Planned Parenthood: New Video

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2015, 07:04 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I don't think you know what capitalism is, and if you do, I've seen plenty of posts where you've argued against profits, big business, and the wealthy. 

Comical. 

Please continue educating me on what capitalism is and what a large supporter of it that you are.  

Comical?  Really?

The only thing comical is when you keep making stuff up.

Capitalism is a free-market economy that depends on private ownership of businesses.  It is the best system because competition between private parties leads to higher profits, efficiency, and advancements in production.

Now post a link where I said something differnt or STFU.  There comes a point where I actually have to call out people like you.  I enjoy coming here for debates, but I can't spend all of my time dealing with liars and buffoons like yourself.  So I am flat out saying that you are lying nd I challenge you to prove that I support communism. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 07:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Comical?  Really?

The only thing comical is when you keep making stuff up.

Capitalism is a free-market economy that depends on private ownership of businesses.  It is the best system because competition between private parties leads to higher profits, efficiency, and advancements in production.

Now post a link where I said something differnt or STFU.  There comes a point where I actually have to call out people like you.  I enjoy coming here for debates, but I can't spend all of my time dealing with liars and buffoons like yourself.  So I am flat out saying that you are lying nd I challenge you to prove that I support communism. 

(07-14-2015, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The generation that has not been duped into accepting exploitation at the hands of the wealthy elite. 

(07-15-2015, 09:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is the first step.

We have to get past all the people who claim it doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter before we can do anything to address the problems.

Right now there are too many people who think poor people are living the high life with nice cars, plasma TVs, and cell phones without ever having to work.  That type of rhetoric is what is preventing people from wanting to do anything about income inequality.  The fact is that many people who work very hard live in poverty and die young because of it.

We have to convince the voters that poverty really is bad before we can ever do anything to help the situation.

(07-16-2015, 02:21 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have driven through a lot of government housing projects in my day (don't ask), and I didn't see ANY nice cars parked there. 

I know that there is a lot of abuse going on, but usually unless people are involved in illegal activity they are still not getting by so well that people with jobs would quit to join them.

The problem is that people on the right and the programmers at Fox news convince people that EVERY person receiving government benefits is a lazy crook with tons of money.  the fact is that there are a lot of people working hard at minimum wage jobs who struggle to get by from day to day.

(08-13-2015, 07:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  Living wage would be adjusted by location.

2.  Costs of goods and services would not have to increase that much because...(1) Labor is only a fraction of the cost. (2) Only a fraction of the workers would get substantial raises.  (3) Businesses have been able to give their highest management HUGE raises without driving up prices.  Our economy worked just fine in 1965 when the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20 to 1.  So why does it have to be close to 300 to 1 today?  Instead of raising prices they could just spread around the money they have been pumping into the pockets of their highest paid employees.

3.  Yes.  the number one goal of mandating a living wage would be to reduce the burden of taxpayers.  It isnb't fair for large corporations to make huge profits and not pay their employees enough to live on then expect the taxpayers to make up the difference.

(08-13-2015, 08:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: After you set a minimum wage then let the market decide what an employee is worth.  Personally I don't see why CEOs now get paid 300 times what the average worker makes when things worked just fine back in 1965 when the CEOs only made 20 times more.

If minimum wage is $12 an hour that is only $24K a year.  If a manger is twice as valuable as an entry level worker then pay him $48K a year, but if he really is not producing twice the profits of an entry level employee than don't pay him twice as much.  If you are managing your store properly then he should not be able to leave and get paid a lot more for the same work some place else.  Let the market set the wages above minimun wage instead of just letting people say "I am worth this much".  Pay an employee what he is worth instead of what he thinks he is worth.

(08-13-2015, 08:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If every business pays a person what he is worth instead of what he thinks he is worth the market will balance out.  Set a baseline and go from there.



Actually the liberal ideas are what have saved the middle classes.  Before we had government regulation we had the wealthy barons of the industrial revolution amassing huge fortunes while the lower and middle classes struggled.  We had children working in factories for pennies a day.  We had coal minors working in poison air, and factory workers getting torn up in dangerous machinery.  

And we are headed in that direction again.  Over the last three decades the rich have gotten much richer while the middle and lower class wages have stagnated.  And while our government gives millions of dollars of subsidies to corporate farmers, and spends millions to bail out financial institutions, and give millions of dollars of military aid to foreign countries just to protect corporate overseas interests there are still people who think it is insane to give money to poor children who don't have anything to eat.

(08-13-2015, 09:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: As long as their wealth is taxed when they acquire it then I don't care if they never have any more income.

But actually most wealthy people have investments that are generating income.

