|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
LOL my mistake
woof low content post to start the page. mb twice now.
|
|
|
|
|
First and foremost, it isn't really on point. When some poor African decides to get married and have kids really has no bearing upon his ability to ascend out of poverty given that he lives in some assbackwards society that lacks the basic institutions required for capital accumulation. Stated another way, none of the shit in that article matters until at least after we figure out why the society lacks running water.
Second, I don't think that the author's argument against the success sequence is particularly compelling. He's just another radical socialist looking to push the view that the system is irredeemably rigged, thus it needs to be replaced.
|
I'm not sure how xDaunt completely separates "institutions" from "money", like they have nothing to do with each other, but mostly I don't care.
The day Republicans show they appreciate Western Democracy and understand the differences between present-day Germany and present-day Russia, I'll be happy to listen to their authoritative-opinions institutional-impoverishment. Like their record on that has been anything to brag about.
Maybe that's the problem!-- Republicans are so eager to not-know FDR's economic-legacy and what actually built our world-changing middle-class, that they also managed to forget most of WW2 and what our allegiance to these western European countries actually means. Reread the 20th century xDaunt. Then talk to me about the 21st.
|
On July 04 2018 04:23 Leporello wrote:
I'm not sure how xDaunt completely separates "institutions" from "money", like they have nothing to do with each other, but mostly I don't care.
Why do you think that I am separating them at all other than pointing out that simply giving money to people will not sustainably raise them out of poverty? "Money" very obviously is an "institution" unto itself.
The day Republicans show they appreciate Western Democracy and understand the differences between present-day Germany and present-day Russia, I'll be happy to listen to their authoritative-opinions institutional-impoverishment. Like their record on that has been anything to brag about.
Maybe that's the problem!-- Republicans are so eager to not-know FDR's economic-legacy and what actually built our world-changing middle-class, that they also managed to forget most of WW2 and what our allegiance to these western European countries actually means. Reread the 20th century xDaunt. Then talk to me about the 21st.
Uh, apparently you're the person who needs to go back and re-read 20th century history. It's pretty easy to be the sole economic powerhouse when most of the rest of the world's capital base has been destroyed. FDR's economic policies really had nothing to do with American post-war supremacy and are quite questionable in their own right.
|
The last 20 years of Republicans have been convincing the US population that destroying the institutions we build during the 20th century is a good idea. Entitlements were the third rail of politics, untouchable and a promise to the US citizens that they would grow old in poverty, a burden on their children. But in the last 20 years the conservative movement in the GOP removed that rail.
I read something recently about two very smart people talking about Trump. One of them supported Trump and believed he was needed to shake things up, break some stuff and make Washington new. The other one was worried about him doing so much damage we end up in the great depression or worse. And the Trump supporter told her that there were to many stake holders in the US, that no one would let that happen. Like there was some sort of safety switch on goverment if our President and Congress were both completely useless in a crisis. It surprised me because it was close to teh same discussion I had with my brother and his inlaws. They just assumed that the president couldn't and congress couldn't break this country. That voting for someone like Trump couldn't' land us in another great depression or worse. I dont' know how you fix a population that doesn't see politics and goverment as something deadly serious. They could effectively destroy Medicare + Medicaid which would bankrupt nursing homes and maternity wards across the county. But no one seems to talk about that part.
Edit: Dauntless is right that FDR gets way to much credit, while Lyndon Johnson does not get enough. The man waged war on poverty and talked about a Great Society, reformed immigration and did a whole lot more than FDR. But FDR also fought the good fight against the hard line, free market capitalists and their imperial supreme court.
|
On July 04 2018 02:42 xDaunt wrote:
Throwing money at poverty doesn't work. Never has, never will. You have to fix the root problems of the impoverished community, which are typically cultural and institutional.
You're right, institutions such as the welfare state, properly funded public education and universal healthcare all do reduce poverty substantially. Glad you've seen the light.
|
plansix, aye, that's a common fallacy amongst the trump-aligned. I'm not sure how to address it either; as any examples which would tend to demonstrate it they would simply shrug off as not applying to their guy or their side. and even if you can get them to get it intellectually, they won't get it emotionally.
sad to hear that a smart person made such a basic mistake in their arguing though. but a lot of seemingly smart people still fail quite badly when it gets into politics.
|
The fact that the Republicans congress has done nothing to remove this clown really shows the level of governance we are dealing with right now. They literally don’t know what to do with this administration and it’s abuses. The House especially. They are fine with this level of corruption.
