# Discussion on modern politics



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

Or, we accidentally revive debate club.

Where we last left off:



> TotalInsanity4 said:
> 
> 
> > Bish wha?
> ...



If you're going to join in, keep it respectful. There's no reason we can't have a civilized conversation, no matter which side of the spectrum you fall on.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

Ok then, to start off, I highly disagree with your assertion that a "typical" republican and a "typical" democrat would attempt to kill each other if tossed in isolation with each other; I genuinely believe that human nature is to ultimately do what is best for ourselves and the people we hold most dear, and that generally speaking a republican and a democrat will put aside differences on opinions on things like foreign relations and economic policy to get along for at least a time with each other. It is only when you factor in the recent revival of nationalist ideals and general disdain for entire classes of people who are not "_me!_" that you would have people at each other's throats; one side attempting to eradicate the other, and the other merely attempting to survive


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

Man if only both democrats and republicans were both nationalistic. I don't know where this joke came from where being a nationalist is a bad thing. It just means putting your nation first. Not necessarily your state (read: country), but your people. You're a nationalist if you think that the US should try to get the better end of a deal, and it would be nationalist of me to want Canada to get the better part of the deal.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

Ok, excuse me. "Extreme nationalism"


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ok then, to start off, I highly disagree with your assertion that a "typical" republican and a "typical" democrat would attempt to kill each other if tossed in isolation with each other; I genuinely believe that human nature is to ultimately do what is best for ourselves and the people we hold most dear, and that generally speaking a republican and a democrat will put aside differences on opinions on things like foreign relations and economic policy to get along for at least a time with each other. It is only when you factor in the recent revival of nationalist ideals and general disdain for entire classes of people who are not "_me!_" that you would have people at each other's throats; one side attempting to eradicate the other, and the other merely attempting to survive


Yeah, it's more like if you throw a neo-Nazi and an Antifa member in isolation together they'll attempt to kill each other, but that's kind of a given.  The thing is that Republicans are willing to go along for the ride when leaders like Trump take a hard right turn, and Democrats haven't had a leader that far to the extreme left.  I suppose that would've been Bernie, but if he's the worst case scenario, Republicans are really fear-mongering over nothing when it comes to leftist "extremism."


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ok, excuse me. "Extreme nationalism"


And what would extreme nationalism be to you? What's the difference between extreme nationalism and normal nationalism?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Yeah, it's more like if you throw a neo-Nazi and an Antifa member in isolation together they'll attempt to kill each other, but that's kind of a given.  The thing is that Republicans are willing to go along for the ride when leaders like Trump take a hard right turn, and Democrats haven't had a leader that far to the extreme left.  I suppose that would've been Bernie, but if he's the worst case scenario, Republicans are really fear-mongering over nothing when it comes to leftist "extremism."


You do realize that Trump was originally a democrat, and even now acts remarkably like a Business Democrat, right? How do you classify right-leaning? Genuinely curious.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> And what would extreme nationalism be to you? What's the difference between extreme nationalism and normal nationalism?


Typically one of them wants to cleanse the nation of anybody non-white.  Which is ridiculous considering the natives who were here before us.



Attacker3 said:


> You do realize that Trump was originally a democrat, and even now acts remarkably like a Business Democrat, right? How do you classify right-leaning? Genuinely curious.


Please tell me you're joking.  Democrats don't cut corporate tax rates in half.  Trump is acting more like GWB, a Republican with a spending problem putting us as deep in debt as possible to please the corporate overlords.  And the tariffs are just an extra special level of stupid that no other modern president would've signed off on.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ok then, to start off, I highly disagree with your assertion that a "typical" republican and a "typical" democrat would attempt to kill each other if tossed in isolation with each other; I genuinely believe that human nature is to ultimately do what is best for ourselves and the people we hold most dear, and that generally speaking a republican and a democrat will put aside differences on opinions on things like foreign relations and economic policy to get along for at least a time with each other. It is only when you factor in the recent revival of nationalist ideals and general disdain for entire classes of people who are not "_me!_" that you would have people at each other's throats; one side attempting to eradicate the other, and the other merely attempting to survive



Yeah, that was an exaggeration. But definitely among the people who treat their parties like religions, I would see someone dying.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Typically one of them wants to cleanse the nation of anybody non-white.  Which is ridiculous considering the natives who were here before us.
> 
> 
> Please tell me you're joking.  Democrats don't cut corporate tax rates in half.  Trump is acting more like GWB, a Republican with a spending problem putting us as deep in debt as possible to please the corporate overlords.  And the tariffs are just an extra special level of stupid that no other modern president would've signed off on.



First off, what you are describing is not nationalism. It's a thing called genocide. I suppose you could say it is ethno-nationalism, but that is different than nationalism. And the US corporate tax rate was at 35%, and was dropped down to 21%. That is not half. Half of 35 is 17.5. And the US is now on par with most major countries now. Before Trump, the corporate tax rate was one of, if no the highest in the western world. They now dropped it to be in line with other more "democratic" nations.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Yeah, that was an exaggeration. But definitely among the people who treat their parties like religions, I would see someone dying.


So you think that with a true representative democracy (i.e. everyone votes on important decisions, people can be voted OUT of congress if outcry is loud enough, etc.), that those people would be a hazard to the nation, rather than taking the extra opportunity for democratic engagement to improve it?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Typically one of them wants to cleanse the nation of anybody non-white.  Which is ridiculous considering the natives who were here before us.



No, that's just racism. To a true nationalist, it doesn't matter if you're white, black, or even Mexican. If you have a US passport, you're american. Extreme Nationalism would be trying to destroy all other countries to prevent your own from ever being hurt.

Of course, in practical terms, you still provide a pretty good description.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Yeah, that was an exaggeration. But definitely among the people who treat their parties like religions, I would see someone dying.


The problem is that those that see it as religious are fed a "caricature" of the opposing side at all times. They believe that there is a huge segment of the opposing that side to be this caricature. Add to the fact that people generalize and you have recipe for a mess 
sorry to butt in but this conversation seems interesting. lol


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So you think that with a true representative democracy (i.e. everyone votes on important decisions, people can be voted OUT of congress if outcry is loud enough, etc.), that those people would be a hazard to the nation, rather than taking the extra opportunity for democratic engagement to improve it?



Maybeee not in a representative democracy. but in true, i.e. Direct democracy, Youre guaranteed to have fun stuff like tyranny of the majority and mob rule.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Maybeee not in a representative democracy. but in true, i.e. Direct democracy, Youre guaranteed to have fun stuff like tyranny of the majority and mob rule.


Don't know what this argument is about, but I'm just going to say that if the US did not have the electoral college, then essentially 3 cities would decide for all of the USA.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> No, that's just racism. To a true nationalist, it doesn't matter if you're white, black, or even Mexican. If you have a US passport, you're american. Extreme Nationalism would be trying to destroy all other countries to prevent your own from ever being hurt.
> 
> Of course, in practical terms, you still provide a pretty good description.


Not true at all, under fascist nationalism (which is quite frankly how I'd classify extreme nationalism), the leader of the country gets to dictate who is and isn't citizens, even if they've lived in the country legally for most of, if not all of their life. And that's not just hypothetical, that is happening right now. And before you say "well, they did 'x' to deserve that!" I want you to think for a second; what's stopping the government from asserting that _anyone_ who has immigrated to America is not a naturalized citizen? They hold the paperwork, which they can theoretically alter to say whatever they want, and they clearly have the power to retroactively revoke citizenship. So how exactly can one definitively say that "if you have a US Passport, you'll be protected by US nationalism"?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TerribleTy27 said:


> Maybeee not in a representative democracy. but in true, i.e. Direct democracy, Youre guaranteed to have fun stuff like tyranny of the majority and mob rule.


I don't know that that's something that anyone is genuinely proposing, though?...


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Not true at all, under fascist nationalism (which is quite frankly how I'd classify extreme nationalism), the leader of the country gets to dictate who is and isn't citizens, even if they've lived in the country legally for most of, if not all of their life. And that's not just hypothetical, that is happening right now. And before you say "well, they did 'x' to deserve that!" I want you to think for a second; what's stopping the government from asserting that _anyone_ who has immigrated to America is not a naturalized citizen? They hold the paperwork, which they can theoretically alter to say whatever they want, and they clearly have the power to retroactively revoke citizenship. So how exactly can one definitively say that "if you have a US Passport, you'll be protected by US nationalism"?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


What's happening right now?


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

not gonna lie, there are a lot of "EFFED-UP" undertones with the current brand of nationalism that some folks are pushing for to believe otherwise would be blind.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> No, that's just racism. To a true nationalist, it doesn't matter if you're white, black, or even Mexican. If you have a US passport, you're american. Extreme Nationalism would be trying to destroy all other countries to prevent your own from ever being hurt.
> 
> Of course, in practical terms, you still provide a pretty good description.


With nationalism too often comes an ignorance and belief that this country was founded to be a "white, Christian nation."  I'll concede that nationalism on its own isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it easily leads to so many bad things.  My biggest gripe with the whole philosophy is that nationalists will cheer the country right into the grave, pretending everything is going smoothly the entire time.



Attacker3 said:


> First off, what you are describing is not nationalism. It's a thing called genocide. I suppose you could say it is ethno-nationalism, but that is different than nationalism. And the US corporate tax rate was at 35%, and was dropped down to 21%. That is not half. Half of 35 is 17.5. And the US is now on par with most major countries now. Before Trump, the corporate tax rate was one of, if no the highest in the western world. They now dropped it to be in line with other more "democratic" nations.


We're one of the wealthiest nations on Earth and profit margins are higher than they've ever been, not a single corporation needed that cut.  If he had given a cut that large to the workers of this nation, which would actually _make sense,_ we'd be having an entirely different conversation.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If he had given a cut that large to the workers of this nation, which would actually _make sense,_ we'd be having an entirely different conversation.


He did though


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> What's happening right now?


Hyperlinks. Hyperlinks are happening right now.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Attacker3 said:


> He did though


Workers, not corporate heads


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Not true at all, under fascist nationalism (which is quite frankly how I'd classify extreme nationalism), the leader of the country gets to dictate who is and isn't citizens, even if they've lived in the country legally for most of, if not all of their life. And that's not just hypothetical, that is happening right now. And before you say "well, they did 'x' to deserve that!" I want you to think for a second; what's stopping the government from asserting that _anyone_ who has immigrated to America is not a naturalized citizen? They hold the paperwork, which they can theoretically alter to say whatever they want, and they clearly have the power to retroactively revoke citizenship. So how exactly can one definitively say that "if you have a US Passport, you'll be protected by US nationalism"?



I think you and I have a different definition of nationalism. For me, nationalism is a philosophy and way of thinking where you put your country first.

What you're describing is just another policy designed to give the government more power.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Hyperlinks. Hyperlinks are happening right now.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



https://taxfoundation.org/2018-tax-reform-calculator/

and they'e not retroactively changing laws to "uncitizen" people. They're just enforcing existing laws, and making sure that nobody has been accidentally given citizenship when they should have not been.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Sep 13, 2018)

Why can't we all just get along?

Why does there need to be a division of beliefs when we all want our nation to prosper?

Maybe if we all try to love each other more and love human lives then we can all work towards the common good.

We are all brothers (or sisters, I'm not being sexist here). We are all human. Can we just start caring about each other?

Life is far too short. Why waste it with siding with political beliefs when all of us want the best for the human race and our planet?

Unity, not segregation. Let us all love each other for everyone's differences.

I know it is not that simple, but maybe if everyone could open up their minds and let it be that simple then we could all prosper.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> He did though


No, he did not.  Nobody making below $100,000 saw jack shit in return for those cuts.  GWB's cuts were far more visible for the average worker, but the stupid part was pushing for those cuts after starting two endless wars.  Definitely a big contributor to the crash and recession in '08, and now we're probably looking at the same for '19 with Trump's spending habits.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

quite frankly i am a middle class person making a decent wage. If the extra 100 buckos im getting per paycheck (and i am not saying this to be an ass) is gonna make the debt go up 1 trillion, yeah hell no. 
I know why some people are happy. they are hurting. However its like these people were given so little and others will make out a ton due to the cuts.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Why can't we all just get along?
> 
> Why does there need to be a division of beliefs when we all want our nation to prosper?
> 
> ...



That is a very simple way to look at the world. While it would be great for things to be all sunshine and rainbows, the world does not work that way. We need a way to organize ourselves, and people cannot agree to how we are supposed to do this.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WD_GASTER2 said:


> quite frankly i am a middle class person making a decent wage. If the extra 100 buckos im getting per paycheck (and i am not saying this to be an ass) is gonna make the debt go up 1 trillion, yeah hell no.
> I know why some people are happy. they are hurting. However its like these people were given so little and others will make out a ton due to the cuts.





Xzi said:


> No, he did not.  Nobody making below $100,000 saw jack shit in return for those cuts.  GWB's cuts were far more visible for the average worker, but the stupid part was pushing for those cuts after starting two endless wars.  Definitely a big contributor to the crash and recession in '08, and now we're probably looking at the same for '19 with Trump's spending habits.



https://taxfoundation.org/2018-tax-reform-calculator/


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> That is a very simple way to look at the world. While it would be great for things to be all sunshine and rainbows, the world does not work that way. We need a way to organize ourselves, and people cannot agree to how we are supposed to do this.


Well, not with that attitude.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> That is a very simple way to look at the world. While it would be great for things to be all sunshine and rainbows, the world does not work that way. We need a way to organize ourselves, and people cannot agree to how we are supposed to do this.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...




dude... i take a look at my paycheck every time. I know down to a penny how much i was making before and after. and it averages to roughly 75-100 per paycheck once its broken down. Take it from me, a single guy (who you would think would be happy for a tax cut) NOT WORTH THE 1 TRILLION.
for privacy reasons i wont go into how much i make, but yeah i could be considered "middle class"


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> dude... i take a look at my paycheck every time. I know down to a penny how much i was making before and after. and it averages to roughly 75-100 per paycheck once its broken down. Take it from me, a single guy (who you would think would be happy for a tax cut) NOT WORTH THE 1 TRILLION.


