WinePusher wrote:
WinePusher wrote:Actually, I don't think most people would consider Social Security or Medicare to be 'entitlements.' But, any honest person would admit that both these programs are unsustainable and have huge long term problems that need to be dealt with.
cnorman18 wrote:I’m an honest person, and I won’t "admit" that, because it isn’t true. Remove the $110,000 income cap on Social Security contributions and let EVERYONE contribute according to his income; problem permanently solved.
LOL you just admitted that there are long term structural problems, if there aren't any and if social security is perfectly fine the way it is then why should we remove the payroll tax cap? Make up your mind, is there a problem or isn't there?
That’s a facile cheap shot that isn’t even accurate. The problem isn’t with the
structure of Social Security. It’s only with the limits on who is required to contribute.
In other words, you’re ducking the point and refusing to acknowledge that that small adjustment would solve ALL the problems with Social Security. Are you here to actually exchange some ideas and debate, or just to score ego points and post condescending putdowns?
(Oh -- and don’t pretend that objective, impersonal remarks about your posting style are “personal insults.� We’ll be looking at YOUR personal insults presently.}
The problem is that if social security was going to be funded primarily by private, voluntary contributions on the part of the rich then it would be no different from any other private sector charity.
Who said anything about “private, voluntary contributions�? I certainly didn’t.
The consensus among Democrats and Republicans seems to be that the payroll tax cap should remain in place, and payroll tax rates should be gradually reduced overtime. There was much bipartisan support for the payroll tax cut extension about a year ago, and this is because the main problem with the trust fund is not the amount of money that's going into it, but rather the amount of money that's going out of it. More and more people are going to be relying on social security, mainly due to an increase in the aging population, and this problem isn't going to be fixed by increasing payroll taxes on wages and reducing the incentive to work.
Nobody’s talking about payroll tax RATES. Just the cap, where people who make $10 million pay the same into Social Security as people who pay $110,000.
If anything, young people should be given the choice to opt out and save their money privately for retirement and the social security system should be forced to compete to other, more effective private forms of pension and retirement planning.
Riiiight. Privatize Social Security. Put it in the hands of the people who tanked the economy and robbed billions of dollars from millions of people -- and got away with a profit. Sorry, Social Security has worked just fine as it is since it was instituted in the Roosevelt Administration. There’s NO reason to mess with it in order to give already wealthy financiers another opportunity to steal.
cnorman18 wrote:Medicare should be extended to everyone in a single-payer healthcare system, as in Canada and most of the industrialized world. Other nations seem to be doing just fine with it.
And how on earth would this solve the fiscal imbalances in the Medicare program? Jeez, can you at least
try to stay on topic?
Could you at least TRY to respond to an on-point, salient observation, as opposed to ducking it? You said that Medicare, as well as SS, was “unsustainable.� I show that even broader systems of healthcare are thriving in other nations -- and you say I’m “offtopic�?
WinePusher wrote:When I created the topic, I had in minds things like
this. People who are demanding a free income regardless of employment, and a free education, and immediate debt forgiveness.
cnorman18 wrote:Wait a minute. You are alluding to a COMMENT on the article linked, not the article itself. I see nothing wrong with the original list of proposed demands from Occupy Wall Street; nothing at all. And I see no comment from you on THOSE.
No, actually I'm referring to the list of demands that was posted on the occupy wall street website. This was the original list of demands and the three specific demands I mentioned, free incomes-free educatio-debt forgiveness, are still being pushed for by many liberals today.
That is plainly not the case in the link you provided. Do you have another link?
Further; do you still have no comment on the ACTUAL list of demands from Occupy Wall Street as posted in the link
that you yourself provided? That was the obvious thrust of my comment, and you have ignored and ducked that implicit question too.
cnorman18 wrote:You want to claim that some extremist nut’s remarks are typical of a whole movement or "culture"? That’s blatantly inaccurate, unjustified by the link, and intellectually dishonest. It's called "false stereotyping" and it's also called "partisan polemic distortion" -- words I've used before in relation to your initial post.
This is just incomprehensible ranting (which is what your posts tend to be)...
THERE’S a personal insult, if you like. Pretending that an on-point, relevant and cogent comment on your claims is “incomprehensible ranting� is a very clumsy way to duck answering it.
...and that's why I ignore alot of what you write. You can't really expect me to indulge your emotional and irrelevant rants with a serious response can you?
“Emotional and irrelevant�? More ducking. You claimed a CULTURE existed. I show that you’re speaking of ONE PERSON’S opinion. Seems pretty comprehensible and relevant to me -- and I see no emotional content there at all. Attributing emotion upset to one’s opponent as a reason to ignore his points is a very, very old dodge around here, and it doesn’t fool anyone.