(08-14-2015, 09:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't care if everything is distributed equally, and it doesn't require any sort of magic.  All I want is a tax structure and/or a minimum wage that makes sure that the lower and middle classes in our society are not living in abject poverty while all economic gains go to the people are the very top.  That is where we are headed.  

Why are you satisfied to see the wages of the middle class remain stagnate over the last 30 years while the people at the top have had massive gains in income?  Don't you realize what that will mean in another 50 years?  

And of course I understand the difference between income tax and capital gains.  Do you?  Do you know that capital gains are taxable?  Do you understand that dividends and many other forms of investment income are not capital gains?

At some point Bill Gates received every dollar he has ever spent.  If it is taxed when he acquires it then it is covered.  Then the rest could be covered by estate taxes when he dies, or by wealth transfer taxes when he gives it to other people.  The portion he donates to charity will not be taxed, but I am fine with that.

(08-14-2015, 06:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Raise minimum wage.

Remove certain deductions allowed for corporate taxes.

Increase tax rate on top bracket, or create a new higher tax bracket.

Raise the tax rate on capital gains.

Create a government run health care program for all citizens.

Use the additional tax revenue to help the lower classes through support programs instead of direct cash payments (education, health care, transportation, child care, etc)

These posts are all from one thread. 

None of these posts suggest that you are a supporter of true capitalism, but keep saying that you're right.  I suppose that counts for something.

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2015, 08:32 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: These posts are all from one thread. 

None of these posts suggest that you are a supporter of true capitalism, but keep saying that you're right.  I suppose that counts for something.

None of them show a preference to true socialism, either. They point to regulated capitalism. Regulation does not equate to socialism.

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2015, 08:32 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: These posts are all from one thread. 

None of these posts suggest that you are a supporter of true capitalism, but keep saying that you're right.  I suppose that counts for something.

Do you honestly think that it is impossible to be in favor of capitalism and still oppose the exploitation of labor?

Are you a "true" capitalist?  Do you support monopolies, price fixing, and slave labor?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 08:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: None of them show a preference to true socialism, either. They point to regulated capitalism. Regulation does not equate to socialism.

Regulated capitalism is things like EPA rules, fire codes, OSHA (all good things, provided that they aren't overreaching for a political means). 

Wealth redistribution is not regulated capitalism.  MW laws are not regulated capitalism.  Single payer health care for all Americans is not regulated capitalism.  Progressive tax rates are not regulated capitalism. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2015, 08:56 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Regulated capitalism is things like EPA rules, fire codes, OSHA (all good things, provided that they aren't overreaching for a political means). 

Wealth redistribution is not regulated capitalism.  MW laws are not regulated capitalism.  Single payer health care for all Americans is not regulated capitalism.  Progressive tax rates are not regulated capitalism. 

They aren't socialism, though. If you think they are you may not understand the difference between social policies and socialist policies. There is a reason there is something called welfare capitalism.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 08:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Are you a "true" capitalist?  Do you support monopolies, price fixing, and slave labor?

I'm a large supporter of the free market.  Does that mean that I advocate for the strawman arguments that you made above? 

No, of course not.  There has to be things that I mentioned above, OSHA standards, EPA standards, fire codes, zoning laws, etc...these are all good things that are necessary provided that the arms of groups like the EPA aren't used as a political arm. 

It's funny how you'll oppose every monopoly in the history of America except for the one that has more unchecked power and authority than any other. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 08:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They aren't socialism, though. If you think they are you may not understand the difference between social policies and socialist policies. There is a reason there is something called welfare capitalism.

Wealth redistribution is wealth redistribution regardless of whatever ideology you want to associate it with. 

The problem with all of these policies is that the middle class continues to get shrunk and pay the costs associated with this through increased tax hikes, wage freezes, job losses, and the price of goods and services escalating. 

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2015, 09:01 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm a large supporter of the free market.  Does that mean that I advocate for the strawman arguments that you made above? 

No, of course not.  There has to be things that I mentioned above, OSHA standards, EPA standards, fire codes, zoning laws, etc...these are all good things that are necessary provided that the arms of groups like the EPA aren't used as a political arm. 

It's funny how you'll oppose every monopoly in the history of America except for the one that has more unchecked power and authority than any other. 

Its funny how you can not keep your argument straight from one post to another.

I support a regulated form of capitalism and that makes me a communist.

You support a regulated form of capitalism and that makes you a "large supporter of the free market".

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2015, 09:07 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Wealth redistribution is wealth redistribution regardless of whatever ideology you want to associate it with. 