Why don't you ask the government to stop funding bombs, huh? The US government is wasteful, and the funny thing is, the more money they throw into these federal programs, the less effective they become! It's terrible! The government is good for absolutely nothing except for making war and dividing people.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> https://taxfoundation.org/2018-tax-reform-calculator/


That website shows the average tax cut for somebody making 50K to 75K at about 2%.  Like I said, that's not really going to be visible at all vs a tax rate cut _nearly_ in half for corporations.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That website shows the average tax cut for somebody making 50K to 75K at about 2%.  Like I said, that's not really going to be visible at all vs a tax rate cut _nearly_ in half for corporations.


Nearly cut in half... to put it from the highest to an average.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> dude... i take a look at my paycheck every time. I know down to a penny how much i was making before and after. and it averages to roughly 75-100 per paycheck once its broken down. Take it from me, a single guy (who you would think would be happy for a tax cut) NOT WORTH THE 1 TRILLION.
> for privacy reasons i wont go into how much i make, but yeah i could be considered "middle class"



Doesn't it all kinda balance out though? I mean with those hundred bucks you're gonna buy something, or put it into stocks and bonds. That money is going to go to someone at the top who wants more money, and who'll reinvest in his business, sending plenty of tax money to the government along the way.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

What the US government needs to do is to cut spending. If they just followed the 10th ammendment all this bullshit wouldn't be an issue. The states could figure everything out. Want """free""" healthcare? Move to a state that has it. Want low taxes without some of the """benefits""" of public goods? Move to another one. This is not the US that the founding fathers wanted.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

honestly, growing up i was very poor and my family got a lot of help. I was able to claw my way up by trying my best. However There is a lot of good to be done by helping the less fortunate. People just want you to believe the caricature that poor people getting help just "want handouts"
its simply not true for a lot of people


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> not going to crash the country into the ground. Better then I can say for _some _presidents.


Now I wonder which presidents that are you talking about. 



Attacker3 said:


> And what would extreme nationalism be to you? What's the difference between extreme nationalism and normal nationalism?


Not belittling our allies for one.



Attacker3 said:


> You do realize that Trump was originally a democrat,


"let's say a democrat gets elected someday, hopefully it is a long time" Link Yeah, he doesn't seem to care either.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I think you and I have a different definition of nationalism. For me, nationalism is a philosophy and way of thinking where you put your country first.
> 
> What you're describing is just another policy designed to give the government more power.


I recognize that my definition is more extreme, but the nationalists that are on the rise right now are more extreme. Heck, the way I see it anyone in the modern age that has the balls to call themselves a "Nationalist" after what the nationalistischen sozialistischen party did to the phrase is already starting off pretty far from the norm and needs to tread carefully and be transparent to make their intentions clear, and the fact that we have people who unironically identify themselves as nazis only goes to drive that point further


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Now I wonder which presidents that are you talking about.
> 
> 
> Not belittling our allies for one.
> ...



Belitting our allies? What are you talking about? In fact, if an ally is getting in the way of the US's economical progress, then it would be normal nationalism. Bending over backwards to try and appease everyone is the opposite of nationalism.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Belitting our allies? What are you talking about? In fact, if an ally is getting in the way of the US's economical progress, then it would be normal nationalism. Bending over backwards to try and appease everyone is the opposite of nationalism.


give an example of someone getting "in the way"
just curious.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Now I wonder which presidents that are you talking about.



Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Nearly cut in half... to put it from the highest to an average.


It doesn't matter when they didn't need it.  America already provides them with so much cheap labor and a bunch of corporate welfare, corporations in America have been prospering since Obama's recovery and they won't even pay workers wages that keep pace with inflation (2.5% to 3% per year).  Yet we're supposed to believe a one-off tax cut of 2% is anything more than table scraps?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Doesn't it all kinda balance out though? I mean with those hundred bucks you're gonna buy something, or put it into stocks and bonds. That money is going to go to someone at the top who wants more money, and who'll reinvest in his business, sending plenty of tax money to the government along the way.


No. That's really all I can say, it really doesn't. You can't generate money from nowhere, it has to come from somewhere. If you're suddenly not paying money in taxes, then you MIGHT have enough income to make rent, or afford that nice meal, for instance. But that means that something on the other end isn't getting funded. People on a government wage, like public educators for example? They feel the impact, but in reverse. And if schools don't have enough money to pay their teachers a living wage (which we're dangerously close to as it is), then all you've done is shift the poverty burden onto another class, while making the richest citizens richer and doing nothing to ultimately solve the problem.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TerribleTy27 said:


> Abraham Lincoln.


Explain?


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It doesn't matter when they didn't need it.  America already provides them with so much cheap labor and a bunch of corporate welfare, corporations in America have been prospering since Obama's recovery and they won't even pay workers wages that keep pace with inflation (2.5% to 3% per year).  Yet we're supposed to believe a one-off tax cut of 2% is anything more than table scraps?


You already pay some of the lowest income taxes in the world, you do realize? Your taxes have already been cut a long time ago, and now it was time for the corporations to get with the times.







And this was before the tax cuts too.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

A 1 trillion dollar debt...
Hell, want to go full conservative?
since they claim they care about spending?
how about we kept the same tax rate and use the money that would have been used in the tax breaks to pay for the debt...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> You already pay some of the lowest income taxes in the world, you do realize? Your taxes have already been cut a long time ago, and now it was time for the corporations to get with the times.


Ok then, if the citizens aren't paying as much in taxes, and the corporations are getting tax cuts, and the national debt is ballooning... then how exactly do we pay for nationalized programs?...


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 13, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> People just want you to believe the caricature that poor people getting help just "want handouts"
> its simply not true for a lot of people


Considering the tax cuts for people that already have a lot of money, this notion was never consistent.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

Quick reminder to keep it civil.

Xzi and Attacker3, I'm looking at you.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ok then, if the citizens aren't paying as much in taxes, and the corporations are getting tax cuts, and the national debt is ballooning... then how exactly do we pay for nationalized programs?...


You don't. Like I said, most nationalized programs are absolute dogshit and would be better provided through a free market system, which, let me makes this *VERY *clear, the US has not experienced in at least a century.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> You already pay some of the lowest income taxes in the world, you do realize? Your taxes have already been cut a long time ago, and now it was time for the corporations to get with the times.


You're already aware that corporations don't pay the tax rate on the books, so this is completely disingenous.  And again, the tax rate really means very little when you're already making very little.  Wages have to go up before we can talk about any kind of arbitrary "equality" in the tax code.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You're already aware that corporations don't pay the tax rate on the books, so this is completely disingenous.  And again, the tax rate really means very little when you're already making very little.  Wages have to go up before we can talk about any kind of "equality" in the tax code.


If the corps don't pay taxes, then why the hell do you care if they go down? You're arguing for something that you don't even care about! 
"I dislike the fact that corporations are getting a reduction in the amount of taxes that they don't pay"


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

care to elaborate? that last statement was confusing.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> If the corps don't pay taxes, then why the hell do you care if they go down? You're arguing for something that you don't even care about!
> "I dislike the fact that corporations are getting a reduction in the amount of taxes that they don't pay"


We've already been over this.  They pay something, just not everything they should (if they wanted to show any sort of loyalty to this county).  Cutting their tax rate nearly in half just makes it that much easier to get to zero, or really close to it.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> care to elaborate? that last statement was confusing.


Xzi is arguing both that corporations pay almost none, or no taxes completely. Then argues that a tax reduction is somehow the end of the world, without realizing that some of the TAX LOOPHOLES WERE CLOSED IN THAT, MEANING THEY ARE PAYING MORE TAXES NOW.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> You don't. Like I said, most nationalized programs are absolute dogshit and would be better provided through a free market system, which, let me makes this *VERY *clear, the US has not experienced in at least a century.


They're really not. Europe and Australia have free healthcare systems that provide quality coverage, no matter how severe the injury. America built its freeway system during the post-war boom entirely with tax money. Most parts of the world, you can go to university completely free of charge, unless you choose to go private (which God knows why you would, especially if you live in for example Germany or Norway, where you can get the equivalent of a bachelor's degree literally at fractions of pennies taken out of your income per paycheck)


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

i think his argument is that these breaks made a problem, worse.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> No. That's really all I can say, it really doesn't. You can't generate money from nowhere, it has to come from somewhere. If you're suddenly not paying money in taxes, then you MIGHT have enough income to make rent, or afford that nice meal, for instance. But that means that something on the other end isn't getting funded. People on a government wage, like public educators for example? They feel the impact, but in reverse. And if schools don't have enough money to pay their teachers a living wage (which we're dangerously close to as it is), then all you've done is shift the poverty burden onto another class, while making the richest citizens richer and doing nothing to ultimately solve the problem.



most of these systems are better suited privatized anyway. Think about it, most doctors, educators, etc. have no reason to make their fields better when they're being paid by the government. You don't need to make your patient better since you're gonna be paid anyway. You don't need to have a good curriculum since you're gonna be paid anyway.

Once we finally have those billions of dollars back we can start work on a proper social safety net, and really getting to work solving the Poverty problem.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Explain?



The civil war had the most American death in any armed conflict, ever. Europe quietly got rid of slavery without a fuss. Yet Abraham dragged us into a cultural and economic depression that lasted for several years.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> They're really not. Europe and Australia have free healthcare systems that provide quality coverage, no matter how severe the injury. America built its freeway system during the post-war boom entirely with tax money. Most parts of the world, you can go to university completely free of charge, unless you choose to go private (which God knows why you would, especially if you live in for example Germany or Norway, where you can get the equivalent of a bachelor's degree literally at fractions of pennies taken out of your income per paycheck)


Most of those countries are also accumulating debt at an absurdly high rate. Anyways I'll argue more tomorrow I'm very tired for some reason, usually I'm not this tired at this point but goodnight friends.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> without realizing that some of the TAX LOOPHOLES WERE CLOSED IN THAT, MEANING THEY ARE PAYING MORE TAXES NOW.


Yeah, I'd need a source on that.  Only news I've seen from the Trump administration is more regulatory capture and/or elimination of regulations entirely.  It'd be more believable that they put _more _loopholes in for corporations to exploit.  If nothing else, I certainly know of a few they left in on purpose.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> most of these systems are better suited privatized anyway. Think about it, most doctors, educators, etc. have no reason to make their fields better when they're being paid by the government. You don't need to make your patient better since you're gonna be paid anyway. You don't need to have a good curriculum since you're gonna be paid anyway.
> 
> Once we finally have those billions of dollars back we can start work on a proper social safety net, and really getting to work solving the Poverty problem.
> 
> ...





I have to disagree. Also i am someone that works in healthcare btw. The privatization leads to shenanigans in prescription prices for starters. Also there is a long crazy list of stuff that causes issues as well. You want to know what the crazy part is, there are a lot of healthcare organizations right now that are hurting economically because they geared themselves to work under the ACA framework. Now that it is effectively gutted there have been layoffs (though not massive at a few healthcare places throughout.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> most of these systems are better suited privatized anyway. Think about it, most doctors, educators, etc. have no reason to make their fields better when they're being paid by the government. You don't need to make your patient better since you're gonna be paid anyway. You don't need to have a good curriculum since you're gonna be paid anyway.


So, here's a counterpoint, and again, a realistic one; why cure the patient, when there's money to be made on treating their illness indefinitely

Or, perhaps a less realistic, but still plausible one; why educate in a timely manner when you can put all students on a slow track to keep them in your institution longer?


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, I'd need a source on that.  Only news I've seen from the Trump administration is more regulatory capture and/or elimination of regulations entirely.  It'd be more believable that they put _more _loopholes in for corporations to exploit.  If nothing else, I certainly know of a few they left in on purpose.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nterest-loophole-in-new-tax-law-idUSKCN1GD5YE
now I need to go to sleep please


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So, here's a counterpoint, and again, a realistic one; why cure the patient, when there's money to be made on treating their illness indefinitely
> 
> Or, perhaps a less realistic, but still plausible one; why educate in a timely manner when you can put all students on a slow track to keep them in your institution longer?



Advertisement Plays:
Ever wonder why your kid takes forever to get through jefferey high school? It's not cause their dumb, it's because JHS intentionally holds them back! Here at Bob High School, 99% of enrollees graduate and earn a bachelors degree at college! Join BHS for a better learning experience.

Join now to get free consultation blah blah


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Most of those countries are also accumulating debt at an absurdly high rate. Anyways I'll argue more tomorrow I'm very tired for some reason, usually I'm not this tired at this point but goodnight friends.


The German debt burden per citizen is $29,488. The US is $65,637. Our debt is 107% of our GDP, whereas theirs is 62%. I don't really think I need to keep going with this...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TerribleTy27 said:


> Advertisement Plays:
> Ever wonder why your kid takes forever to get through jefferey high school? It's not cause their dumb, it's because JHS intentionally holds them back! Here at Bob High School, 99% of enrollees graduate and earn a bachelors degree at college! Join BHS for a better learning experience.
> 
> Join now to get free consultation blah blah


What incentive would there be to improve, though? They're getting paid, and probably a lot more in the long run, so why switch to a fast-track model?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> I have to disagree. Also i am someone that works in healthcare btw. The privatization leads to shenanigans in prescription prices for starters. Also there is a long crazy list of stuff that causes issues as well. You want to know what the crazy part is, there are a lot of healthcare organizations right now that are hurting economically because they geared themselves to work under the ACA framework. Now that it is effectively gutted there have been layoffs (though not massive at a few healthcare places throughout.



That's definitely true. Maybe some kind of semi-private system with heavy regulations would do better? Just enough to get some of the burden off the government.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> No, he did not.  Nobody making below $100,000 saw jack shit in return for those cuts.  GWB's cuts were far more visible for the average worker, but the stupid part was pushing for those cuts after starting two endless wars.  Definitely a big contributor to the crash and recession in '08, and now we're probably looking at the same for '19 with Trump's spending habits.


It wouldn't make sense that the George Bush Tax cuts caused the crash and recession in '08 because the cuts increased tax revenue.