Btw, the constant SCREAMING AND YELLING and your incessant need to CAPITALIZE UNIMPORTANT WORDS is a bit of a turn off.
Nitpick much? I’ll post as I choose, thanks. No one’s actually yelling here; this is a PRINT medium. I emphasize my words in both italics and capitals, just as you use underlining from time to time.
Now THOSE comments were irrelevant, and entirely so. If the best you can do is address my typography while you duck my questions and ignore my points, you must not have much of a case.
And by the way, “alot� is TWO words. As long as we’re nitpicking.
WinePusher wrote:And then of course there's the attitude presented in the topic, where apparently some people think it's ok to blow off personal expensese and even feel good about it afterwards. All of this is part of the hidious welfare-entitlement culture was referring to.
cnorman18 wrote:So you know of ONE person who did this? Maybe you need to look around a little. In very many cases, “blowing off� a personal debt -- not the same as a "personal expense," as we’ll see in a moment -- is more a result of predatory debt-collecting practices that are, in fact, already illegal, and not evidence of personal irresponsibility.
No, I personally don't know anybody who has just voluntarily blown off an expense like the person in the topic did. I read about it on the forum a while back and it perfectly illustrates how hidious the welfare-entitlement attitude is.
So you admit that you don’t know ANYONE who has done this? That you know of ONE case that you read about on the Net?
May I remind you that you spoke of a CULTURE, and repeatedly? Is that factual and objective observation about your own post also “incoherent,� “emotional� and “irrelevant�?
It's one thing to declare bankruptcy due to poor financial management, but to just whimsically and carelessly blow off a medical charge seems pretty shameful to me. Oh, hopefully you don't get all bent out of shape but I really don't care about your personal anecdote. Post something that has real substance to it, not just some personal story, and I'll respond.
But YOU posted a personal anecdote from someone you didn’t even know! Why was your story relevant while my own is not?
Another clumsy effort at ducking the actual argument, which is separate from the anecdote itself; that there are reasons, and good ones, for people to walk away from debts. No actual comment on that, of course.
cnorman18 wrote:By the way, I note that you have distorted JohnMarc’s quote. He never said that he felt good about blowing off the debt; he said that he felt good about outscoring his wife in that one thing. The difference is not trivial.
I’ll say no more about your selective quoting, as in this and the link you gave. It speaks for itself.
Fail. The entire quote is in the topic, I didn't omit any section or part of the quote. You do yourself no service when you make false accusations like this and then go around calling other people dishonest.
It’s not a false accusation. I’d quote what JM said and your distortion of it, but it’s already on the record for all to see. I’ll stand by it.
cnorman18 wrote:Now, I see that you have deleted ALL of the following without response of any kind:
cnorman18 wrote:
I, for one, advocate a COMPASSIONATE culture, where we humans take care of each other when we OUGHT to, when others NEED it. The facts of the case are on the record: longterm welfare ended with the Clinton administration; virtually all people on welfare are off it within two years, the majority after only a few months; the overwhelming majority of people on food stamps are children or the elderly; and so on. The myth of the "Welfare Queen" seems to have long legs, even though that stereotype is false and always has been.
No comment on all that? Really? Most illuminating, I think.
I ignored it because I agree with it. Welfare reform under Clinton was a by in large a big sucess. I've also made it amply clear that I support welfare for people who legitimately need it, like starving children, single mothers and the elderly. The only thing that needs to be done now is just to simplfy the welfare bureaucracy and squeeze out the waste and fraud.
First time you’ve mentioned any of that. Are you telling me that you’re NOT advocating cuts to food stamps, longterm unemployment and welfare? If so, please elaborate.
cnorman18 wrote:I ask those who are for reducing or eliminating these government benefits to the poor that same question that Abraham asked God, to his face: "Far be it from You, O Lord, far be it from you to act in this way! Will You punish the innocent along with the guilty? Shall the Judge of all the earth act unjustly?"
cnorman18 wrote:And no comment on THIS? Seems wholly on point and relevant to me. Or do you hold that your religion has no relevance to the issue of how the society we live in treats the poor and needy? Jesus would be very surprised at that, I think....
Well, this was part of the emotional ranting I was talking about.
What’s “emotional� about it? I’m asking if your religion is relevant to your political stance, yes or no. I’m not even a Christian. Another obvious dodge and duck.
I don't approach policy matters from a religious standpoint, and I certainly couldn't care any less about your unintelligable, subjective interpretations of the Bible. We live in a secular society, and policy issues should be approached through an a critical analytical lens, not a religious-dogmatic.
So your religious beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the policies you favor? Thanks for clarifying. To what, then, ARE your religious beliefs relevant? Nothing wrong with approaching policy from a critical and analytical viewpoint -- but aren’t ETHICS, or JUSTICE, or RIGHT AND WRONG involved at all? And aren’t your religious beliefs relevant to THOSE issues?
