is a variable asset created and destroyed by individual men.
The size of the pie is much more important than the proportion of the slice.
-->
@Greyparrot
Poor people don't create jobs. Investments come from the top.
investment means nothing if there is no one to use the product. If people can't afford to buy that new product, then it doesn't matter how much you invest in designing or producing it. Investment is important. Having a populace with sufficient income to afford it is the far more important aspect.
The "driven from the bottom" is observable bullshit considering all the totalitarian communist countries with millions of poor unable to create a goddamn thing for themselves. See Venezuela.
you are contradicting your own point. You say driven from the bottom is bullshit, then give examples of economies driven from the top.
Wealth is NOT a static object. It is a variable asset created and destroyed by individual men.
I agree the size of the pie is important. But the distribution of the pie is also critically important. It doesn't matter how big the pie gets if more and more of it go to a smaller and smaller group as you increase the size of it. IE as the pie gets bigger but the rich take a bigger slice of it faster than the pie grows. Thus the poor and working class are no better off. In fact, they are often worse off generation after generation.
-->
@HistoryBuff
If people can't afford to buy that new product...
Every poor capable person has labor they can trade for products if there is an investor able and willing to hire them.
this is a bullshit argument.
-->
@HistoryBuff
strong economies are not pushed from the top, they are driven from the bottom. IE strong consumer demand for something creates business opportunities. This gives wealthy or just talented people the opportunity to meet that need an become wealthy. So the more money you can give to the people on the bottom of the system, the stronger the economy becomes. The more money you funnel to people at the top, the weaker it becomes. Helping people at the top go higher helps a small number of people. Helping people at the bottom helps everyone.
You can't go all-in on supply-side or demand-side economics. You need to play both sides. You do need high consumer buying power, yes, but at the same time, I doubt those consumers are necessarily going to be putting their money towards the most valuable things. Like if they are spending their money on basketball shoes and cognac, then giving them money isn't going to help things.
Poor people make a lot of poor purchasing decisions. The fact that people live paycheck-to-paycheck isn't simply because they don't make enough to live off of, it is because they are often very wasteful with their money.
Supply-side economics says that if you give $100 dollars to an entrepreneur, it is better than giving $1 to 100 people who will probably just go buy a hamburger at McDonald's. Those innovations in cheaper and more advanced technology do trickle down in the fact that most people own a smartphone, even the very poor. Phones are useful for a lot of work functions.
no, you accomplish it by funneling all the wealth to a tiny slice of society while everyone else slides lower and lower. That is what right wing economics does.
And left wing economics just takes wealth from producers and gives it to people that didn't earn nor deserve it, thus destroying wealth.
See? I can mischaracterize your economic beliefs too.
-->
@Greyparrot
Every poor capable person has labor they can trade for products if there is an investor able and willing to hire them.
and if those investors pay shit wages, then the workers can't afford to buy those products. When there is no one to buy the product, the business fails.
investment capitol is important. having a population with sufficient financial stability to afford the product and drive demand for products is far more important. Trickle down economics is a lie sold by the people at the top. they want you to give them tons of money with a vague promise it will benefit someone else. But it is a lie.
-->
@bmdrocks21
You can't go all-in on supply-side or demand-side economics. You need to play both sides.
I agree. both are needed. But if you have unlimited investment funds and no one to sell to, your business will fail. If you have low investment funds but a market hungry to buy products, your business will succeed. Slowly, but it will succeed.
You do need high consumer buying power, yes, but at the same time, I doubt those consumers are necessarily going to be putting their money towards the most valuable things. Like if they are spending their money on basketball shoes and cognac, then giving them money isn't going to help things.
actually, it helps alot more than giving money to rich people. A working class person gets money and spends it on things. rent, food, clothes etc. That drives the economy and creates jobs.
Poor people make a lot of poor purchasing decisions. The fact that people live paycheck-to-paycheck isn't simply because they don't make enough to live off of, it is because they are often very wasteful with their money.
yes, i have heard this argument from republicans alot. poor people are stupid, lazy and bad. Rich people are moral and awesome. we should just give all the tax breaks and government support to those rich people. it is a tired argument.
Those innovations in cheaper and more advanced technology do trickle down in the fact that most people own a smartphone, even the very poor. Phones are useful for a lot of work functions.
but that isn't wealth trickling down. Poor people having phones doesn't improve their financial situation at all. In fact, it creates one more consumer product that society now says they need to own which might actually make their situation worse. building better phones is great, but that doesn't actually help the financial situation of most americans.
And left wing economics just takes wealth from producers and gives it to people that didn't earn nor deserve it, thus destroying wealth.
this doesn't make any sense. The poor person uses the money to pay for food, shelter etc. That isn't "destroying wealth". That is the backbone of the economy.