Right now under Trump Unemployment is at an all time low it has been in 50 yrs. And Black unemployment is the lowest its ever been. The only thing I don't like is tariffs on foreign goods. It essentially eliminates fair free market competition. Same with corporate welfare.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

no oversight leads to lack of incentive. specially in areas where business know they are the only "game" in town.



SG854 said:


> It wouldn't make sense that the George Bush Tax cuts caused the crash and recession in '08 because the cuts increased tax revenue.
> 
> Right now under Trump Unemployment is at an all time low it has been in 50 yrs. And Black unemployment is the lowest its ever been. The only thing I don't like is tariffs on foreign goods. It essentially eliminates fair free market competition. Same with corporate welfare.



the problem being though... a lot of the jobs lost during the recession have been filled in with underpaying jobs as well. Its kind of a half victory if anything on that end .


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> That's definitely true. Maybe some kind of semi-private system with heavy regulations would do better? Just enough to get some of the burden off the government.


That's already what Australia has, and I'm fairly certain most of Europe. You can choose to go to a private healthcare facility if they are able to treat you more effectively, but the public option is free and virtually just as good 99% of the time


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nterest-loophole-in-new-tax-law-idUSKCN1GD5YE
> now I need to go to sleep please


Lol, so according to that article, they closed a loophole unintentionally created by their own tax bill.



			
				Reuters said:
			
		

> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury said on Thursday it will *close an unintended loophole created by the Republican tax overhaul* that let some Wall Street financial managers dodge new limits on “carried interest” by operating as businesses known as S-corporations.


In other words they kept all the previously-existing loopholes and this is a net gain of zero loopholes closed.

G'night btw.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The German debt burden per citizen is $29,488. The US is $65,637. Our debt is 107% of our GDP, whereas theirs is 62%. I don't really think I need to keep going with this...
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Could you elaborate a bit, please?


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Lol, so according to that article, they closed a loophole unintentionally created by their own tax bill.
> 
> 
> In other words they kept all the previously-existing loopholes and this is a net gain of zero loopholes closed.



This is untrue and for realsies my last message. They've been trying to close this loophole for a while now, but since the tax code is still a mess, they accidentally screwed up, which isn't a surprise, but they're committed to actually plugging the leak.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The German debt burden per citizen is $29,488. The US is $65,637. Our debt is 107% of our GDP, whereas theirs is 62%. I don't really think I need to keep going with this...


Not that I doubt you, but I am curious. Source?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> This is untrue and for realsies my last message. They've been trying to close this loophole for a while now, but since the tax code is still a mess, they accidentally screwed up, which isn't a surprise, but they're committed to actually plugging the leak.


Steve Mnuchin is a massive leech on the system, I don't know how you have any faith in that guy to plug any leak, especially one that might benefit the ultra-wealthy such as himself.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Could you elaborate a bit, please?


You asked what incentive people within a given government-funded field have to improve, since they're earning a fixed wage. What incentive does a free-market company have to improve, in terms of education, when the entire market has discovered a way to exploit the population into paying more than they reasonably should for their service and competition is negated?



KingVamp said:


> Not that I doubt you, but I am curious. Source?


https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/germany
https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates

Edit: And, after looking, an interesting tidbit that I didn't include was that Germany's debt-GDP ratio actually FELL nearly 17% between 2010 and 2017; which would seem to contradict the claim that at least for this country, nationalized programs cause the federal debt to "accumulate at an absurdly high rate"


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You asked what incentive people within a given government-funded field have to improve, since they're earning a fixed wage. What incentive does a free-market company have to improve, in terms of education, when the entire market has discovered a way to exploit the population into paying more than they reasonably should for their service and competition is negated?



I'm sorry, but how has the market discovered a way to exploit the population? Did I miss something?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I'm sorry, but how has the market discovered a way to exploit the population? Did I miss something?


Yeah, the American for-profit healthcare industry. Ignore the obvious bias for a second and just focus on the text of this opinion article for a second, because it raises some very crucial points: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

Edit: And something that said article doesn't address is that there's just... no profit in curing people. For profit hospitals make the most money out of an individual from end-of-life care, and that's just the cold, hard truth. No matter how cheap it is to produce a drug and how high they subsequently mark it up, it's just so much cheaper to charge families for keeping a loved one comfortable on a cot and morphine rather than curing them of the illness and just seeing them in a year or two for a physical, should they choose to come back


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

ill bite.


TerribleTy27 said:


> I'm sorry, but how has the market discovered a way to exploit the population? Did I miss something?


usually the big players in free markets can afford lobbyists that get to set laws in their favor for starters. Also they seem to strive for laws to make it harder for newcomers to said markets.

By the way i do like a free market. However one that has rules for everyone and fail safes to prevent shenanigans


----------



## SG854 (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ok then, if the citizens aren't paying as much in taxes, and the corporations are getting tax cuts, and the national debt is ballooning... then how exactly do we pay for nationalized programs?...


We cut nationalized programs because they do no good. Affordable housing doesn't make houses affordable. San Francisco and and New York has some of the strongest rent control laws yet the are some of the most expensive places to live in and has higher rates of homelessness.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> You asked what incentive people within a given government-funded field have to improve, since they're earning a fixed wage. What incentive does a free-market company have to improve, in terms of education, when the entire market has discovered a way to exploit the population into paying more than they reasonably should for their service and competition is negated?
> 
> 
> https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/germany
> https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates



Government funded fields is essentially a monopoly, centralized system which is what people don't want. There is no incentive for government to perform their best. It is not uncommon for food provided by national governments to rot near docks in third world countries compared to free market suppliers rushing in to make a profit. Their greediness to make money is what makes them more efficient. 

Central planing does not work compared to privatization because no human is capable (no matter how many economics degrees you have) of keeping track of millions and millions of goods that are being sold in this country and price controlling based on supply and demand that varies week from week. And how they differently they are sold in street from street, and how they price change relative to other goods based on limited resources. This is why they fail in so many times and caused poverty. While free market competition capitalism gives the power to individual people and let them choose the transactions both members of the party agree on. And instead of worrying about millions of products store owners only worry about their own they sell. Millions of minds is better then a few economists central planning.

Government funded schools in America sucks compared to countries with vouchers and free market choices. And pouring more money doesn't solve the problem. The top schools with the highest literacy rates are actually getting below the national average in funding. And schools with money poured in higher then the national average have lower literacy rates. Detroit for example which was once one of the richest city in the US but now the poorest because of dependence to the state. We spend 22 trillion on social welfare programs since we launched the war on poverty with not much effect. And the cut back on programs recently has made us perform better economically with record low unemployments.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yeah, the American for-profit healthcare industry. Ignore the obvious bias for a second and just focus on the text of this opinion article for a second, because it raises some very crucial points: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/
> 
> Edit: And something that said article doesn't address is that there's just... no profit in curing people. For profit hospitals make the most money out of an individual from end-of-life care, and that's just the cold, hard truth. No matter how cheap it is to produce a drug and how high they subsequently mark it up, it's just so much cheaper to charge families for keeping a loved one comfortable on a cot and morphine rather than curing them of the illness and just seeing them in a year or two for a physical, should they choose to come back



He definitely makes some absolutely great points.

Yeah, no extra comment. He's right. A pure free market system doesn't work.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

SG854 said:


> We cut nationalized programs because they do no good. Affordable housing doesn't make houses affordable. San Francisco and and New York has some of the strongest rent control laws yet the are some of the most expensive places to live in and has higher rates of homelessness.


the higher pricing has more to do with
A) having a higher density population
B) investors going in to places, buying property, make a section of the block look pretty and in turn raises the value of the entire block of property artificially. YES this is a thing. Which i think should not be allowed by the way. However property owners of course love it because who does not love having artificially inflated property value.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 13, 2018)

Funny thing is, people aren't saying get rid of private companies. If you think private companies can do better than the public services, you can still go for them.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 13, 2018)

Funny thing is, people say they hate "free hand-outs"
Then lets make it so walmart pay their employees a decent wage so our taxes dont subsidize their underpaid employees.
Also dont tell me they cant afford it... With their fortune and their current tax breaks and all.

Edit:

I am turning in for the evening. Thanks to all even those who i disagree with for the healthy debate. This seemed like good healthy discourse so far.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 13, 2018)

Honestly, if they really wanted to move money around, basic income would be direct and more efficient than both tax cuts and some welfare. Automation aside.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Honestly, if they really wanted to move money around, basic income would be direct and more efficient than both tax cuts and some welfare. Automation aside.



Basic income isn't really encouraging people to actually generate money though. We're in enough debt as is without giving free money to everyone.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Basic income isn't really encouraging people to actually generate money though. We're in enough debt as is without giving free money to everyone.


I guess a similar question as before, but if human beings are wired in such a way that we want to stop working if we have "just enough" money to live a comfortable life, then why does anyone pursue higher-paying jobs? There's evidence to suggest that a UBI would actually stimulate the jobs market, because rather than feeling the pressure of trying to make rent every month, people would be free to quit their low-paying jobs, potentially go back to school, and then search for higher-paying jobs that are much more in line with their interests


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I guess a similar question as before, but if human beings are wired in such a way that we want to stop working if we have "just enough" money to live a comfortable life, then why does anyone pursue higher-paying jobs? There's evidence to suggest that a UBI would actually stimulate the jobs market, because rather than feeling the pressure of trying to make rent every month, people would be free to quit their low-paying jobs, potentially go back to school, and then search for higher-paying jobs that are much more in line with their interests



It depends. For some people, getting thrown into the real world without any kind of safety net really gets their priorities straight. NTM but there are plenty of ways to go to school online for free. after that, there are plenty of ways to test out on most major universities for a degree.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yeah, the American for-profit healthcare industry. Ignore the obvious bias for a second and just focus on the text of this opinion article for a second, because it raises some very crucial points: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/
> 
> Edit: And something that said article doesn't address is that there's just... no profit in curing people. For profit hospitals make the most money out of an individual from end-of-life care, and that's just the cold, hard truth. No matter how cheap it is to produce a drug and how high they subsequently mark it up, it's just so much cheaper to charge families for keeping a loved one comfortable on a cot and morphine rather than curing them of the illness and just seeing them in a year or two for a physical, should they choose to come back



https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
haha oops I think I dropped this


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

Healthcare is by far the most nuanced issue in modern politics. Both sides have very strong arguments. Personally, I think a pure free-market system won't work. But by the same token neither will single-payer/free-healthcare.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
> haha oops I think I dropped this


Wow, you're right, every country other than us spends _so much_ on healthcare







I'm just... amazed that we as a country haven't figured out how to effectively price our healthcare industry. It's not socialized vs privatized that's the issue, it's literally just that our healthcare system takes advantage of the people that it's supposed to be helping; obviously people are being treated, but not at NEARLY the cost they should be

Source


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Basic income isn't really encouraging people to actually generate money though. We're in enough debt as is without giving free money to everyone.


But tax cuts for the already rich is?



TerribleTy27 said:


> But by the same token neither will single-payer/free-healthcare.


I guess you mean by itself? We already have examples of it working and working better than we have now.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's not socialized vs privatized that's the issue, it's literally just that our healthcare system takes advantage of the people that it's supposed to be helping; obviously people are being treated, but not at NEARLY the cost they should be
> 
> Source


S
I think you missed the entire point of the essay I posted. The only reason it's so expensive it's because of corporatist policies and regulations preventing the flow of new doctors. I have another thing you could look at which explained what things were like, then what happened


You pinpointed the issue: people aren't being treated at the cost they should be. What you did not get correct is why that is. If the government cut all public funding to health care, that little private bar on the graph would stay the same size. Here's why.

Let's say that healthcare costs exactly 20 dollars. Let's also say that the average person has 50 dollars to spend on like healthcare and other expenses. This is too much for most people, and they goes and lobby for public health care. The government agrees to pay 10 dollars of the 20 required to get healthcare. Guess what happens next?

That's right, they raise the price by 15 dollars. What you need to understand is that government aid for anything is just guaranteed money in the eyes of companies. They can just raise prices because that's what they can get away with.

I hope this makes sense, I am very very tired.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> If the government cut all public funding to health care, that little private bar on the graph would stay the same size. Here's why.


I... Uh... Hm... I really don't think that there's any evidence outside of anecdotes that supports that that's the case. Again, look at the social spending of virtually every other country vs private spending. Most of those countries have just as good, if not more comprehensive healthcare for the lower and middle class at a significantly lower price. There's nothing to suggest that privatizing the healthcare industry would do anything other than raise the upfront cost, especially for people with poor or no insurance coverage. The reason being, there is no guaranteed funding anymore, so either there would have to be specialty centers built to treat conditions requiring special equipment, or individual hospitals would have to pay for it with money that is no longer guaranteed. Plus, given how high of a markup many hospitals make vs what the cost of treatment actually is, I see no evidence to support that they'd do anything other than try to increase that gap given the opportunity, either by doing the bare minimum treatment or by charging to hell and back


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 14, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> But tax cuts for the already rich is?



Well... Yeah.


Spoiler



Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Christopher Heady, Åsa Johansson, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, _Tax Policy For Economic Recovery and Growth_, 121 Economic Journal F59-F80 (2011).

Robert Barro & C.J. Redlick, _Macroeconomic Effects of Government Purchases and Taxes_, 126 Quarterly Journal of Economics 51-102 (2011).

Christina Romer & David Romer, _The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks_, 100 American Economic Review 763-801 (2010).

These all say that raising taxes hurts the economy, while cutting them helps.



No matter how much you dislike the principal of it, tax cuts for the rich are enormously helpful for the economy, to an extent.



KingVamp said:


> I guess you mean by itself? We already have examples of it working and working better than we have now.


Yeah, but our healthcare system is such a botched mess of compromises that literally anything is better. It's like saying you're better at running then the guy who lost his legs.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> No matter how much you dislike the principal of it, tax cuts for the rich are enormously helpful for the economy, to an extent.


Measuring how good the economy is doing by how much money corporations are making is extremely problematic.  The economy doing well means absolutely nothing if we don't use the opportunity to raise wages and pay down national debts.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Measuring how good the economy is doing by how much money corporations are making is extremely problematic.  The economy doing well means absolutely nothing if we don't use the opportunity to raise wages and pay down national debts.