Note the emphasis; it’s quite intentional, and not random. I don’t think those words are “UNIMPORTANT,� as you claimed.
WinePusher wrote:...and the people who think it's ok to blow off their expenses whenever they want to....
cnorman18 wrote:As if that’s common and generally practiced and is never justified by the predatory practices of corporations. False stereotyping and partisan polemic distortion again.
I never said it was common. I merely said that it's a hidious attitude to have. Luckily, I don't think it is common. Like you're apparently saying, I don't think too many people have that type of attitude.
Not to put too fine a point on it -- but then WHY were you making claims about a CULTURE and claiming that this anecdote SUPPORTED those claims? If few people have this attitude -- what’s the big problem?
WinePusher wrote:...And let's be honest here, a CEO does far more to grow the economy and increase the standard of living for the middle/poor class than people who are living on food stamps and welfare.
cnorman18 wrote:Really? The most highly paid CEOs are hedge fund managers who are paid in eight and nine figures, and produce NO jobs for ANYONE. They merely manipulate other people’s money in a broken and slanted system.
Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the role of investment spending in the economy. Hedge funds, and hedge fund managers, are merely the engines of operation by which investments take place. Many start up companies require heavy investments from investors and this is done through hedge funds. If these loanable funds were not made available through the hedge fund then it would be much more difficult fo raspiring entreprenuers to start up companies and businesses and to create jobs.
The question isn’t whether hedge funds are necessary; it’s whether their CEOs are
really worth
salaries in the BILLIONS of dollars. That seems pretty clear in my post, too. Ducking and dodging again.
cnorman18 wrote:The owners of Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the United States, are four of the ten wealthiest people in this country -- and they depend on the government to supplement their employees’ incomes, since they refuse to pay a living wage to 80% of them.
There is some legitimacy to this argument, but I've already written up a statement expressing my concerns about minimum wages:
How do you think wages are determined in the first place? The company CEO just randomly decides to pay his workers whatever amount of money he deems appropriate? Workers are paid according to their output, productivity and skill level. All the economic literature has shown that there are literally no businesses and companies that pay their workers below what they're actually worth.
Care to post some links to that “literature�? Dollars to doughnuts it’s from industry-sponsored “think tanks� and rightwing sources. Let’s see what you’ve got.
If anything, most companies pay out efficiency wages that exceed the workers marginal productivity and worth. And do I really need to remind everybody here that literally anybody off the street can get a job at walmart? There is probably an endless supply of people who are willing to work at walmart and from what I understand there are very few qualifications that walmart requires from potential employees. When all you take of this into account, there's no wonder why walmart pays its workers low wages.
Yes. The primary reason they pay low wages is because they CAN. The government will make up the difference in order to allow those people to actually survive. In other words,
taxpayer money is being used to subsidize Wal-Mart so that its owners can grow ever more wealthy. You know this is true, but you aren’t commenting on it. Why is that?
Further, CostCo rather gives the lie to your theory here. They pay their workers about TWICE what Wal-Mart pays, as well as offering benefits, and that company is even more profitable and productive than Wal-Mart. Turns out that people work harder and are more productive if you pay them more.
cnorman18 wrote:Many CEOs are changing their companies’ policies to use more and more part-time and temporary workers in order to avoid providing benefits; and if you haven’t read Ellen E. Schultz’s Retirement Heist, you should. CEOs all across the nation have been engaging in a premeditated theft of their employees’ pensions for decades, complete with “consultants� who teach them to “package� their “restructuring� of once-secure pensions and deceive their employees into believing that these changes are for THEIR benefit.
First of all, the primary cause of part time employment is Obamacare.
False. A popular myth, promoted by the right; but false nonetheless. Wal-Mart, and others, employed mostly part-time workers LONG before "Obamacare" was even proposed. That it was to avoid paying for benefits is true enough, but that had nothing to do with "Obamacare" and the passage of the ACA has NOT increased that practice.
Second of all, this is all flat out ridiculous because companies and executives were the original ones who created the practice of work-related benefits. The government imposed maximum wage ceilings during the second world war, so the only way businesses could attract workers to their firm was to offer benefits instead of just offering higher wages.
So what? Those caps are obviously not in place NOW. Shall we all pretend that things are just as they were in the 1940s, when more businesses considered their workers more than disposable cogs in the machine -- an “attitude� that you perfectly represent above?
And no comment on the epidemic of stolen pensions, I see. I challenge you to read
the book and then comment on it. Ellen E. Schultz is no wild-eyed lefty; she is an investigative reporter for
The Wall Street Journal and has won numerous awards for her reporting.