And Scott here is the definition of a garbage human. I’m surprised the entire EPA hasn’t left the building.
|
On July 04 2018 01:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 23:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So Credit Unions aren't businesses in your view? I mean your really splitting hairs here but if you want to, no. If you remember what you are arguing it was that I said when an owner starts a business... A credit union, like a non-profit does not have an owner. And if you really want to split hairs consider all the members owners, which I guess technically we are, we do receive a check of the shared profit each year. They are ran like a business and ran to generate a fair profit which is then distributed to all the owners. This is all written in their charter. One of my good friends is a president of a local credit union if you would like to get into the nitty gritty about them I'm happy to but he is on holidays right now. Feel free to PM me your questions and I'll get back to you. It appears you closed the circle (I think?). Hard to tell where you settled in that response? I settled on either way it supports my claim that they seek to create a profit. And as the next poster points out so do traditional non-profits. So unless you are arguing something different than what you started I am confused. You also missed my other questions. Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree. I meant it as it as defined as a noun as I used it. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something. I had no secret meaning, in fact I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove. The original statement was that there needs to be the opportunity of profit to encourage starting of business, you questioned if this was the only motive I said no. I have no idea why we didn't stop there. Also, still waiting on my questions about Stallin and whether or not you think US would be better off with him and his government running the counter then the current system? I've indulged your nitpicking of every detail of each of my statements it would be nice if you could answer my straight forward question. Thank you. My point was that people don't need to be motivated to start a business by turning a profit in the sense of money for fancy clothes or expensive drinks or whatever. I mean capitalism does it's best to make that a core drive for people, but plenty of people are perfectly content running their small restaurant, service, art making, etc... in an "enough to get by" way. Some people want to grow their businesses simply so they can help more people, turning the profits into sustainability and better compensation for the people doing the work. There's all sorts of examples all over the world represented by NPO's, mom and pop shops, neighborhood diners, and so on. If you don't mean "profits" beyond the strict meaning of revenue in excess spending (at a given time) then fine. You made it basically sound like people had to be able to get personally rich otherwise they wouldn't start businesses and I think that's a terribly uninformed position. It appears that isn't yours though so no problem. I agree, that is why it saddens me when the businesses go out of business. There are some that failed because of excess or mismanagement for sure. But others were just doing it because they loved it, wanted to be their own boss and understood they would never be rich. I'm not sure why you believe this of me or my statements. I do not believe in communism in my opinion it sounds great but in practice does not work. But I also do not believe in fascism. A lot of our disagreements seem to have to do with misunderstandings. This is why I keep answering your questions, and get frustrated when you don't answer mine. I cannot understand your position when you talk down to me instead of answering straight forward questions. Edit: to your NPO addition, you were on me before that statement, that was you trying to "catch me" not what made you think I meant profit in any specific way. Lets not revise history especially when it is here in text. You're describing minimum wage as being the final straw breaking a businesses back. It's sad that they can't do what they love (in the rare instance that's the case). I'm not sad that only businesses that are able to provide a living wage survive. If that business where minimum wage broke them was one worth having (other aspects of the crushing oppression of capitalism were larger factors in their failure) than I'm all for saving them. But providing living wages to workers isn't a bargaining chip, it's a prerequisite. Again we agree, but as I pointed in the case of restaurants they are providing a living wage for most of their staff when they combine wage plus tips. Also, when most businesses close their doors not only do the minimum wage workers lose their income but so do the all the people within the business that were making the living wage. Then you still need to find new employment for all those that lost any kind of work because currently we have no other system to pay them. I do agree that we need to find a way to lower CEO pay and spread that wealth out, I don't believe Raising minimum wage does that. I'm also not convinced that 15 dollars is a living wage, it appears every time minimum wage goes up so do other costs, the people making the big bucks have the margins and time to eat the short term pain and just raise prices to continue to make their margins. Also, instead of continually asking and you not answering I'm going to just assume you do, if you don't feel free to answer directly, if you do no need. Thanks.
like GH i simply dont buy this "minimum wage hurts restaurants who were providing great tips." the solution is very simple: prohibit tips and incorporate wages into the price of food. this is a simple problem of net cash flow but you make it sound like complicated social problem where business owners are forced to pay superfluous extra wages on top of whatever accumulated tips there are/were.
|
|
|
On July 04 2018 09:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 08:53 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2018 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It appears you closed the circle (I think?).