How exactly would you raise wages? Genuinely curious.

Also in regards to national debt:




EDIT: if you also want a hard study, here: Randall Holcombe & Donald Lacombe, _The effect of state income taxation on per capita income growth_, 32 Public Finance Review 292-312 (2004).


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> How exactly would you raise wages? Genuinely curious.


How?  You mean other than the obvious increase in minimum wage to keep pace with inflation?  Currently we have to subsidize Wal-Mart and McDonald's employees because those corporations refuse to pay their workers a living wage, so the taxpayers foot the bill.

As for Reagan's national debt:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> During Reagan's presidency, the national debt grew from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Reaganomics

Trickle-down fucked us hard.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> How?  You mean other than the obvious increase in minimum wage to keep pace with inflation?  Currently we have to subsidize Wal-Mart and McDonald's employees because those corporations refuse to pay their workers a living wage, so the taxpayers foot the bill.
> 
> As for Reagan's national debt:
> 
> ...





Spoiler



MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES, WAGES, AND LOW-WAGE EMPLOYMENT: EVIDENCE FROM SEATTLE
Ekaterina Jardim Mark C. Long Robert Plotnick Emma van Inwegen Jacob Vigdor Hilary Wething


I agree with the sentiment, but it's not gonna work.

In regards to Reagan:

What exactly does trickle-down have to do with debt? The policy worked. We were gaining tons of tax revenue.

Not to mention, but the reason it ballooned was because of the Volcker Disinflation.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 14, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Well... Yeah.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Putting aside how helpful "trickle down" economies is, how is giving free money to the rich helpful, but not giving enough free money directly to the people that actually need it not? If the already rich people can possibly make more money with free money, so could everyone else.




TerribleTy27 said:


> Yeah, but our healthcare system is such a botched mess of compromises that literally anything is better. It's like saying you're better at running then the guy who lost his legs.


If we are going to fix it, which we should, it would be best to model it after the better healthcare, such as the Nordic countries or even Canada. Just because the person without legs isn't doing so hot right now, doesn't mean they shouldn't eventually get bionic legs.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 14, 2018)

All increasing the min wage will do is fuck over those on the min wage. This is an ESTABLISHED economy fact.

https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/09/13/minimum-wage-madness


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 14, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Putting aside how helpful "trickle down" economies is, how is giving free money to the rich helpful, but not giving enough free money directly to the people that actually need it not? If the already rich people can possibly make more money with free money, so could everyone else.



We're not giving free money. I don't understand what you mean. Lower tax rates=Higher Tax revenue. Also, what makes you think I don't want to give money the people who actually need it? I firmly believe a social safety net is a good thing.



KingVamp said:


> If we are going to fix it, which we should, it would be best to model it after the better healthcare, such as the Nordic countries or even Canada. Just because the person without legs isn't doing so hot right now, doesn't mean they shouldn't eventually get bionic legs.



Eh, more studies should be commissioned before we can come to any kind of serious conclusion imo.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I agree with the sentiment, but it's not gonna work.


National minimum wage has been raised several times already.  It "worked" just fine every time.  Localized minimum wage increases are something different entirely.



TerribleTy27 said:


> What exactly does trickle-down have to do with debt? The policy worked. We were gaining tons of tax revenue.


Clearly not enough tax revenue to offset economic policies which put us much further into debt.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Sep 14, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> quite frankly i am a middle class person making a decent wage. If the extra 100 buckos im getting per paycheck (and i am not saying this to be an ass) is gonna make the debt go up 1 trillion, yeah hell no.
> I know why some people are happy. they are hurting. However its like these people were given so little and others will make out a ton due to the cuts.


Just a good reason the 1% need 99% of the tax burden.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Minimum wage has been raised several times already.  It "worked" just fine every time.



Look inside my posts spoiler.



Xzi said:


> Clearly not enough tax revenue to offset economic policies which put us much further into debt.



I'm sorry, what? Either the economic policy works or it doesn't. We got higher tax revenue and some of the highest GDP in a long time. It's not the free markets fault Reagan overspent on military and the banks went nuts with interest rates.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 14, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Just a good reason the 1% need 99% of the tax burden.


When they're making profits equivalent to that, I don't see how that's unfair. That's just a really alarmist way of saying it


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Look inside my posts spoiler.


Look at my edit.  National and local minimum wage are two separate issues.



TerribleTy27 said:


> I'm sorry, what? Either the economic policy works or it doesn't. We got higher tax revenue and some of the highest GDP in a long time. It's not the free markets fault Reagan overspent on military and the banks went nuts with interest rates.


If the only two options are "it worked or it didn't," then it didn't.  Things are a bit more complicated than that, though, and so much of that national debt came from corporate welfare under Reagan, as is tradition for the Republican party.  For some reason the tax cuts alone are never good enough.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 14, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> We're not giving free money. I don't understand what you mean. Lower tax rates=Higher Tax revenue.


If lowering tax rates =/= giving free money, neither does basic income.



TerribleTy27 said:


> I firmly believe a social safety net is a good thing.


Then you shouldn't be against a basic income.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Look at my edit.  National and local minimum wage are two separate issues.



Eh, small-scale or large-scale the principals are still the same.



Xzi said:


> If the only two options are "it worked or it didn't," then it didn't.  Things are a bit more complicated than that, though, and so much of that national debt came from corporate welfare under Reagan, as is tradition for the Republican party.  For some reason the tax cuts alone are never good enough.



Literally all the studies are against you.


Spoiler



Olivier Blanchard & Robert Perotti, _An Empirical Characterization Of The Dynamic Effects Of Changes In Government Spending And Taxes On Output_, 107 Quarterly Journal of Economics 1329-1368 (2002).
F. Padovano & E. Galli, E., _Tax rates and economic growth in the OECD countries (1950-1990)_, 39 Economic Inquiry 44-57 
(2001).
Stefan Folster & Magnus Henrekson, _Growth effects of government expenditure and taxation in rich countries_, 45 European Economic Review 1501-1520 (2001).



The National debt did not balloon because of bad economic policy. It was a combination of terrible interest rates, forced deflation under Jimmy Carter, and Reagan overspending on military and defense.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> If lowering tax rates =/= giving free money, neither does basic income.



What. 
UBI means everyone gets income.

Given to them by the government.

Am I missing something here?



KingVamp said:


> Then you shouldn't be against a basic income.



Let me rephrase:

I believe in a social safety net.

For those who need it. 

Im not going to pay taxes to a government that's going to spend 12trillion on giving free money to everyone. It's absurd and unsustainable.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Eh, small-scale or large-scale the principals are still the same.


Large-scale or small-scale, the only excuse for not raising the minimum wage is greed.  Like I said, you and I have to foot the bill when corporations cheap out on wages.



TerribleTy27 said:


> Literally all the studies are against you.


The facts are with me.  Every time a Republican cuts the corporate tax rate we come out of their presidency much deeper in debt.  I don't know if that's because they're fudging the revenue numbers or because Republicans can't stop handing out free money to the 1%, but either way the results are the same.  Until we get a modern president to prove your theory that it's possible to cut the corporate tax rate without ultimately raising the national debt, I'm going to keep assuming the average worker has to be thrown under the bus in order to keep the corporate shitheels happy.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Large-scale or small-scale, the only excuse for not raising the minimum wage is greed.  Like I said, you and I have to foot the bill when corporations cheap out on wages.



So what's your opinion of self kiosk machines that are becoming popular in states with high minimum wages?



Xzi said:


> The facts are with me.  Every time a Republican cuts the corporate tax rate we come out of their presidency much deeper in debt.  I don't know if that's because they're fudging the revenue numbers or because Republicans can't stop handing out free money to the 1%, but either way the results are the same.  Until we get a modern president to prove your theory that it's possible to cut the corporate tax rate without ultimately raising the national debt, I'm going to keep assuming the average worker has to be thrown under the bus in order to keep the corporate shitheels happy.



Correlation =/= Causation


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> So what's your opinion of self kiosk machines that are becoming popular in states with high minimum wages?


Automation was always going to become an issue eventually, which is why a universal basic income will eventually become a necessity as well.



TerribleTy27 said:


> Correlation =/= Causation


Honestly it doesn't even matter in the end, given that cutting the corporate tax rate provides no tangible benefit to 98% of this nation's citizens.  The only purpose is pushing us closer to a plutocracy/oligarchy.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Honestly it doesn't even matter in the end, given that cutting the corporate tax rate provides no tangible benefit to 98% of this nation's citizens.  The only purpose is pushing us closer to a plutocracy/oligarchy.



It actually does provide a tangible benefit, namely job opportunities and higher wages.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 14, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> What.
> UBI means everyone gets income.
> 
> Given to them by the government.
> ...


Not even the highest estimate is "12 trillion". Instead we pay taxes that goes into inefficient welfare that's constantly facing cuts by the people that keep increasing the debt in the first place. While giving tax cuts to the people who don't need it, rather than give money directly to the people that do need it.


You are not going to be paying most of the taxes for this, the ones that have higher incomes than you will be. Including the highest ones that don't want the minimum wage to go up even though they can afford it. One way to do it, is the VAT tax.




Xzi said:


> Automation was always going to become an issue eventually, which is why a universal basic income will eventually become a necessity as well.


We really shouldn't be waiting until it gets worse.



Xzi said:


> The facts are with me.  Every time a Republican cuts the corporate tax rate we come out of their presidency much deeper in debt.  I don't know if that's because they're fudging the revenue numbers or because Republicans can't stop handing out free money to the 1%, but either way the results are the same.  Until we get a modern president to prove your theory that it's possible to cut the corporate tax rate without ultimately raising the national debt, I'm going to keep assuming the average worker has to be thrown under the bus in order to keep the corporate shitheels happy.


It is not even working right now. Link


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 14, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Not even the highest estimate is "12 trillion". Instead we pay taxes that goes into inefficient welfare that's constantly facing cuts by the people that keep increasing the debt in the first place. While giving tax cuts to the people who don't need it, rather than give money directly to the people that do need it.
> 
> 
> You are not going to be paying most of the taxes for this, the ones that have higher incomes than you will be. Including the highest ones that don't want the minimum wage to go up even though they can afford it. One way to do it, is the VAT tax.


No, they won't be. Those people are just going to do some trickery and move to a different country.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Which means that yes, in fact, we will be footing the bill.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> We really shouldn't be waiting until it gets worse.


No, we really shouldn't be, but it's also not an option given who's in charge of government currently.  Also it's unfortunate, but UBI will always be this "radical socialist/communist" idea to people until automation starts tangibly affecting unemployment.



TerribleTy27 said:


> It actually does provide a tangible benefit, namely job opportunities and higher wages.


When was the last time a Republican raised the minimum wage?  And the US is mostly service jobs, corporations cut down to skeleton crews years ago.  There's been no benevolent meeting between megacorps where they decided to raise the median (or minimum) wage to my knowledge, either.  With the recent tax cuts most corporations just bought back their own stock.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 14, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> No, they won't be. Those people are just going to do some trickery and move to a different country.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Which means that yes, in fact, we will be footing the bill.


This "if we do blank, they are going to leave" excuse. Quite frankly, if enough of them leave (which i don't think is actually going to happen) because they actually have to help the lower class with a small fraction of their money and not this indirectly tax cuts nonsense, just so people can actually have basic needs met, let alone enough money to buy their stuff, then capitalism is going to eventually fail.

Not to mention, if they leave, I don't see why they wouldn't get replace by other businesses. 



Xzi said:


> No, we really shouldn't be, but it's also not an option given who's in charge of government currently.  Also it's unfortunate, but UBI will always be this "radical socialist/communist" idea to people until automation starts tangibly affecting unemployment.


I don't think it has to be that far off, it only takes one president to turn things around. I mean, it is already taking jobs already.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 14, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> This "if we do blank, they are going to leave" excuse. Quite frankly, if enough of them leave (which i don't think is actually going to happen) because they actually have to help the lower class with a small fraction of their money and not this indirectly tax cuts nonsense, just so people can actually have basic needs met, let alone enough money to buy their stuff, then capitalism is going to eventually fail.
> 
> Not to mention, if they leave, I don't see why they wouldn't get replace by other businesses.


On top of that, there would be a lower strain on the economy that would continue to exist, as the businesses that stay would, in theory at least, actually be paying for the public services that they were using, rather than leeching off of them while profiting off of their own product


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I don't think it has to be that far off, it only takes one president to turn things around. I mean, it is already taking jobs already.


Well, if I'm playing devil's advocate, then the obvious response would be, "get another job, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, etc."  We'll hit another economic crash and recession well before UBI becomes the obvious choice, I give it at least two more presidents, maybe more if we elect another reality TV star.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 14, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So here's a radical idea; make it so that businesses can choose exactly how much in taxes they pay, but they only get access to the public services they're actually paying for.


I doubt most are going to pay much, let alone the ones that will try to skip on as many public services as they can.



Xzi said:


> Well, if I'm playing devil's advocate, then the obvious response would be, "get another job, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, etc."


Right, work yourself to death and even have less time for yourself just because companies don't want to pay you a fair amount of money or lower prices in the first place. Meanwhile your health bills are probably going to go up due to stress, if you don't die from it early first. Not to mention, fighting both other people and automation to try to get more than one job.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 14, 2018)

the hilarious parts is that if minimum wages kept up with inflation.. people would be making decent money right now, but because of the disparity of what people are making now, i can see how many people have their mind blown when they find out what this amount would be if it did.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 14, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> the hilarious parts is that if minimum wages kept up with inflation.. people would be making decent money right now, but because of the disparity of what people are making now, i can see how many people have their mind blown when they find out what this amount would be if it did.


Or at the very least, people could work less and be less stressed.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 14, 2018)

well if you think about it. higher wages would lead to drops to people having working 2-3 jobs in order to stay afloat.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 14, 2018)

I really can't keep up this pace, guys. Six pages in one day? More so, this topic of "discussion on modern politics" is so broad that it could mean anything. In fact, it DOES encompass the whole idea of this subsection.

More so: if this is the meta-discussion where we're going to discuss the tone that person A uses to say X to person B, then it's already a slippery slope. Sorry, but I'll pass on that. And I'm already way to late to catch up on the discussion on the actual topics.