WinePusher wrote:A CEO does not require other people's money in order to survive.
cnorman18 wrote:Really? 1. Who buys the products that they have manufactured overseas and sell at outrageous markups? 2. Who pays for the government assistance that compensates for their refusal to pay living wages to their employees? 3. Why do they get enormous bonuses for “performance� even in years when their corporations LOSE money -- and where does THAT money come from? 4. The PUBLIC’S money has nothing to do with all this? What about the enormous subsidies and tax breaks these megacorporations get from the government, which have to be paid for by the PEOPLE? Do you know that 26 of the 30 largest corporations in the United States paid NO INCOME TAX AT ALL in 2012, and in fact received government SUBSIDIES which gave them an effective tax rate as high as a negative -18% (General Electric)? If not, why not? If so, how can you make this outrageous claim?
1. Consumers, but this is wholly irrelevant. There are many costs of productions that must be compensated for, ie: fixed costs, variable costs, average total costs, etc. It's not as if executives are just reaching into the pockets of consumers and extracting all their money.
Did I say that or anything near it? No, I did not. Nice try, but still a dodge. You said, “A CEO does not require other people's money in order to survive.� Plain words, and they are plainly false.
The company must first provide a good or service that is satisfactory for the consumer, and the consumer and the company then proceeds to engage in a voluntary exchange: the consumers gives the company money while the company gives the consumer the goods/services.
And therefore CEOs REQUIRE other people’s money to do business, and thus survive. Q.E.D.
Minimum wages cause unemployment among low skilled workers. This would also increase the demand for welfare, which is something you seem adamently opposed to.
Sorry, but
here are links to a number of studies that appear to prove that false too.
I'm actually not sure. I plan on reading more on this issue before I develop an opinion
on it.
Another related question, while you’re at it: Are CEOs REALLY worth salaries in the tens or hundreds of millions -- while the people who actually PRODUCE the goods and SELL the goods make peanuts? The disparity has NEVER been this great between the management class and the working stiffs, in all this nation’s long history. Never.
Nope, as I already said the corporation is just taking 'the publics money,' they must first provide a good or service that is deemed satisfactory by the public. The same isn't true for welfare recipients.
And, once again, you don’t answer the question about government subsidies and tax breaks, all of which are paid for by the public -- taxpayers. Again; 26 of the 30 largest corporations paid
no taxes at all. And
we took up the slack. Why do companies with profits in the
hundreds of billions of dollars need
government assistance? Why is that more legitimate than assistance for people who do not make enough money to feed their children -- to the point that we spend hundreds of times as much money on CORPORATE welfare as on the poor? How very strange it is that you have nothing to say about that!
WinePusher wrote:Corporate executives and other people who are in the top 1% spend their money on either consumption related purposes or investment related purposes. I can understand why liberals would want to tax a rich person when he/she is going out to buy a new yacht or a new corvette because the money is being spent on personal consumption and will only benefit the rich person. But, much of the money in the top 1% is circulated throughout the economy in the form of investments and loans. This benefits the poor and middle classes because it expands and grows the economy. Economic growth comes primarily from an abudnance of savings (a large supply of loanable funds) and the rich supply most of the savings and investments in the economy. And all the stuff you said about the minimum wage as been refuted ad naseum. It seems like you're only looking at the surface of all these issues; you're not digging deeper and looking at what the unintended consequences of all your propositions are.
cnorman18 wrote:Watch Fox News much?
Is this really the best you can do? I should know better than to try to have a serious economics discussion with someone who's best reply is 'Watch Fox News much?' But, I would like to know why liberals are so obsessed with Fox News. For the record, I don't watch Fox or cable news in general unlike you apparently. You must watch Fox 24/7 since you're such an expert on the type of content they cover.
Oh, stop with the facile cheap shots. Your remarks would be justified if that were all I had to say; but it wasn’t, and you know that.
cnorman18 wrote:Here are some facts of which you are apparently unaware, from
Your articles don't address anything I wrote. Economic growth comes from higher savings and production, this is taught in basic macroeconomics classes.
Not very astute. Delete, duck and ignore. What an ineffective pretense of argument
Just on principle, I'm going to repost the remarks that you deleted and let our readers decide whether or not they "address anything [you] wrote."
cnorman18 wrote:
Here are some facts of which you are apparently unaware, from
here:
The Associated Press wrote:
The growing gap between the richest Americans and everyone else isn't bad just for individuals. It's hurting the U.S. economy.
So says a majority of more than three dozen economists surveyed last week by The Associated Press. Their concerns tap into a debate that's intensified as middle-class pay has stagnated while wealthier households have thrived.
A key source of the economists' concern: Higher pay and outsize stock market gains are flowing mainly to affluent Americans. Yet these households spend less of their money than do low- and middle-income consumers who make up most of the population but whose pay is barely rising.