Hard to tell where you settled in that response? I settled on either way it supports my claim that they seek to create a profit. And as the next poster points out so do traditional non-profits. So unless you are arguing something different than what you started I am confused. You also missed my other questions. Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree. I meant it as it as defined as a noun as I used it. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something. I had no secret meaning, in fact I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove. The original statement was that there needs to be the opportunity of profit to encourage starting of business, you questioned if this was the only motive I said no. I have no idea why we didn't stop there. Also, still waiting on my questions about Stallin and whether or not you think US would be better off with him and his government running the counter then the current system? I've indulged your nitpicking of every detail of each of my statements it would be nice if you could answer my straight forward question. Thank you. My point was that people don't need to be motivated to start a business by turning a profit in the sense of money for fancy clothes or expensive drinks or whatever. I mean capitalism does it's best to make that a core drive for people, but plenty of people are perfectly content running their small restaurant, service, art making, etc... in an "enough to get by" way. Some people want to grow their businesses simply so they can help more people, turning the profits into sustainability and better compensation for the people doing the work. There's all sorts of examples all over the world represented by NPO's, mom and pop shops, neighborhood diners, and so on. If you don't mean "profits" beyond the strict meaning of revenue in excess spending (at a given time) then fine. You made it basically sound like people had to be able to get personally rich otherwise they wouldn't start businesses and I think that's a terribly uninformed position. It appears that isn't yours though so no problem. I agree, that is why it saddens me when the businesses go out of business. There are some that failed because of excess or mismanagement for sure. But others were just doing it because they loved it, wanted to be their own boss and understood they would never be rich. I'm not sure why you believe this of me or my statements. I do not believe in communism in my opinion it sounds great but in practice does not work. But I also do not believe in fascism. A lot of our disagreements seem to have to do with misunderstandings. This is why I keep answering your questions, and get frustrated when you don't answer mine. I cannot understand your position when you talk down to me instead of answering straight forward questions. Edit: to your NPO addition, you were on me before that statement, that was you trying to "catch me" not what made you think I meant profit in any specific way. Lets not revise history especially when it is here in text. You're describing minimum wage as being the final straw breaking a businesses back. It's sad that they can't do what they love (in the rare instance that's the case). I'm not sad that only businesses that are able to provide a living wage survive. If that business where minimum wage broke them was one worth having (other aspects of the crushing oppression of capitalism were larger factors in their failure) than I'm all for saving them. But providing living wages to workers isn't a bargaining chip, it's a prerequisite. Again we agree, but as I pointed in the case of restaurants they are providing a living wage for most of their staff when they combine wage plus tips. Also, when most businesses close their doors not only do the minimum wage workers lose their income but so do the all the people within the business that were making the living wage. Then you still need to find new employment for all those that lost any kind of work because currently we have no other system to pay them. I do agree that we need to find a way to lower CEO pay and spread that wealth out, I don't believe Raising minimum wage does that. I'm also not convinced that 15 dollars is a living wage, it appears every time minimum wage goes up so do other costs, the people making the big bucks have the margins and time to eat the short term pain and just raise prices to continue to make their margins. Also, instead of continually asking and you not answering I'm going to just assume you do, if you don't feel free to answer directly, if you do no need. Thanks. like GH i simply dont buy this "minimum wage hurts restaurants who were providing great tips." the solution is very simple: prohibit tips and incorporate wages into the price of food. this is a simple problem of net cash flow but you make it sound like complicated social problem where business owners are forced to pay superfluous extra wages on top of whatever accumulated tips there are/were. But if the goal is to have the workers make more money how does that help? 15 dollars an hour is much less then they currently make and no owner of a restaurant is going to pay their servers much more then minimum wage.
The goal isn't make restaurant servers better off. The goal is ensure that everyone can make enough to live as a citizen from their job alone. If servers take a hit in how much they earn (though, in my opinion, I don't think tips and a $15 min wage are incompatible - tips will just no longer be expected) that is unfortunate but okay.
|
It is slightly annoying that the entire minimum wage debate revolves around waiters at restaurant, that are hard working people, but do not make up an overwhelming majority of hourly workers in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 04 2018 09:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 09:17 Plansix wrote:
It is slightly annoying that the entire minimum wage debate revolves around waiters at restaurant, that are hard working people, but do not make up an overwhelming majority of hourly workers in this country. It is also annoying that many unions (like mine) have some of their wages tied to minimum wage (2x, 3x or whatever) so large unions (like mine) pressure the governments to raise minimum wage to get themselves a large pay raise!
So they are doing exactly what a Union is supposed to do? They are not going to pressure the government to do anything else.
|
|
|
On July 04 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1014129996418437121The fact that the Republicans congress has done nothing to remove this clown really shows the level of governance we are dealing with right now. They literally don’t know what to do with this administration and it’s abuses. The House especially. They are fine with this level of corruption. And Scott here is the definition of a garbage human. I’m surprised the entire EPA hasn’t left the building.