So I'll go with something that hasn't been said yet, if not for the simple reason that it took place offline. And is about local politics rather than about USA politics (you guys get enough attention as it is  ).

So picture this: last saturday, I was invited for a written course and examination on karate (yes...that apparently does exist  ). Since this was about an hour drive away from our dojo, I hitched a ride with one of my fellow club members. As we know each other from face (and fighting techniques) rather well but not so much socially (we don't hang out that much when not wearing our karate gi's), car conversation started off a bit hesitant.

The guy (and driver) was right-oriented. He's a teacher, and has seen some pretty troubled kids. I pretty much immediately put on the table that I was politically left, and am likely to vote for Groen, or perhaps even PVDA in the upcoming elections ('Groen' is a local environmental party; PVDA are...well, they're borderline communists).
Now...despite these apparent differences, the situation didn't turn awkward. We had a common bond (karate), so there was no reason to polarize.

He talked about situations he has seen as a teacher: kids with so little educational info that they can't even locate Belgium on a European map. An Islamitic child who almost literally throws up when he accidentally eats a piece of pizza with pork on it. These are problems, and i won't deny that with the mass migration in Europe, this isn't something to take lightly. But from my end, I pointed out that these people don't migrate for fun, and...well...there is one thing to not eat pork, but another thing to treat the act of it as if the meat is flat out poison.

Well...and so on. It was a good conversation. We've clearly got different views of the world, but that doesn't mean either is wrong. Rather the contrary: these conversations lead to a better understanding of the world, exactly BECAUSE the perspective is different.
Last wednesday we had a bit of practice together. It went fine (even better than before, though that can be my impression). We congratulated each other for both passing. all was well.



Now...you might have noticed that this isn't how the average political talks go down nowadays. Comments on facebook and local newspapers can be pretty darn toxic. They're the sort of comments you'd expect from your local town drunk...except multiplied by about a dozen. For each incident that can be openly (and anonymously) commented upon.
Our leaders aren't better, btw: a few weeks ago, one of our main politicians (Bart De Wever) suggested in the media that "politicians from other parties" might be involved in drugs trafficking. A strangely accurately timed TV documentary showed a lot of racism in a youth club ("Schild en vriend") that has lots of ties with the main political party. The opposition uses pretty strong words against the government, who tries to instill the population* that they have done a good job.
It's still nowhere in the direction that the US election goes, but depending on the outcome I'm afraid that we won't turn out much smarter than Americans...if at all. We just have an (IMHO) better system that discourages open war, if not for other reasons than for the simple fact that no party will ever claim the government by itself.

Ahem...so...in summary: my view on politics is that there's too much mud-slinging. We should get more self-confidence, and understand that different opinions or our own shortcomings in reasoning aren't automatically attacks at us in person. We aren't perfect. So we shouldn't be expected to be that way either (we should attempt to, obviously...but that's a different matter).



*small detail: our elections (in about a month) are obligated for all adults


----------



## brickmii82 (Sep 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well, if I'm playing devil's advocate, then the obvious response would be, "get another job, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, etc."  We'll hit another economic crash and recession well before UBI becomes the obvious choice, I give it at least two more presidents, maybe more if we elect another reality TV star.


Its coming faster than people think.
https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2016-05-23/what-is-a-bespoke-tranche-opportunity


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> No, we really shouldn't be, but it's also not an option given who's in charge of government currently.  Also it's unfortunate, but UBI will always be this "radical socialist/communist" idea to people until automation starts tangibly affecting unemployment.



Eh, overall, I think that UBI will be needed once automation hits hard. But right now it's a bad idea. We just can't afford it.



Xzi said:


> When was the last time a Republican raised the minimum wage?  And the US is mostly service jobs, corporations cut down to skeleton crews years ago.  There's been no benevolent meeting between megacorps where they decided to raise the median (or minimum) wage to my knowledge, either.  With the recent tax cuts most corporations just bought back their own stock.



Less Taxes=More businesses=Scarcity of labor in a certain skill-field=Higher wages for people in that skill-field



TotalInsanity4 said:


> On top of that, there would be a lower strain on the economy that would continue to exist, as the businesses that stay would, in theory at least, actually be paying for the public services that they were using, rather than leeching off of them while profiting off of their own product



Could you go more in depth on what you mean by leeching off of public services?


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 14, 2018)

Good old UBI, giving people money just for existing. If you thought welfare dependency was a shit show you haven't seen anything yet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2ef2a283994b


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 14, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Could you go more in depth on what you mean by leeching off of public services?


Yeah sure, a great example would be companies that do any kind of shipping over the road, whether they do it themselves or go through a postal service. When a company exploits loopholes to avoid paying taxes, they are either putting an incredible strain on the highway infrastructure without paying into the system that would allow them to be repaired or improved, or they're taking advantage of the postal service effectively without paying for it

Another great example would be water, since most production companies use it; who do you think provides the budget to lay the infrastructure that carries treated water throughout the city, and waste water out of it?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Eh, overall, I think that UBI will be needed once automation hits hard. But right now it's a bad idea. We just can't afford it.


The only reason we can't afford it is because of the trillions we've blown on giveaways to the already-rich.



TerribleTy27 said:


> Less Taxes=More businesses


This logic doesn't follow at all.  Less taxes = more money for large corporations to use to swallow up all the small businesses.  Tax cuts sure as hell haven't increased competition in the ISP market.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 14, 2018)

@TerribleTy27 I don't want to beat a dead horse, but you were the one in the other thread saying that Donald Trump doesn't lie (or something to that effect), right?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...000-did-not-die-puerto-rico-hurricane-n909221


----------



## smf (Sep 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Tax cuts sure as hell haven't increased competition in the ISP market.



There is no competition, because your laws are written to get rid of competition & Trump has not made it any better.

America will keep getting the bad deal that it inflicts upon itself.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 14, 2018)

smf said:


> There is no competition, because your laws are written to get rid of competition & Trump has not made it any better.
> 
> America will keep getting the bad deal that it inflicts upon itself.


I guess I don't see how that's an argument against @Xzi, if that's what you were intending. But I don't exactly know how a purely free market solution would solve that, though, considering the big ISP companies already have a stranglehold on the market


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 15, 2018)

"Welfare dependency". I mean, if you are down on your luck, the only other options are to depend on someone else or starve.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 15, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yeah sure, a great example would be companies that do any kind of shipping over the road, whether they do it themselves or go through a postal service. When a company exploits loopholes to avoid paying taxes, they are either putting an incredible strain on the highway infrastructure without paying into the system that would allow them to be repaired or improved, or they're taking advantage of the postal service effectively without paying for it
> 
> Another great example would be water, since most production companies use it; who do you think provides the budget to lay the infrastructure that carries treated water throughout the city, and waste water out of it?



Wait a second. I'm genuinely confused here. Using a road constitutes "leeching off public services?"



Xzi said:


> The only reason we can't afford it is because of the trillions we've blown on giveaways to the already-rich.



First of all, it's not "giving away money". It is proven fact that on average, lower taxes lead to higher tax revenues as long as you don't go overboard i.e. 0.5% tax rate.

Second of all, Red Herring.



Xzi said:


> This logic doesn't follow at all.  Less taxes = more money for large corporations to use to swallow up all the small businesses.  Tax cuts sure as hell haven't increased competition in the ISP market.



How exactly would they swallow up small businesses?



TotalInsanity4 said:


> @TerribleTy27 I don't want to beat a dead horse, but you were the one in the other thread saying that Donald Trump doesn't lie (or something to that effect), right?
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...000-did-not-die-puerto-rico-hurricane-n909221



That's being taken out of context. If you read his full statement, you'd see he meant that the death toll wasn't as high as 3000 and that it's being exaggerated.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> "Welfare dependency". I mean, if you are down on your luck, the only other options are to depend on someone else or starve.



Agreed. The main problem with welfare in America isn't that the system itself is bad, it's just that it's been poorly implemented and it's way too easy to abuse.


----------



## bitjacker (Sep 15, 2018)

Automation is already taking jobs away. Hell the walmart in albert lea, mn just went from having 6 self checkouts to 12. there is only ever one living cashier after 9pm. ubi needs to happen. fuckin now. or we need to riot.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 15, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Wait a second. I'm genuinely confused here. Using a road constitutes "leeching off public services?"


I don't see what's confusing about it. If you're putting the heaviest vehicles that put the most strain on the infrastructure on the road, then not paying taxes for the upkeep of said infrastructure, you're effectively footing the bill of damage to the rest of the public



> That's being taken out of context. If you read his full statement, you'd see he meant that the death toll wasn't as high as 3000 and that it's being exaggerated.


How can you say that's out of context, did you actually read the article? His full "statement" (which is to say, two tweets) was included, one of which suggests the death toll was in the double digits? Come on, man, that's absolutely heinous, you can't just excuse that.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 15, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> How can you say that's out of context, did you actually read the article? His full "statement" (which is to say, two tweets) was included, one of which suggests the death toll was in the double digits? Come on, man, that's absolutely heinous, you can't just excuse that.



For the past 13 minutes I've been trying to figure out a way to say 'Trump is a _serious _asshole' without saying that Trump is a _serious _asshole.

Trump is my immortal unfailing God and you will say no such blasphemy about him



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I don't see what's confusing about it. If you're putting the heaviest vehicles that put the most strain on the infrastructure on the road, then not paying taxes for the upkeep of said infrastructure, you're effectively footing the bill of damage to the rest of the public



Ahh, I get what you mean. I believe in low tax cuts, but 0% is usually where I draw the line.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 15, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Agreed. The main problem with welfare in America isn't that the system itself is bad, it's just that it's been poorly implemented and it's way too easy to abuse.


Also, I missed this; it's 100% that the system is bad. There's no method of "weaning" someone off of welfare benefits, you either receive them, or if you go over the maximum income threshold then you don't, and you can't go more than (I believe) two years at a time on unemployment without a work-inhibiting disability. Simply put, the current system is practically designed to fuck the people who are meant to benefit from it over, then use the failure as an excuse to further cut welfare benefits because of the "dependency" that's a side effect of the specific way it's implemented. A UBI would not have anywhere near the same negative drawbacks as our current program


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 15, 2018)

Wait a minute... did you actually change his mind about Trump?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Also, I missed this; it's 100% that the system is bad. There's no method of "weaning" someone off of welfare benefits



The main problem is the culture. It used to be that if you were on welfare, everyone knew it. The cashier looked at you weird if you paid in food stamps. There would be gossip about that person who's so poor that he's on welfare. It really motivated people to get their arses into a job.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 16, 2018)

Xzi said:


> No, he did not.  Nobody making below $100,000 saw jack shit in return for those cuts.  GWB's cuts were far more visible for the average worker, but the stupid part was pushing for those cuts after starting two endless wars.  Definitely a big contributor to the crash and recession in '08, and now we're probably looking at the same for '19 with Trump's spending habits.


To come back to this comment. No one bothered to check the *Tax Revenue* when ever there was Tax Cuts, which is amazing with something this important to this conversation you would think they would. The few times there was tax cuts we collected *more* money in taxes. Which was the whole point of tax cuts. The most the government can do is change tax rates. How people will respond to those changes is a different story. If lower tax rates makes it more expensive to place your money in tax havens then people will instead just pay their taxes here.

The tax cuts in the 1920's increased not only tax revenue but also the amount of taxes paid by the upper income brackets. The tax rate paid rose from 0% to 24%. 24% of Taxes collected with low tax rates is more then 0% collected with high tax rates. Tax cuts was never about giving more money to the rich. And Trickle Down Economics is essentially one giant straw man argument because this theory does not exist in economics. You will not find one economist that advocates for it. Its a made up theory and people are wasting their time trying to debunk a non existent theory. 

It's also obvious tax cuts and tax revenue is not a linear relationship. Which is why a 0% tax rate doesn't mean increased revenue, because its 0% tax rate means no taxes collected. Which was a weird argument I heard when people try to debunk and say that lower tax rates doesn't always increase tax revenue. The point is to go as high as you can to collect as much tax as you can without going too high that people end up avoiding paying their taxes. And what tax rate works in one time will probably not work in another. A 25% tax rate working in one period will probably not work in a later period and then maybe a lower tax rate would be better especially when using tax havens becomes easier. 

Its all about finding the optimal tax rate. This is something Bernie Sanders does not understand. People think that Humans are like pawns on a chess board and government can make them do whatever they want and that their policies will automatically produce what they say. They never go past that first stage and fact check anything. Its in the name Affordable Housing so that must mean houses will be affordable, right? This explains why even News Sites never checked the tax revenue, and ones that did were so surprised where this mystery increased tax revenue came from, its was like magic money coming from no where. And good luck trying to close up tax loop holes.

http://www.aei.org/publication/thomas-sowell-on-the-relationship-between-tax-rates-and-tax-revenues/
https://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover Proof.pdf


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2018)

SG854 said:


> And Trickle Down Economics is essentially one giant straw man argument because this theory does not exist in economics. You will not find one economist that advocates for it. Its a made up theory and people are wasting their time trying to debunk a non existent theory.


What are you talking about?  Republicans have been pushing trickle down since Reagan and continue to push it to this day.  Economists are a different story, but it's not like Republicans listen to what economists have to say unless it's what they want to hear.



SG854 said:


> Its all about finding the optimal tax rate. This is something Bernie Sanders does not understand.


Essentially what you're advocating for here is appeasement of the corporate world, which has been going on for far too long already.  We shouldn't have to "settle" on a corporate tax rate that doesn't even cover healthcare and food stamps/welfare for the employees corporations refuse to pay a living wage to.  We need to simplify the tax code and close all the loopholes at the same time.  Enough pretending like corporations are just going to pack up and leave one of the largest consumer nations on Earth.  Even if they did, it would mean capitalism gets to work properly for once and small businesses would take their place.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> What are you talking about? Republicans have been pushing trickle down since Reagan and continue to push it to this day. Economists are a different story, but it's not like Republicans listen to what economists have to say unless it's what they want to hear.



Actually they advocate for supply-side economics.