And
here:
The New York Times wrote:
...economists’ thinking has changed sharply in recent years. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development this year warned about the “negative consequences� of the country’s high levels of pay inequality, and suggested an aggressive series of changes to tax and spending programs to tackle it.
The I.M.F. has cautioned the United States, too. “Some dismiss inequality and focus instead on overall growth — arguing, in effect, that a rising tide lifts all boats,� a commentary by fund economists said. “When a handful of yachts become ocean liners while the rest remain lowly canoes, something is seriously amiss.�
The concentration of income in the hands of the rich might not just mean a more unequal society, economists believe. It might mean less stable economic expansions and sluggish growth.
That is the conclusion drawn by two economists at the fund, Mr. Ostry and Andrew G. Berg. They found that in rich countries and poor, inequality strongly correlated with shorter spells of economic expansion and thus less growth over time.
And inequality seems to have a stronger effect on growth than several other factors, including foreign investment, trade openness, exchange rate competitiveness and the strength of political institutions.
And one more thing;
One hundred percent of poor people’s money is spent on “consumption� -- you know, things like rent, food, clothing, fuel and electricity.
Looks pretty "relevant" to me.
Yes, that's the problem. Consumption is merely a consequence of production and is not representative of economic growth. GDP is measured in terms of production, not consumption. The homes, food, cloths, fuel and electricity must first be produced in order for anybody to consume it. Economic growth comes from production and savings and like I said, the rich have a higher MPS (Marginal Propensity to Save) while the poor have a larger MPC (Marginal Propensity to Consume).
Consumption is a “problem�? Is it
unrelated to production?
If people have more money to spend on necessities -- commodities and products of every kind -- production will increase to match it, no? Therefore, REDUCING the amount that people have to spend will necessarily depress production, will it not?
cnorman18 wrote:ALL of their income goes back into the economy. ALL of it. The wealthy's "investments?" You mean in money markets, trading on currency exchanges? Gambling in the stock market? Investment in huge overseas companies? How does any of THAT help the economy, never mind the plight of the un- and under-employed?
Wow, you seriously can't be asking that. You really don't know how the entire economy is related in with the stock market, the bond market, the real estate market and the exchange markets? Clearly, all of these markets have a very real impact on economic conditions for the un-underemployed otherwise Ben Bernanke wouldn't be purchasing 80+ Billion dollars worth of government treasuries in an attempt to boost the stock market and the real estate market. While I disagree with Bernanke's methodology, he clearly understands what you don't. That investments by the rich play a vital role in the economy.
Thanks for all the condescension, but I doubt very much that a single mother who is struggling to get by on a minimum-wage job that doesn’t pay for adequate childcare is much affected by the stock and bond markets. Do those people just not count in your academic theories of the economy, or what?
cnorman18 wrote:As for “loans� -- well, we’ve seen how THOSE help the poor and middle-class. People all over the country have lost their homes to predatory banks and mortgage companies -- which were bailed out at TAXPAYER expense, whose CEOs and executives got six-and seven-figure bonuses for indisputably CRIMINAL behavior -- all while the billions provided for relief went into their pockets and practically none of it went to actually relieve the cheated homeowners. Are you sure you want to talk about “loans�?
We've had a financial services sector for nearly 2 centuries in this country. This type of risky lending never really occured on a continual basis. It reared it's ugly head into the market during the 2000s because of a mixture of bad government policies, ie: a low fed funds rates, Fannie and Freddie, the community reinvestment act and the government actively encouraging and sponsoring home ownership. If anyone should be in jail it should be Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Alan Greenspan.
And the deregulation of the banks and the gutting of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it? The blatant greed and dishonesty of the big banks, in packaging bad loans and promoting and selling them as good investments, is irrelevant?
cnorman18 wrote:For the record; most people on the Left were OUTRAGED at the government bailouts of the banks -- if not before the fact, certainly AFTER, when it turned out that nothing changed, no one went to jail, and the banks made more profits after the bailouts than before.
Glad to hear it. Btw, since when are people incacerated just for making stupid decisions. When someone makes a dumb move, they lose and suffer losses. These wallstreet execs. would have suffered tremendous losses if it weren't for the bailout and that would have been punishment enough.
No one’s talking about “stupid decisions.� We’re talking about blatant, proven dishonesty and violations of the law.
It’s all on the record. Let’s not pretend we’re just talking about bad judgment. We’re talking about bad faith, deliberate fraud, and premeditated violations of the law.
WinePusher wrote:Some do deserve it, some don't. I don't know why you're bringing up this non-issue though because it is NOT about what people do and do not deserve. This isn't a perfect world, not everybody gets exactly what he/she deserves. Good things happen to bad people, bad things happen to good people. That much should be clear by now. The real issue has to do with what can be done to alleviate poverty and increase the living standards for the masses.
cnorman18 wrote:Precisely. You only seem concerned with maintaining living standards for the rich, subscribing to that tired old “trickle-down� theory that has been thoroughly disproven and discredited over the last few decades. We’ve had tax breaks for the wealthy since Reagan; if “trickle-down� was a valid theory, we’d be up to our butts in jobs and economic growth by now.