See? I can mischaracterize your economic beliefs too.
apparently not. your response simply didn't make any sense.
-->
@HistoryBuff
poor people are stupid, lazy and bad.
Just the ones that make really bad life decisions and do not invest in themselves.
-->
@HistoryBuff
and if those investors pay shit wages,
Then the investor loses their investment. You seem to think wrongly that people will willingly work for shit wages.
Investors have to pay the bare minimum that the labor market demands. They don't have a choice.
-->
@HistoryBuff
yes, i have heard this argument from republicans alot. poor people are stupid, lazy and bad. Rich people are moral and awesome. we should just give all the tax breaks and government support to those rich people. it is a tired argument.
They aren't stupid, they just make stupid decisions. It is just a fact.
The lowest quintile in the US spends 40% of their income on luxury goods and 60% on necessities. That is insane. They can save and invest that money to improve their lives, but they don't. Simply giving them welfare isn't going to solve poverty, decades of the war on poverty proved that. These people need better personal finance education and need to work on delayed gratification.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/low-income-families-spend-40-of-their-money-on-luxuries-2017-06-28
32% of low income people bought luxury shoes, 31.5% bought luxury clothes, 33% luxury electronics.
but that isn't wealth trickling down. Poor people having phones doesn't improve their financial situation at all. In fact, it creates one more consumer product that society now says they need to own which might actually make their situation worse. building better phones is great, but that doesn't actually help the financial situation of most americans.
I don't know, it applies to other home devices too. Microwaves and refrigerators also used to be luxury items but people can buy most of those now.
I don't expect these devices to improve the "financial situation" of most Americans, but I'd argue it raises their quality of life being able to have these.
this doesn't make any sense. The poor person uses the money to pay for food, shelter etc. That isn't "destroying wealth". That is the backbone of the economy.
The vast majority of Americans have housing and food. Death by starvation is so rare, the CDC doesn't even include it in causes of death statistics. Homelessness *shocker* is most prevalent in areas that adopt your lefty policies. Washington, DC, and California have huge homelessness problems. Iowa? Nebraska? Not so much.
apparently not. your response simply didn't make any sense.
Says Mr. "EAT THE RICH" ALL RICH PEOPLE ARE EVIL AND GAINED WEALTH THROUGH THEFT.
I LOVE THE VIRTUOUS POOR PERSON WHO DOES DRUGS AND DOESN'T WORK AND SPENDS 40% OF THEIR MONEY ON LUXURY GOODS
-->
@Greyparrot
poor people are stupid, lazy and bad.Just the ones that make really bad life decisions and do not invest in themselves.
ok, but this writes off like 100 million people as lazy and making bad choices. but for alot of those people there was little to no possibility of success. Just blaming them and writing them off is what republicans and corporations want because then no one has to look at those pesky underlying causes of poverty. Like the fact that wages have been stagnant for decades, but the cost of living has been steadily rising.
Then the investor loses their investment. You seem to think wrongly that people will willingly work for shit wages.
you seem to think wrongly that people have a choice. if your options are shit wages or starving to death, you take shit wages. When the economy is designed to pay workers as little as possible, a large percentage of american workers have no chance of finding a decent paying job.
Investors have to pay the bare minimum that the labor market demands. They don't have a choice.
and when all the employers pay the same shit wages, workers don't have a choice. Your options are shit wage at company A, shit wage at company B, shit wage at company C, or starving to death. Employers hold all the power when all the employers pay shit wages.
-->
@bmdrocks21
yes, i have heard this argument from republicans alot. poor people are stupid, lazy and bad. Rich people are moral and awesome. we should just give all the tax breaks and government support to those rich people. it is a tired argument.They aren't stupid, they just make stupid decisions. It is just a fact.
that seems like some really stupid hair splitting.
The lowest quintile in the US spends 40% of their income on luxury goods and 60% on necessities. That is insane.
that very much depends on how you quantify it. for example they are putting food in there as a luxury. I would imagine that a cell phone would probably be classified that way as well, but these days they are pretty much a requirement.
32% of low income people bought luxury shoes, 31.5% bought luxury clothes, 33% luxury electronics.
i can't seem to access the stats. it wants me to create an account. but again, what do they classify as a "luxury shoe"? or "luxury clothes".
I don't know, it applies to other home devices too. Microwaves and refrigerators also used to be luxury items but people can buy most of those now.
ok, but again, you aren't talking about an improvement to their finances, IE wealth trickling down. You are talking about more consumer products for them to buy despite their wages being stagnant and living costs rising.