He's doing the job they want him to, though: destroying the EPA. The Trump administration really doesn't care what condition the administration is in, nor do his supporters. See how he's getting lionised in this thread - slowly, but surely - for evidence.
His utterly appalling behaviour has already been relegated to the category of 'unfortunate, but tolerable'.
|
On July 04 2018 09:15 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 09:07 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 08:53 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2018 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 01:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On July 04 2018 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:16 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I settled on either way it supports my claim that they seek to create a profit. And as the next poster points out so do traditional non-profits.
So unless you are arguing something different than what you started I am confused.
You also missed my other questions. Well if by "profit" you mean "expand services, reach, and impact" then I don't disagree. It seemed like you meant money for their own personal/individual stuff outside of the business in which case we still disagree. I meant it as it as defined as a noun as I used it. Profit: a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something. I had no secret meaning, in fact I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove. The original statement was that there needs to be the opportunity of profit to encourage starting of business, you questioned if this was the only motive I said no. I have no idea why we didn't stop there. Also, still waiting on my questions about Stallin and whether or not you think US would be better off with him and his government running the counter then the current system? I've indulged your nitpicking of every detail of each of my statements it would be nice if you could answer my straight forward question. Thank you. My point was that people don't need to be motivated to start a business by turning a profit in the sense of money for fancy clothes or expensive drinks or whatever. I mean capitalism does it's best to make that a core drive for people, but plenty of people are perfectly content running their small restaurant, service, art making, etc... in an "enough to get by" way. Some people want to grow their businesses simply so they can help more people, turning the profits into sustainability and better compensation for the people doing the work. There's all sorts of examples all over the world represented by NPO's, mom and pop shops, neighborhood diners, and so on. If you don't mean "profits" beyond the strict meaning of revenue in excess spending (at a given time) then fine. You made it basically sound like people had to be able to get personally rich otherwise they wouldn't start businesses and I think that's a terribly uninformed position. It appears that isn't yours though so no problem. I agree, that is why it saddens me when the businesses go out of business. There are some that failed because of excess or mismanagement for sure. But others were just doing it because they loved it, wanted to be their own boss and understood they would never be rich. I'm not sure why you believe this of me or my statements. I do not believe in communism in my opinion it sounds great but in practice does not work. But I also do not believe in fascism. A lot of our disagreements seem to have to do with misunderstandings. This is why I keep answering your questions, and get frustrated when you don't answer mine. I cannot understand your position when you talk down to me instead of answering straight forward questions. Edit: to your NPO addition, you were on me before that statement, that was you trying to "catch me" not what made you think I meant profit in any specific way. Lets not revise history especially when it is here in text. You're describing minimum wage as being the final straw breaking a businesses back. It's sad that they can't do what they love (in the rare instance that's the case). I'm not sad that only businesses that are able to provide a living wage survive. If that business where minimum wage broke them was one worth having (other aspects of the crushing oppression of capitalism were larger factors in their failure) than I'm all for saving them. But providing living wages to workers isn't a bargaining chip, it's a prerequisite. Again we agree, but as I pointed in the case of restaurants they are providing a living wage for most of their staff when they combine wage plus tips. Also, when most businesses close their doors not only do the minimum wage workers lose their income but so do the all the people within the business that were making the living wage. Then you still need to find new employment for all those that lost any kind of work because currently we have no other system to pay them. I do agree that we need to find a way to lower CEO pay and spread that wealth out, I don't believe Raising minimum wage does that. I'm also not convinced that 15 dollars is a living wage, it appears every time minimum wage goes up so do other costs, the people making the big bucks have the margins and time to eat the short term pain and just raise prices to continue to make their margins. Also, instead of continually asking and you not answering I'm going to just assume you do, if you don't feel free to answer directly, if you do no need. Thanks. like GH i simply dont buy this "minimum wage hurts restaurants who were providing great tips." the solution is very simple: prohibit tips and incorporate wages into the price of food. this is a simple problem of net cash flow but you make it sound like complicated social problem where business owners are forced to pay superfluous extra wages on top of whatever accumulated tips there are/were. But if the goal is to have the workers make more money how does that help? 15 dollars an hour is much less then they currently make and no owner of a restaurant is going to pay their servers much more then minimum wage. The goal isn't make restaurant servers better off. The goal is ensure that everyone can make enough to live as a citizen from their job alone. If servers take a hit in how much they earn (though, in my opinion, I don't think tips and a $15 min wage are incompatible - tips will just no longer be expected) that is unfortunate but okay.
You're basically never going to achieve that goal through minimum wage, purely on the basis that living wage is such a varied number across so many areas. Even across cities that comprise a single metropolitan area.
And allowing municipal governments to control minimum wage in their cities seems like a can of worms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