We’re not.
Wow, how did you get all of this nonsense from what I wrote? You made an asinine point about how people don't always get what they deserved and I responded to it. And then, you come back with a bunch of stuff on trickle down, Reagan, the rich, etc.
Your remark, as I noted later, contains no concern about the issues of JUSTICE or GREED at all. “That’s just the way it is� isn’t proposing any kind of solutions; it doesn’t even indicate that you care. How was that conclusion unjustified by your actual remarks?
Do you NOT believe in “trickle-down economics�? I’ve seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Please clarify.
cnorman18 wrote:We’re not talking about a third-world country. You aren’t addressing the problem of wealth and income being CONCENTRATED in the hands of the 1% or the 5%. And that IS a problem, though you keep trying to say that it ISN’T.
It isn't. The real problem is poverty and income immobility. Inequality is an inherent part of any system and total equality is niether practical nor desirable. Many communist states were completely and totally equal in the sense of wages and income and wealth, yet the living standards for the population were horrible.
Once again: no one said anything about “total equality.� Putting words in my mouth yet again. Gross and savage INequality is quite another thing, and you don’t seem inclined to even acknowledge that, never mind address it as being a problem.
WinePusher wrote:Have you ever asked why corporations outsource jobs overseas?
cnorman18 wrote:No comment about the RELIGIOUS aspects of your preferred policies again, I see....
See above. There is no religious aspect to economic outsourcing. I've neer seen any academic paper or article that incorporates a 'religious aspect' in with international economics and outsourcing. I also don't care about your subjective, biased, liberal interpretations of the Bible.
So religion -- even your own -- is irrelevant to the real world? Interesting response. Can you justify THAT approach from either the Bible or your own religious beliefs?
If my interpretation of the Bible is “subjective, biased� and “liberal,� please explain how the Bible does NOT advocate justice, compassion, and caring for the poor --
which is all I’ve ever said on the matter.
cnorman18 wrote:Let me be sure I understand you here. You think that American corporations should be able to pay their employees thirty-four cents per hour, as they do in Indonesia? Or perhaps thirteen cents per hour, as in Bangladesh? You think that safety regulations in factories should be abolished, as in the aforementioned Bangladesh, where a fire at a factory killed 111 people making clothes for Wal-Mart (and note that Wal-Mart chose NOT to help with factory upgrades that could have prevented the fire)? And you're OKAY with all that, and think abolishing all these laws and regulations would make American corporations more competitive, and would be good for the country?
Let me be sure I understand you here. You think that if there wasn't any government involvement American corporations would be paying employees thirty four sents per hour?
When did I say THAT? I ASKED if you thought that companies should have that right! I point out, with emphasis, the objective and unemotional FACT that
you did not answer.
Do you know nothing about labor economics? Do you know nothing about efficency wages and marginal productivity? You also think that there would be tons of fire factories that would kill off tons of workers? Do you know nothing about about basic market regulations? Do you really think it'd be in the interest of the company to allow fires to burn up all their workers?
What I know is that
you are not answering my relevant and directly-on-point questions. You blamed outsourcing on American government policy.
Do you, or do you not, think that the starvation wages and the lack of safety regulations in other nations affect outsourcing? If so, what is that effect? If not, why not?
Sneering at my alleged ignorance of economics and asking rhetorical questions does not constitute an argument. It constitutes yet another duck-and-dodge.
cnorman18 wrote:Let me guess. Libertarian dogma, right? Let corporations do WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE, without ANY GOVERNMENT REGULATION WHATEVER, and let the market decide. Child labor, 60-hour weeks, no overtime, no sick pay, no benefits, no pensions -- and since the corporations all work together to maximize their profits and suppress wages and benefits, we’ll end up with even GREATER inequality and injustice than before?
If you really think that the government the entity that ended child labor, imposed the 40 hours work week, instituted stick pay and benefits and pensions then I really can't help you. Sorry, but I don't have blind faith in the government like many liberals do.
Are those practices and regulations not
matters of law, which means that they were
passed into law by the Congress, signed by the President, and judged Constitutional by the Supreme Court, i.e., by actions of the three branches of “government�? Please explain why that is not true.
WinePusher wrote:Have you ever asked why many politicians, including Obama, don't support high corporate income taxes?
cnorman18 wrote:Sure. Maybe it’s because campaign costs have soared into the billions (free market, right?} and politicians are beholden to the wealthy corporations and the tycoons who run them for financing.