I don't expect these devices to improve the "financial situation" of most Americans, but I'd argue it raises their quality of life being able to have these.
but this is not an example of trickle down economics working. It is not improving the finances of americans. it may be making it worse.
The vast majority of Americans have housing and food. Death by starvation is so rare, the CDC doesn't even include it in causes of death statistics. Homelessness *shocker* is most prevalent in areas that adopt your lefty policies. Washington, DC, and California have huge homelessness problems. Iowa? Nebraska? Not so much.
because in republican states they simply drive off homeless people. so they naturally move to states where they won't be harassed or even attacked (as much).
Says Mr. "EAT THE RICH" ALL RICH PEOPLE ARE EVIL AND GAINED WEALTH THROUGH THEFT.
I never said any part of that. this is just outright lies.
I LOVE THE VIRTUOUS POOR PERSON WHO DOES DRUGS AND DOESN'T WORK AND SPENDS 40% OF THEIR MONEY ON LUXURY GOODS
lol, even when trying to make fun of me you can't keep your utter contempt of poor people out of your answer.
There's another one with Joe Biden talking that outlines a bunch of cash payout schemes before ending with "the rich pay more and YOU benefit"
I guess the creeps he hired think I'm a cut throat, and they must have saved the healthcare ads for the bleeding hearts.
-->
@HistoryBuff
if your options are shit wages or starving to death, you take shit wages.
No you don't. You fucking go forage for food as every animal does. You don't wait for a fucking hand out, and you don't have to work for anyone.
There are no investors in Venezuela so there are no jobs in Venezuela...
Shit wages are better than no wages, but Venezuelans can still forage for food when the communists remove their opportunities for choosing a shit wage job.
-->
@Greyparrot
if your options are shit wages or starving to death, you take shit wages.No you don't you fucking go forage for food like every animal does. You don't wait for a fucking hand out, and you don't have to work for anyone.
you don't seem to understand. Working is not a handout. But people need to work or face financial ruin. If no employers are offering good wages, then you have no chance at improving your financial situation. That isn't a fault in workers, that is a fault of companies leaving their wages stagnant for decades while the costs of living for their employees rise year after year.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Shit wages are better than no wages, but Venezuelans can still forage for food when the communists remove their opportunities for choosing a shit wage job.
-->
@HistoryBuff
if your options are shit wages or starving to death, you take shit wages.No you don't you fucking go forage for food like every animal does. You don't wait for a fucking hand out, and you don't have to work for anyone.you don't seem to understand. Working is not a handout. But people need to work or face financial ruin. If no employers are offering good wages, then you have no chance at improving your financial situation. That isn't a fault in workers, that is a fault of companies leaving their wages stagnant for decades while the costs of living for their employees rise year after year.
If your wages don't rise then wouldn't it follow that someone else has to be comfortable paying more for the prices to go up? 1% of the population in the top income bracket isn't causing the price of bread to go up substantially. Your trade probably has an excess of labor relative to demand.
-->
@Greyparrot
Shit wages are better than no wages, but Venezuelans can still forage for food when the communists remove their opportunities for choosing a shit wage job.
classic deflection. your options are work for slave labor wages in the current system, or have a state controlled economy.
there is alot of middle ground between those 2 positions. but republicans like to pretend the only options are to be ripped off by capitolists or ripped off by state control.
-->
@Conway
If your wages don't rise then wouldn't it follow that someone else has to be comfortable paying more for the prices to go up?
i'm not sure I follow. lots of companies were doing well under Obama and that carried over into trump's presidency too. but their wages for workers remained stagnant. All employers like it this way. they don't want to pay their workers more and decades of right wing economic government policy has shown that companies will not improve this without government intervention. If they would, then decades of right wing rule wouldn't have lead us here.
1% of the population in the top income bracket isn't causing the price of bread to go up substantially.
true. but there are lots of factors to the rise of the cost of living. the key point is that we need wages to rise at the same pace, and they aren't. thus crushing the middle class.
-->
@HistoryBuff
but republicans like to pretend the only options are to be ripped off by capitalists or ripped off by state control.
No, Republicans acknowledge that some people choose to be fucked up and some people are born fucked up. Opportunities give those people born fucked up a chance and also allows people that want to choose to be fucked up to choose that freely without some communist Karen telling him he can't do that.
-->
@Greyparrot
One world, one people and probably too many people....
And we are either inherently caring or inherently selfish....And I think that the latter is generally true....Survival of the fittest and all that, is what it all eventually boils down to.
Hey! Zog from the cave down the road is being attacked by Sabre Toothed Tigers.
Zog who?....Let's just get the f**k out of here.