Xzi said:


> Essentially what you're advocating for here is appeasement of the corporate world, which has been going on for far too long already. We shouldn't have to "settle" on a corporate tax rate that doesn't even cover healthcare and food stamps/welfare for the employees corporations refuse to pay a living wage to. We need to simplify the tax code and close all the loopholes at the same time. Enough pretending like corporations are just going to pack up and leave one of the largest consumer nations on Earth. Even if they did, it would mean capitalism gets to work properly for once and small businesses would take their place.



Umm, no. By optimal he means highest possible tax revenue and economic growth. Please look up what the laffer curve is.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Enough pretending like corporations are just going to pack up and leave one of the largest consumer nations on Earth.



He's not arguing that at all. What he is saying is that they'll just put their money in tax havens instead of paying.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 17, 2018)

BTW guys, if we hit a 140 or 150 replies or so, I'll open up a new thread. As taleweaver mentioned earlier, a lot of the people who want to join the discussion aren't able to due to the intimidating post count and how fast the discussions been.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 17, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Actually they advocate for supply-side economics.


Which is another term for the same basic thing, it's just that the term "trickle down" has too much stigma attached since everybody figured out it was bullshit.



TerribleTy27 said:


> Umm, no. By optimal he means highest possible tax revenue and economic growth. Please look up what the laffer curve is.


I already posted a link to information on the Laffer curve in this thread, and it suggests 70% is the optimal corporate tax rate.  If that's what he's advocating then I'm all for it.



TerribleTy27 said:


> He's not arguing that at all. What he is saying is that they'll just put their money in tax havens instead of paying.


Which should simply mean much harsher punishments.  IE if they're found to use tax havens, then they have to pay double the taxes they would've owed on that money.  It's been all carrot for like the last 100 years, it's about time to use the stick some.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 17, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> BTW guys, if we hit a 140 or 150 replies or so, I'll open up a new thread. As taleweaver mentioned earlier, a lot of the people who want to join the discussion aren't able to due to the intimidating post count and how fast the discussions been.


Realistically I think that keeping one thread is fine, unless we want to go into specific issues. I'd be happy to open specific threads if you PM me the topic, though

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TerribleTy27 said:


> The main problem is the culture. It used to be that if you were on welfare, everyone knew it. The cashier looked at you weird if you paid in food stamps. There would be gossip about that person who's so poor that he's on welfare. It really motivated people to get their arses into a job.


... I fail to see how looking down on people for taking advantage of a program designed to help them does anything other than prove that you (the person looking down on) are a gigantic asshole. Trust me, I'm a cashier and I run probably at least three EBT transactions a day, and I can assure you that I don't judge any of the customers for using it - ESPECIALLY the mothers - because it's obvious that in the moment, they need the help


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 18, 2018)

Honestly, I don't know why people would want inefficient and wasteful humans in the workplace at this point. Aside maintenance and cleaning, it not much you have to worry about with machines and they can work nearly 24/7. Work pretty much stops when a machine isn't working anyway.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 18, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Which is another term for the same basic thing, it's just that the term "trickle down" has too much stigma attached since everybody figured out it was bullshit.



No, it's really, really not.



Xzi said:


> I already posted a link to information on the Laffer curve in this thread, and it suggests 70% is the optimal corporate tax rate. If that's what he's advocating then I'm all for it.





Spoiler



ll Holcombe & Donald Lacombe, _The effect of state income taxation on per capita income growth_, 32 Public Finance Review 292-312 (2004)

F. Padovano & E. Galli, E., _Tax rates and economic growth in the OECD countries (1950-1990)_, 39 Economic Inquiry 44-57 (2001).


Christina Romer & David Romer, _The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks_, 100 American Economic Review 763-801 (2010).



The Laffer Curve simply says that tax revenue and tax rate are not linear. Like if you raised taxes by 5% then tax revenue won't nessacerily decrease or increase by anything close to 5%.

According to all those papers and empirical evidence, the laffer curve is best represented like this:









Xzi said:


> Which should simply mean much harsher punishments. IE if they're found to use tax havens, then they have to pay double the taxes they would've owed on that money. It's been all carrot for like the last 100 years, it's about time to use the stick some.



You really think that corporations don't have enough money to lobby for easier 'punishments'? Or that they can't cover up any potential investigations? The reason we use so much carrot is because you're trying to have a 1 on 1 melee with the equivalent of a bullet-proof bear. A stick isn't going to do much.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Realistically I think that keeping one thread is fine, unless we want to go into specific issues. I'd be happy to open specific threads if you PM me the topic, though
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



I'm saying that among the people who abuse the system/are too lazy to get a job, public shame is one of the most effective punishments. We encourage and pity people who are 'down on their luck' way too much in today's modern culture, espescially single mothers.

EDIT: just wanted to clarify my position. I think that welfare is the best option in the context of public schools and public services in general. However, UBI is excellent, as you can hold people accountable for not having certain public services.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 18, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> No, it's really, really not.


Everybody knows the tales of supply-side Jesus, it's definitely the same shit economic policy with a different name.




TerribleTy27 said:


> You really think that corporations don't have enough money to lobby for easier 'punishments'? Or that they can't cover up any potential investigations? The reason we use so much carrot is because you're trying to have a 1 on 1 melee with the equivalent of a bullet-proof bear. A stick isn't going to do much.


With an elected government who does nothing but bend over backwards to appease the corporate world, of course we're not going to make much progress weaning them off the government tit.  That doesn't mean there aren't leaders out there with a bit more backbone who would prefer to stand up for the working class.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 18, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Everybody knows the tales of supply-side Jesus, it's definitely the same shit economic policy with a different name.



I'm not going to argue this, sorry.



Xzi said:


> With an elected government who does nothing but bend over backwards to appease the corporate world, of course we're not going to make much progress weaning them off the government tit.  That doesn't mean there aren't leaders out there with a bit more backbone who would prefer to stand up for the working class.



I'm not saying there aren't leaders like that, but they're few and far between, besides, how would you even know if theyre really 'for' the working class? Pray that once they're in power they won't be corrupted or that they weren't corrupt in the first place? 

No matter what, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The more absolute the power, the more absolute the corruption.

This is an unavoidable rule of politics and life in general.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 18, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> All increasing the min wage will do is fuck over those on the min wage. This is an ESTABLISHED economy fact.
> 
> https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/09/13/minimum-wage-madness


The whole minimum wage debate is ridiculous. That writer you linked Thomas Sowell his book on Basic Economics should be standard reading for everyone before they vote politically on Econ issues. And I got this information from his book.

Only 3% of workers over age 24 earn Minimum Wage. 3.6 million earned minimum wage, over half was between 16-24 yrs old, 64% of them worked part time. Politicians always talking about providing a “Living” wage (“Living” an emotional word) to support a family of 4 but most minimum wage workers are not supporting a family. Minimum wage workers have an average family income of $44,000, something thats impossible with someone only working minimum wage. 42% of minimum wage workers live with a parent or some relative. Only 15% are supporting themselves and a dependent, complete opposite view that politicians push. We are essentially trying to provide a living wage to a bunch of teenagers and young adults who are not trying to support a family. 

Minimum Wage laws not only causes unemployment to rise but also a longer period that people are unemployed. This can be seen in many countries around the world. Places with no minimum wage laws have lower rates of unemployment then ones that do. Places that have government mandated benefits produces these same effects even without minimum wage laws. There are a few sites that supposedly debunks this, but they only look at businesses that survive, most close down. They are not going to ask ones that close down since they are not around anymore. So a business that survived by playing Russian Roulette doesn’t debunk that minimum wages are harmless. 

U.S. Department of Labor and Workers Unions claim that wage laws don’t cause unemployment because they have a vested political, ideological, emotional and financial interest. But when you look at what actual economists say the majority in the U.S., Britain, Germany, Canada, and Switzerland say that it does cause unemployment to rise. 90% American and 85% Canadian Economists. Dozens of Studies in the Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand shows that unemployment rises. 0 dollars essentially what people get when you raise unemployment. Not only they loose out on money, they loose out on work experience to move up the economic ladder (and the majority of people do when they get older) just to help a Bunch of teenagers who are not supporting a family get a “living” wage. Its ridiculous. They get 1 person who is over 24 on minimum wage supporting a family put him on TV just to get sympathy and votes, but this is not a majority accurate picture.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 18, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Minimum Wage laws not only causes unemployment to rise


Yeah, if only corporations could hire people on at $1/hour, unemployment would be 0%!  Then we just need to remind those people daily how lucky they are to be getting paid _anything_.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 18, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, if only corporations could hire people on at $1/hour, unemployment would be 0%!  Then we just need to remind those people daily how lucky they are to be getting paid _anything_.



That would never happen due to the fact you are paid based on the value of your labor. If company X did pay you 1 USD another company would pay you more if your labor really is worth more.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 18, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> That would never happen due to the fact you are paid based on the value of your labor. If company X did pay you 1 USD another company would pay you more if your labor really is worth more.


If the minimum wage went away, there'd be nothing stopping corporations from wage fixing.  They'd all pay pretty much the same rate for the same type of labor.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 18, 2018)

Minimum wage is an odd one for me and in no way clear cut.

Back when I were a lad there was an old dude who used to spend Saturdays with a mate in a little hut on a town car park taking tickets and making change. Telly on there with whatever (some sport I guess) and his sandwiches. Paid a pittance really but it was nice to see and that dude really appreciated the boost from what I could tell. There are also any number of classes in society that will take something, anything and most of the time I as an employer will opt for someone more capable if I can. However it is not all codgers, cripples and carers.

At the same time working a reasonable number of hours for minimum wage (never mind the zero hours contract stuff***) pretty much nails your mobility -- want to move 3 towns over to do something else? Good luck with that one. Other side of the country (for most in the US distance wise that is about the other side of the average state).... heh, classic. Going for the living wage thing then I often find it amusing that those calling for such things simultaneously call the youth of today shiftless layabouts for not buying houses (or getting on* the property market), not having kids (an expensive hobby that) or coming the other way and decrying them not buying shit they like and thus such products being retired (my favourite probably still has to be the one I saw about fabric conditioner but enough of that, though cars form an interesting case study). The "42% of minimum wage workers live with a parent or some relative" I saw in a poster above me as I started to write this would almost seem immediately questioned with "but how many would if they could?". In discussions of employment so many that want to claim their stuff is getting it done seem so quick to ignore under employment or those that more or less gave up.
If 4 and a half times annual salary is a on the edge of risky mortgage for most (to say nothing of it being a hard one -- 25 year term on that for a vaguely realistic deposit and accordant interest rates... I would not care for it) then 4 and half times 25 grand (which is something many aspire to -- 17 is about what one might expect for the classic cashier or office drone. https://www.nursingtimesjobs.com/article/nursing-differences-in-roles-and-salaries/ if you fancy a mid tier job like nursing which these days requires fairly decent up front education. Just in case someone wants to note it being a few years ago then current bands https://www.rcn.org.uk/employment-and-pay/nhs-pay-scales-2017-18 ) is 130K or so with a decent deposit (easier said than done for that one too -- if rent and council tax will take you to around the same price as mortgage then trying to save under those conditions...). That will barely get you a pot to piss in for most places, and for quite a few others may see you have to leave where you grew up** to even stand a hope. Maybe you need to get a partner (never mind that those yelling "get off my lawn" could have afforded to do it solo and probably have had a kept wife when it was their time). Housing might be a few other factors at play (the rise of buy to let, financing for not so rich people to become mini property magnates and a shrinking supply because demand far far outstrips it, to say nothing of effective limits on new supply by way of excessive regulation) but shelter is still a popular thing for people to enjoy.
Pension? Better hope national insurance is still a meaningful concept when it comes your time.
To be fair I tend to laugh at such people claiming one needs to do all that to adult but not everybody has my approach to the world. I feel for anybody trying to do classic adult in the modern world on average working stiff wages, never mind that fixed costs are also higher than they might have been (maybe you can be a functioning member of modern society without that mobile phone and broadband though). I tried it myself once -- was in a better position than many at the start, did all that was required and a bit more besides, was prepared to put in the time and effort, was prepared to make the sacrifices... still chewed me up and spat me out (or more like I pulled the cord before it got bad). Fortunately there are other ways to play if you can take being an undesirable.

*the idea of a "starter home" and moving every decade or so is odd to me. One and done is not necessarily the goal either but it almost feels like housing trying to double dip. Maybe prices will rise for just you and somewhere you can move into will somehow have stayed the same. Similarly in my token search for current prices most things in those sorts of price ranges were typically leasehold affairs.

**if you grew up in London or somewhere like Cornwall (bottom left of the UK, nice and sunny compared to most of the rest, nice beaches...) then I wish you even greater luck.

***when I saw what happens with those then the notion that the market is some kind of almost benevolent, self correcting affair... nah. Couple that with somebody that maybe got burned by loans/finance (and they push it hard and frequently ignore any kind of due diligence, thankfully the UK has not followed the US just yet into considering credit an important metric for just about everything).

I also have to note a rising tide lifts all ships so it could get to be a bit of a vicious circle. In the end I have seen people try top down economics, trickle down, bottom up.... and it is all smoke and mirrors with a lot of back handers for anybody that can or can pay someone to figure out how to game the system for them. A completely free market is a horrible master and at the same time nobody is ever going to be able to calculate an optimal solution to create a managed one (never mind predict new technologies or events that change the game -- we are already staring down the barrel of automation and a rising skills curve that probably outpaces biology). I suppose in the end I will look at the law -- it tends to have fundamental aspects that everybody agrees on, things that seem almost prescient, patches to sort an immediate problem and kick the can down the road a bit, and of course bad ideas. Such a thing seems like a reasonable plan for economics as well.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 19, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Minimum wage is an odd one for me and in no way clear cut.
> 
> Back when I were a lad there was an old dude who used to spend Saturdays with a mate in a little hut on a town car park taking tickets and making change. Telly on there with whatever (some sport I guess) and his sandwiches. Paid a pittance really but it was nice to see and that dude really appreciated the boost from what I could tell. There are also any number of classes in society that will take something, anything and most of the time I as an employer will opt for someone more capable if I can. However it is not all codgers, cripples and carers.
> 
> ...