Yea, that's what I thought you thought. The government's in league with the corporations.
That isn’t what I said, not at all. SOME politicians -- even MOST -- are beholden to and dependent upon SOME wealthy individuals and corporations, not to mention the “dark money� organizations that funnel money to politicians whose policies they support. “The Government� isn’t a single entity in this context, and neither are “corporations.�
Once again; misstating my arguments and replacing them with words you attempt to stuff in my mouth, whether from your own misunderstanding or deliberately, are not tactics that I have much patience for, nor will I let them go unnoted.
A more objective answer would have been that it's because of this little thing called tax competitiveness. Like I said, the negative effects of high taxation are well documented. If only you would make an effort to read up on it......
More condescension. Thanks very much. Funny how highly taxed nations like Japan and those in Western Europe have high standards of living, high economic mobility, little poverty, high levels of political freedom, much HIGHER levels of education, and are beating the stuffing out of us in world markets and in educational effectiveness.
WinePusher wrote:Have you ever asked why there needs to be cuts in government welfare/entitlement spending? Oh, lemme guess, your answers are gonna be something like this right?
cnorman18 wrote:My ACTUAL answer is: There DON’T need to be cuts in government “welfare/entitlement spending.� It should be INCREASED, and government subsidies and tax breaks to CORPORATIONS should be cut -- which would, incidentally, amount to HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS more in actual savings.
No. The government should actually shrink in size and cut spending on all programs across the board. Government subsidizes and tax rates should be substantially reduced and this would benefit the entirety of the population. Central planning, socialism and liberalism are utter failures.
When did I advocate “central planning� or “socialism�?
And “liberalism� being an “utter failure� -- well, let’s look at some liberal positions over the years,
all opposed by conservatives, and see how they fared:
The abolition of slavery, the 40-hour week, overtime pay, the abolition of child labor, the income tax, the Voting Rights Act, desegregation, Social Security, Medicare, women’s voting rights, collective bargaining rights, regulation of food and drug safety, innumerable public-works projects like the Interstate Highway System and flood-control dams, the National Park system, and much, VERY much, more...
Looks like liberals are doing OK to me.
You're clearly inconsistent due to the fact that you would resist any government involvement when it comes to social issues like gay marriage, abortion, sex, etc.
All of which are properly the concern of the individuals involved and them only, since none of those issues affect the rights of others.
But when it comes to the economy, an area would the government should be hands off moreso than the social issues, you want the government to come in, mindlessly prance around and ruin more lives.
The “economy,� by definition, affects
everyone. Mandating honesty and fairness in business practices IS the government’s business, just as mandating that our food and medicines be pure and safe. Do you REALLY advocate “laissez-faire� capitalism? I am no socialist; I LIKE capitalism. It WORKS. But that doesn’t mean that wealthy people and big corporations get to do whatever they want without regard to anyone else. “The market� does NOT solve all problems and “regulate itself.� If it did, child labor and nondiscrimination laws would never have been necessary.
I’m just curious; do you, like many followers of Libertarian God Ron Paul, believe that businesses ought to be free to discriminate against racial groups if they so choose?
cnorman18 wrote:Our social safety net is already the thinnest and least adequate in the industrialized world; this remains the ONLY nation in the First World where people fear their medical bills, and where people go bankrupt -- literally lose everything -- over those bills. And the MAJORITY of people who go bankrupt in the US do it because of their medical bills. It’s better to be sick or poor in Turkey or Spain than in the US.
As opposed to the socialized healthcare systems that make patients wait enourmous amounts of time to get care.
Can you document that from unbiased -- that is, non-right-wing -- sources? It’s a popular myth, but I know many Canadians (there are some on this board) and I haven’t seen a lot of complaints from THEM.
It's all about trade offs, if you want better healthcare you're going to have to pay for it out of pocket.
Meaning: If you’re broke, you’re gonna die, right? Don’t forget -- that “free� emergency room care for the very poor, which is not adequate for serious health issues anyway, is not “free� -- it costs the taxpayers MUCH MORE than the Affordable Care act will.
If you want free care (in the sense that your medical bills will be paid by other people and you yourself will be paying for other peoples healthcare) then you're obviously going to get lower quality.
Nobody is talking about “free� health care (other than the nuts you love to quote, that is). The name of the act is the
Affordable Care Act. I myself now have actual health insurance for $430 a month; before, even under the “Texas High-Risk Pool,� it would have cost me over $1,600 a month -- which was twice what I then made as a caregiver for the elderly. Your solution for me is, apparently, “tough cookies,� as I said before.
cnorman18 wrote:Economic mobility -- that is, the ability to improve one’s economic lot -- is lower in the US than in
any European nation except Britain, lower than Canada, lower than Australia, and so on. It’s harder for the poor to escape poverty in the US than in virtually any other nation in the First World.
Here's a
more serious study demonstrating that income mobility was experienced by a significant portion of households during non recessionary periods.
“More serious� because it agrees with you? Please. Selectively quoting “studies� from six years ago, BEFORE the banking crisis, and using data from
twenty-six and
seventeen years ago, isn’t very convincing. I found a couple of dozen studies that say otherwise, and those results are well known. Got anything else, or just that one cherrypicked and out-of-date “study�?
cnorman18 wrote:I don't think that Republican "hate" poor people; I think they frankly don't give a rat's behind about them, as you yourself apparently don't. You've not betrayed a scintilla of concern about those in our society who are poor and needy; you have not so much as mentioned their legitimate concerns at all. Most poor Americans are WORKING poor; they HAVE JOBS, but those jobs do not pay a wage adequate to support a family. The old LIE that the poor are merely "lazy" and should just "get a job" has been proven a lie for a LONG time now, but some still worship it as the truth. I see no indication that you think otherwise.
Oh jeez, is this really the best you libs can do?
Is that the best answer you have for it?
The personal insults are getting so old and, worst of all, they're completely unoriginal and uncreative.
What “personal insults�? I noted that, before this post, you haven’t indicated the least concern for the poor anywhere in this conversation -- and you haven’t.
At least think of some better names to call people when you start losing the argument.
What “names�? How am I “losing the argument� when you’re ducking and dodging most of my points --
as you are, once again, right here?
Most poor people are WORKING people.
You have not addressed that point, or any of the others I’ve made in that paragraph. That’s a matter of objective fact, and when I pointed it out, all you did was ruffle your feathers and claim that I “insulted� you.
Not very convincing for someone who claims to be winning the argument.
But, judging from your post you don't seem to understand complex issues about politics and economics, ie: taxation, investments, hedge funds, social security, healthcare, etc. Most of what you write is just plain out wrong and shows a huge lack of understanding.
Oh? Then why do you find it so hard to answer my simple, direct questions and choose to put words in my mouth, argue against positions I don’t hold and haven’t mentioned, sneer at my arguments as opposed to actually answer them (as you do once again here), and otherwise duck and dodge them instead?
cnorman18 wrote:You must have loved A Christmas Carol, and been shocked when Ebenezer Scrooge lost his fine Libertarian principles and became a sucker for the moocher classes in good old Victorian London.
Speaking of Christmas, I probably won't be posting much during the holidays so if you want a response you'll have to wait awhile.
Don’t be concerned. I’ve debated you before, and your tactics and style don’t impress me. That, once again, is not an “insult�; just an honest observation. I doubt I’ll bother to respond to your tactical dodges and distractions again, not to mention your false accusations and “snarkiness,� AKA personal attacks and open contempt.
I am enjoying our exchange though...
I’m not.
...and hopefully you won't take my snarkiness the wrong way.
Too late.
To be fair, you've been quite snarky at many points too...
Sarcastic, perhaps. Contemptuously condescending to you, alleging your ignorance and sneering at it, making false accusations of name calling and outright insult -- never.
...but I find that it makes the debate more lively and entertaining
.
I find that it quite gets in the way of a civil exchange of ideas and makes “debating� an unpleasant exercise in untangling twisted logic and pulling words out of my mouth that have been stuffed into it -- apparently, as I read this, for purposes of your personal entertainment rather than for actual, civil and meaningful debate.
You see, I don't come here for fun. I actually believe in the ideas I write about, think them important, and intend to make my case for them. When I am shown to be wrong, I admit it, retract my statements, and learn from it; I have done so many times, perhaps more than anyone on this forum. I'm not here to bolster my ego by putting others down or trying to make fools of them. I'm here for some real, honest, and practical discussions. I'm not alone, but sometimes I feel that way.
In any case -- whether the implied criticism above applies to you or not -- since the title of this subforum is “Politics and Religion,� and since you seem not to regard that as a legitimate topic for discussion, I fail to see any reason to pursue this “debate.� If you don’t want to see “religion,� even your own, anywhere in the vicinity of your political views -- and
since applying religious principles to political discussion is my chief interest in this thread -- what’s the point?
For the record, I’m not referring to any sectarian or otherwise controversial religious principles; I’m referring to basic principles of morality acknowledged by every religion of which I have ever heard: Advocacy of JUSTICE and COMPASSION and CHARITY, and opposition to GREED and OPPRESSION and EXPLOITATION. Those seem like VERY relevant and proper topics for a political debate to me; but if you prefer a “critical and analytic� approach that holds these ideas to be irrelevant and of no account -- and I truly cannot imagine why -- I don’t think we have anything to talk about.
Have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year, anyway. I think we’re done, and in the interest of peace on earth and good will toward all, I think I’ll decline to continue. Be well.