What exactly was the point of your anecdote? It kinda wandered off midway through your post.



Xzi said:


> If the minimum wage went away, there'd be nothing stopping corporations from wage fixing.  They'd all pay pretty much the same rate for the same type of labor.



That's illegal and they would be taken to court for it. Not to mention, but those types of monopolies never last due to human greed. One of those corporations is gonna fib on the deal and the whole thing goes crashing down.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 19, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> What exactly was the point of your anecdote? It kinda wandered off midway through your post.



I thought I stayed fairly on topic for once. It was more that there were many aspects to it all (this being the discussion of minimum wage) and I am not sure any of the previously posed "solutions" had major pitfalls so I pondered some of the things mentioned, some of the things we traditionally look at members of society to do if they want to claim themselves upstanding citizens (though how much of that is worth anything any more I do not know, and frankly I am happy to see much of it die) and the implications of other things. One major aspect of that is/was buying a house so I then considered the difficulties of pulling that off on various levels of wage that some deem sufficient and adequate.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 19, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> That's illegal and they would be taken to court for it.


I mean, by the time we're considering removing the minimum wage altogether we'd be in an absolute oligarchy where the corporations set the laws for themselves.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I mean, by the time we're considering removing the minimum wage altogether we'd be in an absolute oligarchy where the corporations set the laws for themselves.



Based on what evidence? If anything (according to anacyclosis), we'd revert back to a tribal/kingship/dictatorship style government.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 19, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Based on what evidence? If anything (according to anacyclosis), we'd revert back to a tribal/kingship/dictatorship style government.


Corporations are already a well-established power in the US, we're massively dependent on them.  Some people wouldn't survive two weeks without Wal-Mart.  And considering that corporations have been pushing a subversive government takeover for decades now, they'd be happy to skip a few steps in that process.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Corporations are already a well-established power in the US, we're massively dependent on them.  Some people wouldn't survive two weeks without Wal-Mart.  And considering that corporations have been pushing a subversive government takeover for decades now, they'd be happy to skip a few steps in that process.



While I agree that they've been pushing for a takeover, it will never happen. It isn't just Walmart controlling half the senate. Its target, it's Apple, its Sony. There are many corporations vying for power and they each have have different company philosophies.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 19, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> While I agree that they've been pushing for a takeover, it will never happen. It isn't just Walmart controlling half the senate. Its target, it's Apple, its Sony. There are many corporations vying for power and they each have have different company philosophies.


Ultimately they all worship the almighty dollar.  If Republicans ever shrink government to the point it can be "drowned in a bathtub," then corporations will find plenty to agree on as our new ruling body.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Ultimately they all worship the almighty dollar.  If Republicans ever shrink government to the point it can be "drowned in a bathtub," then corporations will find plenty to agree on as our new ruling body.


The Panama Papers are an excellent example of exactly this, and I'm a lil concerned by the fact that they just kind of quietly slipped away...


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Ultimately they all worship the almighty dollar.  If Republicans ever shrink government to the point it can be "drowned in a bathtub," then corporations will find plenty to agree on as our new ruling body.



And having a big corrupt central government with tons of power is better? All a bigger government does is provide an easier springboard for corruption.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 19, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> And having a big corrupt central government with tons of power is better?


Having properly working checks and balances is better.  Not to say they're working properly at the moment, but they have in the past and they can again.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Having properly working checks and balances is better.  Not to say they're working properly at the moment, but they have in the past and they can again.



Checks and balances don't work if all three branches are corrupt.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 19, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Checks and balances don't work if all three branches are corrupt.


They aren't literally *all* corrupt, just the vast majority of the Republican party.  Vote out the corrupt ones and vote in people who want to take the ludicrous sums of money out of political campaigning.  That's the only way we solve corruption in both the short term and long term.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> They aren't literally *all* corrupt, just the vast majority of the Republican party.



that is such a massive and quite frankly disgusting generalization I genuinely don't know what to say.



Xzi said:


> Vote out the corrupt ones and vote in people who want to take the ludicrous sums of money out of political campaigning. That's the only way we solve corruption in both the short term and long term.



How would you know who's corrupt? Even the people who appear innocent and have a clean record could be pushing a corporate agenda. Heck, even if you managed to magically get a 100% clean-record-this-guy-is-Jesus-reincarnated person, they would inevitably be corrupted. humans are flawed and all it takes is applying the right amount of pressure on the right area.

The best we can hope for is having so many agendas that none can succeed and they all have to look good by bringing solid results. I.e. Higher GDP, lower unemployment etc.

As to why it should be small government, because it's much harder to lobby for less restrictions on workplace safety if there's no easy target. I firmly believe almost all of the majar problems in the US are the result of the central government bumbling around when it has no idea what it's doing(or doing it on purpose).

Basically, big government is practically never the key. Don't suggest it again. I'm willing to acquiesce on a lot of social topics, and even some economic ones. But a bigger government is one topic I'm never going to change my mind on.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 19, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> that is such a massive and quite frankly disgusting generalization I genuinely don't know what to say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's why tax information for anyone running for higher office should be a matter of public record


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's why tax information for anyone running for higher office should be a matter of public record



That feels like a breach of privacy

For real though, there are lots of administrative and practical issues that pop up once you try that I.e they buy off whoever supervises the collecting of tax information, they fake their records, etc.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It should be standard practice nonetheless, as it will at least filter out the idiots who have no idea what they got into.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 19, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> That feels like a breach of privacy
> 
> For real though, there are lots of administrative and practical issues that pop up once you try that I.e they buy off whoever supervises the collecting of tax information, they fake their records, etc.
> 
> ...


Running for public office is a breach of privacy, they'll deal with it. When you're a servant to the public, anything you do that affects them should be public record

And in terms of who does the audits, that's easy, Congress already has a neutral department dedicated to reviewing shady things going on with the financials of all three branches, including themselves. If you want an extra check in there, get the Supreme Court involved.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 19, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> that is such a massive and quite frankly disgusting generalization I genuinely don't know what to say.


It's playing out in front of our eyes in government right now, so it's actually quite specified.



TerribleTy27 said:


> Basically, big government is practically never the key. Don't suggest it again. I'm willing to acquiesce on a lot of social topics, and even some economic ones. But a bigger government is one topic I'm never going to change my mind on.


Right, because you'd prefer corporations be in charge out of some misguided delusion that we'd be afforded the same rights under corporate rule.  You've made that abundantly clear.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's playing out in front of our eyes in government right now, so it's actually quite specified.
> 
> 
> Right, because you'd prefer corporations be in charge out of some misguided delusion that we'd be afforded the same rights under corporate rule.  You've made that abundantly clear.




Governments have an monopoly on force. Corporations actually have to provide a good or service. Its not which do you trust more. It is more of who do you trust less.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 19, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Governments have an monopoly on force. Corporations actually have to provide a good or service. Its not which do you trust more. It is more of who do you trust less.


Indeed, and since goverment has to put regulations on corporations just to keep them from paying slave wages and/or crashing the economy, I tend to trust corporations less.  At least there are _some_ politicians who aren't in it just to enrich themselves and use crowd-funding for their campaigns, but the entire point of _any_ corporation is for the upper echelon to enrich themselves.  The human element gets completely ignored, and that's how you end up with Wal-Mart or Amazon working conditions.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Indeed, and since goverment has to put regulations on corporations just to keep them from paying slave wages and/or crashing the economy, I tend to trust corporations less.  At least there are _some_ politicians who aren't in it just to enrich themselves and use crowd-funding for their campaigns, but the entire point of _any_ corporation is for the upper echelon to enrich themselves.


That, and generally speaking the public doesn't get to choose who leads corporate entities


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Indeed, and since goverment has to put regulations on corporations just to keep them from paying slave wages and/or crashing the economy, I tend to trust corporations less.  At least there are _some_ politicians who aren't in it just to enrich themselves and use crowd-funding for their campaigns, but the entire point of _any_ corporation is for the upper echelon to enrich themselves.  The human element gets completely ignored, and that's how you end up with Wal-Mart or Amazon working conditions.



Actually it's due to a lack of competition, the corporations actually push for _more _regulation to prevent small business from snatching up their employees.



Xzi said:


> It's playing out in front of our eyes in government right now, so it's actually quite specified.
> 
> 
> Right, because you'd prefer corporations be in charge out of some misguided delusion that we'd be afforded the same rights under corporate rule.  You've made that abundantly clear.



Alright, calm down and stop being rude. Jeez man, you keep taking everyone's posts and setting up strawmen and its getting very annoying. You aren't going to win any arguments by attacking a sack of hay. I was not saying that I want corporation rule, where the hell did you get that from?

 Calm down or get out of the thread.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/big-corporations-and-big-government-go-hand-hand


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Actually it's due to a lack of competition


And we wouldn't have a lack of competition if not for all the anti-competitive business practices that corporations are allowed to continue.



TerribleTy27 said:


> Alright, calm down and stop being rude.


I am calm.  Maybe I'll stop being "rude" when you stop being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.



TerribleTy27 said:


> I was not saying that I want corporation rule, where the hell did you get that from?


Is there anything else that shrinking the government down to nothing could possibly lead to?  Why else do you think that's the corporate political party's strategy?



TerribleTy27 said:


> Also
> http://www.freedomworks.org/content/big-corporations-and-big-government-go-hand-hand


Yes, clearly a Koch brothers founded partisan political organization doesn't have any hidden agenda in making people believe that regulating business is a bad thing.  /s


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2018)

Xzi said:


> And we wouldn't have a lack of competition if not for all the anti-competitive business practices that corporations are allowed to continue.



The anti-competitive practices actively encouraged by big government? Sorry, big corporation disguised as big government? Almost all "anti-competitive business practice" is just the big government intentionally or unintentionally trying to regulate the market and making it harder for new business to enter the game.


Xzi said:


> I am calm. Maybe I'll stop being "rude" when you stop being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.


how am I being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith?


Xzi said:


> Is there anything else that shrinking the government down to nothing could possibly lead to? Why else do you think that's the corporate political party's strategy?


Youre hitting that strawman pretty hard, ain'tcha?

I'm not asking for a complete dismissal of government. What I am saying is that literally all central government is corrupt af by its very nature, and as such shouldn't be allowed to have too much power. State and local government are far less susceptible and so should have as much power as possible over their respective areas.

Not to mention, but youre assuming that corporations are one singular entity. Target, Walmart and Amazon are not part of some crazy alliance to take down America. They're out to get as much profit as possible as easily as possible. If a corporation took over America, suffice to say, the other corporations wouldn't be making much money. Basically they're in a stale mate. They can't flex their power to control America without risk of retribution from the other Corps.

EDIT: Just a side note here, but how exactly would corporations take over? Genuinely curious.



Xzi said:


> Yes, clearly a Koch brothers founded partisan political organization doesn't have any hidden agenda in making people believe that regulating business is a bad thing. /s


Who cares who made it? If the logic is sound, the logics sound.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 20, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Who cares who made it? If the logic is sound, the logics sound.


That's an incredibly fallacious line of thinking, when evaluating the integrity of a source. @Xzi is right in that regard, even if he's letting emotions cloud his argument a bit; an organization that's on the Koch Brothers' payroll has a tangible incentive to produce results that would benefit them. Saying "the logic is sound, so it must work" is what gets us news organizations like Fox (and, to a lesser extent, CNN) that meticulously pick sometimes misleading news stories that illicit an emotional response, and feed them to their core audience that believe it without question


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's an incredibly fallacious line of thinking, when evaluating the integrity of a source. @Xzi is right in that regard, even if he's letting emotions cloud his argument a bit; an organization that's on the Koch Brothers' payroll has a tangible incentive to produce results that would benefit them. Saying "the logic is sound, so it must work" is what gets us news organizations like Fox (and, to a lesser extent, CNN) that meticulously pick sometimes misleading news stories that illicit an emotional response, and feed them to their core audience that believe it without question



I would understand this argument if they were cherry picking statistical data or something similar, but the article simply used basic economics to show off how the CENTRAL government has so much power that it's far more worth it for corporations to push for corporate welfare* and etc rather then actually make their products good. The writer cited several examples of corporations spending absurd amounts on lobbying for stronger regulations.

*(the real kind, where the government only buys from a select few and makes it impossible for any other businesses to compete in the actual marketplace)


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> The anti-competitive practices actively encouraged by big government?


How does this make any sense?  Anti-competitive business practices are allowed a pass under Republican rule, and they aren't the party of big government.  Well, supposedly they aren't, but the party has kind of lost their identity and all of their ideology, so in the sense that they're willing to grow government to protect corporations from any sort of backlash I guess you're correct.



TerribleTy27 said:


> how am I being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith?


How long do you have?  "Giving all the money to the wealthiest citizens and assuming they'll spend it 'responsibly' totally isn't the same as trickle down!"  "All my sources are 100% partisan, that doesn't mean they're pushing an agenda over facts though!"  "Less corporate regulation = more competition somehow!"  I've got more if you really care to hear them.



TerribleTy27 said:


> I'm not asking for a complete dismissal of government. What I am saying is that literally all central government is corrupt af by its very nature, and as such shouldn't be allowed to have too much power. State and local government are far less susceptible and so should have as much power as possible over their respective areas.


A reasonable statement for once, but that's also the entire point of checks and balances.  The judiciary and other branches keep the federal government from crossing too many lines, and state governments can enact their own laws (on net neutrality for instance) when the federal government drops the ball.  _However_, states can't regulate corporations since they operate throughout the entire country, so by suggesting we shrink the federal government it's obvious you're still suggesting we need less regulation.  It's not a good idea considering the fact that we're probably teetering on the edge of another economic crash right now.



TerribleTy27 said:


> Not to mention, but youre assuming that corporations are one singular entity. Target, Walmart and Amazon are not part of some crazy alliance to take down America. They're out to get as much profit as possible as easily as possible.


Think about what you just said: they're not a singular entity, but they have a singular goal.  Yes, not all corporations support a single political party, but this can be seen largely as hedging their bets.  As I said, in the event Republicans do eliminate enough regulations or shrink government enough, corporations would find plenty to agree on as the center of power shifts to them as a collective.



TerribleTy27 said:


> EDIT: Just a side note here, but how exactly would corporations take over? Genuinely curious.


Shrinking government until it's "small enough to drown in a bathtub" is one method that I already mentioned.  Another method is that Republicans could call a constitutional convention and gut our rights that way, leaving corporations to fill in the blanks however they wish.  The Koch brothers currently have a sign off on twenty-three out of thirty governor's signatures needed for a unilateral constitutional convention to be called, they've been playing at this as a long game.

In a sense, corporations have already taken over to an uncomfortable degree.  The Federal Reserve is a privatized institution, meaning our currency and its value is privatized.  Kennedy opposed the Federal Reserve and that's one theory as to why he might've been assassinated.  He was set to sign legislation barring its establishment in the US when he returned from Texas.



TerribleTy27 said:


> Who cares who made it? If the logic is sound, the logics sound.


The logic is not sound.  Any hyper-partisan think tank is only going to use studies and numbers that back their pre-conceived biases.  You might as well have used Dora the Explorer as a source if we're settling for zero credibility.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> How does this make any sense? Anti-competitive business practices are allowed a pass under Republican rule, and they aren't the party of big government. Well, supposedly they aren't, but the party has kind of lost their identity and all of their ideology, so in the sense that they're willing to grow government to protect corporations from any sort of backlash I guess you're correct.



Again, almost all "anti-competitive business practices" Is just the corporations recognizing that the central government has a lot of muscle to flex. The corporations push for stronger regulations on the federal level.



Xzi said:


> A reasonable statement for once, but that's also the entire point of checks and balances. The judiciary and other branches keep the federal government from crossing too many lines, and state governments can enact their own laws (on net neutrality for instance) when the federal government drops the ball. _However_, states can't regulate corporations since they operate throughout the entire country, so by suggesting we shrink the federal government it's obvious you're still suggesting we need less regulation. It's not a good idea considering the fact that we're probably teetering on the edge of another economic crash right now.



First of all, checks and balances fail. They've failed before and they will fail again. We have to have multiple contingencies in the event this happens. Including limiting the governments power so they can't abuse it.

Second of all, states can't regulate corporations? Well what makes you think they have the same capability on the federal level?

Third, do I have to pull up more studies? Lower taxes and less regulation equals higher GDP and tax revenue both short term and long term.





Xzi said:


> Think about what you just said: they're not a singular entity, but they have a singular goal. Yes, not all corporations support a single political party, but this can be seen largely as hedging their bets. As I said, in the event Republicans do eliminate enough regulations or shrink government enough, corporations would find plenty to agree on as the center of power shifts to them as a collective.





TerribleTy27 said:


> If a corporation took over America, suffice to say, the other corporations wouldn't be making much money. Basically they're in a stale mate. They can't flex their power to control America without risk of retribution from the other Corps.



Alright, so lets assume, magically, the people don't rebel and quietly accept their overlord corporations? What next? Oh yeah, the only challenge to their power. OTHER CORPORATIONS.



Xzi said:


> In a sense, corporations have already taken over to an uncomfortable degree. The Federal Reserve is a privatized institution, meaning our currency and its value is privatized. Kennedy opposed the Federal Reserve and that's one theory as to why he might've been assassinated. He was set to sign legislation barring its establishment in the US when he returned from Texas.



Honestly, I have no problem with privatizing our currency, but

A: the currency has to be linked to something of intrinsic value again I.e gold and silver.

B. It has to be true privatization, not the government hands the rights over to one corporation.


Xzi said:


> The logic is not sound. Any hyper-partisan think tank is only going to use studies and numbers that back their pre-conceived biases. You might as well have used Dora the Explorer as a source if we're settling for zero credibility.





TerribleTy27 said:


> I would understand this argument if they were cherry picking statistical data or something similar, but the article simply used basic economics to show off how the CENTRAL government has so much power that it's far more worth it for corporations to push for corporate welfare* and etc rather then actually make their products good. The writer cited several examples of corporations spending absurd amounts on lobbying for stronger regulations.
> 
> *(the real kind, where the government only buys from a select few and makes it impossible for any other businesses to compete in the actual marketplace)




Also you make one more 'evil republican' insult I'm going to mute you. Somehow. Probably by ignoring you.

Seriously, I had one thing in the beginning of this thread: STAY CIVIL. And yet you are just determined to slip in red herrings and strawmen as you continue to insult the Republican Party, me, and anybody who believes in free market.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 21, 2018)

Why do you think this big companies push for all these regulations??? They know they can afford it while the little guy can't. This is how/why you get monopolies.


----------



## switchbricker (Sep 21, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Also you make one more 'evil republican' insult I'm going to mute you. Somehow. Probably by ignoring you.
> 
> Seriously, I had one thing in the beginning of this thread: STAY CIVIL. And yet you are just determined to slip in red herrings and strawmen as you continue to insult the Republican Party, me, and anybody who believes in free market.


I think you're projecting your own frustrations onto Xzi here. I don't think he ever said that Republicans are bad, just that you're using circular logic to justify a biased party being intellectually dishonest. Just because you believe it's right doesn't mean they can manipulate the public with their pre-conceived agenda.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 21, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Also you make one more 'evil republican' insult I'm going to mute you. Somehow. Probably by ignoring you.


Feel free, clearly you take any criticism of the Republican leadership as a personal insult, and it's absolutely impossible to have a reasoned discourse with a person like that.  Same deal with anyone who refuses to properly source their claims on the basis that hyper-partisan opinion pieces are somehow just as good as fact.  I suppose it was my mistake in assuming you were a little bit more logical than that at the start of this conversation, but obviously now we've hit an impasse.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Feel free, clearly you take any criticism of the Republican leadership as a personal insult, and it's absolutely impossible to have a reasoned discourse with a person like that.  Same deal with anyone who refuses to properly source their claims on the basis that hyper-partisan opinion pieces are somehow just as good as fact.  I suppose it was my mistake in assuming you were a little bit more logical than that at the start of this conversation, but obviously now we've hit an impasse.



I love how you can't actually argue against my logic so you just whine and moan about how it must be biased (as you ignore the rest of my posts and take everything I say and stuff it full of hay)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TerribleTy27 said:


> I would understand this argument if they were cherry picking statistical data or something similar, but the article simply used basic economics to show off how the CENTRAL government has so much power that it's far more worth it for corporations to push for corporate welfare* and etc rather then actually make their products good. The writer cited several examples of corporations spending absurd amounts on lobbying for stronger regulations.
> 
> *(the real kind, where the government only buys from a select few and makes it impossible for any other businesses to compete in the actual marketplace)


----------



## Xzi (Sep 21, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I would understand this argument if they were cherry picking statistical data or something similar, but the article simply used basic economics to show off how the CENTRAL government has so much power that it's far more worth it for corporations to push for corporate welfare* and etc rather then actually make their products good. The writer cited several examples of corporations spending absurd amounts on lobbying for stronger regulations.
> 
> *(the real kind, where the government only buys from a select few and makes it impossible for any other businesses to compete in the actual marketplace)


They push for corporate welfare because they want more money.  Small government just means a smaller payout, which they would not enjoy, so that's a big part of why the last couple Republican presidents have been so spendy.  Which keeps government large for almost the sole purpose of propping up certain corporations, on that we agree.  The part you continually don't want to hear is: this is _mostly_ a Republican problem.  Democrats are more concerned with worker welfare than corporate welfare.

Beside all that, the brands that the military/government buys aren't indicative of which brands succeed in the broader market.  So again: the whole _opinion piece_ is only trying to steer policy in the direction the people funding the piece want it to go.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> They push for corporate welfare because they want more money.  Small government just means a smaller payout, which they would not enjoy, so that's a big part of why the last couple Republican presidents have been so spendy.  Which keeps government large for almost the sole purpose of propping up certain corporations, on that we agree.  The part you continually don't want to hear is: this is _mostly_ a Republican problem.  Democrats are more concerned with worker welfare than corporate welfare.
> 
> Beside all that, the brands that the military/government buys aren't indicative of which brands succeed in the market.


I disagree, when it comes to government, republicans AND democrats love big government. Which by definition inevitably leads to corporate welfare to some degree, less so for democrats, sure, I'll concede.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> the broader market. So again: the whole _opinion piece_ is only trying to steer policy in the direction the people funding the piece want it to go.



And is that a bad thing? The writer was just making the point that corporate welfare is the result of big government.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Beside all that, the brands that the military/government buys aren't indicative of which brands succeed in the broader market


It wasn't just government buying. It was also extensive regulation and lobbying.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 21, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I disagree, when it comes to government, republicans AND democrats love big government. Which by definition inevitably leads to corporate welfare to some degree, less so for democrats, sure, I'll concede.


Bit of a contradiction, obviously we agree given the emphasis on "mostly" a Republican problem.  Yes, big corporations and government have become somewhat co-dependent, and you can thank supreme court rulings like 'citizens united' which corrupt the entire election process by injecting so much dark money into it.  The idea that corporations are people is absurd.  They don't have living costs.



TerribleTy27 said:


> And is that a bad thing? The writer was just making the point that corporate welfare is the result of big government.


Yes, still a bad thing.  Stop for a moment to consider that maybe they're only taking this position because the government currently isn't buying (or regulating in favor of) enough Koch-owned brands.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Bit of a contradiction, obviously we agree given the emphasis on "mostly" a Republican problem. Yes, big corporations and government have become somewhat co-dependent, and you can thank rulings like Citizens United which corrupt the entire election process by injecting so much dark money into it. The idea that corporations are people is absurd. They don't have living costs.



Wait are you talking about CU vs ECF? I thought that was a free speech issue?



Xzi said:


> Yes, still a bad thing. Stop for a moment to consider that maybe they're only taking this position because the government currently isn't buying enough Koch-owned brands



That doesn't change the logic of it. She was saying that corporate welfare is the result of big government. I think we can all agree at this point that sentence is mostly true. Nonetheless, in future discussions I'll stick to less biased sources, if it really bothers everyone that much.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 21, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Wait are you talking about CU vs ECF? I thought that was a free speech issue?


"Speech" in that case being defined as money in the form of political donations, yes.  There was another SC ruling around the same time which declared corporations to be people and have all the same rights as such.  Name eludes me right now.



TerribleTy27 said:


> That doesn't change the logic of it. She was saying that corporate welfare is the result of big government. I think we can all agree at this point that sentence is mostly true. Nonetheless, in future discussions I'll stick to less biased sources, if it really bothers everyone that much.


Again I still disagree with the assertion of it, corporations getting a smaller payout from a small government isn't worth the visible cost to average citizens (when government is spending in the right places).  Additionally, the smaller government gets, the easier it is for corporations to set regulations for themselves.

We're going to need healthcare coverage for all citizens and a UBI in the near future just to keep the economy running smoothly.  By the time the need comes we might be way too deep in national debt to fund it all, largely because of corporate payouts.  If that happens we'll hit another long economic recession or even a depression.  You can see how shrinking government wouldn't truly solve these problems, it'd be more like running from them.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> "Speech" in that case being defined as money in the form of political donations, yes.  There was another SC ruling around the same time which declared corporations to be people and have all the same rights as such.  Name eludes me right now.
> 
> 
> Again I still disagree with the assertion of it, corporations getting a smaller payout from a small government isn't worth the visible cost to average citizens (when government is spending in the right places.)



Not really. If corporations can't buy off government officials, then they'll have to improve their product and start acting like an actual business. Which will cause a serious ripple effect, i.e people start buying their product more, competition pops up, creating more jobs etc etc.

Btw, thanks for deescalating the thread back there, sorry if I was being a bit of an ass, just got a little pissed.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 21, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Not really. If corporations can't buy off government officials, then they'll have to improve their product and start acting like an actual business. Which will cause a serious ripple effect, i.e people start buying their product more, competition pops up, creating more jobs etc etc.


That's _if_ they can't be bought, though.  I'm not sure what it is about smaller government that you believe makes officials immune to the temptation of being bought.  Without the proper anti-corruption policies in mind, government can be shrunk without sacrificing any of the large payoffs that corporations are receiving.  They can just take money out of social security, medicare, welfare and etc to pay for it.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 21, 2018)

Well the idea is. If the government is smaller they will have less power. Less power means that corporations would have less incentives to buy them off. Which means the companies themselves would actually have to compete in the market instead of running off to the government and getting BS laws passed that crushes the little guy.

While corruption will never go away (unless you can create a body of government that will NEVER take a penny and will ONLY work for the people) it will be less in a smaller government due to the fact that if companies start acting like assholes another smaller company could pop up and give them a run for their money.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This is what I and I think TerribleTy27 mean when we say. "Let the free market do its thing." However I'd like to point out that when we say that we are NOT talking about the USA. The USA hasn't been free market in decades. The USA is corporatism meaning the control of a state or organization by large interest groups agro the companies BECAUSE the government keeps selling its power. Which is why I want the government to go back to its constitutional size.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 21, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Well the idea is. If the government is smaller they will have less power. Less power means that corporations would have less incentives to buy them off.


I see where you guys are going with this, but as long as corporations get more value in return than they pay out for lobbying or buying politicians, they're going to keep doing it.  Government being smaller in the past didn't stop leeches from being leeches.  To stop corporate co-dependency with government we'd either have to eliminate the federal government altogether or pass some new broad, sweeping ethics laws.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 22, 2018)

Xzi said:


> To stop corporate co-dependency with government we'd either have to eliminate the federal government altogether or pass some new broad, sweeping ethics laws.


 Ehh, very debatable. You're right, leeches will never go away. But you don't have to take it to the extreme. If you jump into a swamp lake and you're a well muscled, strong, nutritious guy, then of course leeches are gonna attack you. But if you're relatively weak, then their time is much better spent attacking a horse, or a bunny or fish or something.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 22, 2018)

[QUOTE="Xzi, post: 8292788, member: 342429"we'd either have to eliminate the federal government altogether.[/QUOTE]
Correct! That's the spirit my duder.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 22, 2018)

@Attacker3 

You an ancap?


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 22, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @Attacker3
> 
> You an ancap?



Yes


----------