The only wealth distribution going on in the UNited States is the wealthy elite getting abigger and bigger share of the wealth every year.

(08-25-2015, 09:07 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: The problem with all of these policies is that the middle class continues to get shrunk and pay the costs associated with this through increased tax hikes, wage freezes, job losses, and the price of goods and services escalating. 

And this is exactly the problem that I want to address.  I have repeatedly pointed out that one of my biggest goals is to preserve the middle class.  If we continue down the path we are right now eventually the middle class will disappear and there will just be a miniscule percentage of the population controlling almost all of the wealth.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 09:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Its funny how you can not keep your argument straight from one post to another.

I support a regulated form of capitalism and that makes me a communist.

You support a regulated form of capitalism and that makes you a "large supporter of the free market".

Yeah, please highlight any posts of mine where I've called for forced wealth redistribution, socialized health care, higher tax rates, or some of the other things you have advocated for, and then you can compare me being in favor of regulated capitalism as equal to your own warped version. 

Thanks in advance.  

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2015, 09:24 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yeah, please highlight any posts of mine where I've called for forced wealth redistribution, socialized health care, higher tax rates, or some of the other things you have advocated for, and then you can compare me being in favor of regulated capitalism as equal to your own warped version. 

Thanks in advance.  

Show me where adjusting tax policy or raising minimum wage makes me a communist.

Thanks in advance.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 09:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Show me where adjusting tax policy or raising minimum wage makes me a communist.

Thanks in advance.

You're right.

It makes you more ignorant than it does communist.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2015, 09:07 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Wealth redistribution is wealth redistribution regardless of whatever ideology you want to associate it with. 

The problem with all of these policies is that the middle class continues to get shrunk and pay the costs associated with this through increased tax hikes, wage freezes, job losses, and the price of goods and services escalating. 

There are ways to make it happen without that. But we often like to ignore that. There is a reason 70% of economists are in favor of redistribution. It may have to do with the correlation between income inequality and a whole host of problems, especially in the health of the population, which causes many more issues for the country. Much like what we are seeing now and caused the crap attempt at health care reform.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 09:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are ways to make it happen without that. But we often like to ignore that. There is a reason 70% of economists are in favor of redistribution. It may have to do with the correlation between income inequality and a whole host of problems, especially in the health of the population, which causes many more issues for the country. Much like what we are seeing now and caused the crap attempt at health care reform.

ACA was nothing more than more corporatism.  I think you know that though.

I've agreed and posted often that something does need to be done about healthcare, but I don't believe that UHC or socialized medicine in any form is the way to solve it. 

Over-regulations have something to do with the increased costs.  Greed has something to do with the increased costs.  Rates being dictated to doctors and hospitals by medicare and medicaid have something to do with the increased costs. 

I don't trust the government enough to put them completely in charge of health care. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2015, 09:59 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: ACA was nothing more than more corporatism.  I think you know that though.

I've agreed and posted often that something does need to be done about healthcare, but I don't believe that UHC or socialized medicine in any form is the way to solve it. 

Over-regulations have something to do with the increased costs.  Greed has something to do with the increased costs.  Rates being dictated to doctors and hospitals by medicare and medicaid have something to do with the increased costs. 

I don't trust the government enough to put them completely in charge of health care. 

That's fine, it wasn't my argument that the government should be in charge of it, nor was I pointing out anything to the contrary of what you stated here. Not really sure why you went off on this tangent (which is admittedly a tangent of a tangent of a tangent at this point with this thread).

I was merely pointing out that economic inequality in a country is seen as a major contributor to things like obesity, mental illness, and other health issues. It causes rises in crime and a lack of a sense of community (ever hear old timers talk about missing that from their years?). It causes increased consumer debt which impacts the economy overall and makes the problem worse. It also leads to less participation in social and civic participation. What was it last year? Lowest voter turnout since 1942?

Economic inequality is a problem, a very serious one. It is a threat to the democratic and republican forms of government. It is a threat to nations. It is a threat to the people. How does economic inequality get solved? Redistribution of income/wealth. Latch onto it as the right wing's current evil to fight against, it's economics. It's why 70% of economists are in favor of it. For the sustainable, long term, survival of this nation and our economy it has to happen in some form no matter how much some people would like to deny it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-25-2015, 01:06 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yeah, just like LBJ saying with the passing of the Great Society that "we'll have them n*****s voting for us for the next 200 years", but yet black people overwhelmingly vote democrat. 

Heck, this same Democrat party has convinced Americans that black people are too incapable to procure an ID in order to vote and ensure legitimate elections when they claim that voter ID laws are racist. 

Outstanding job of not even attempting to address the point made.  Or are you actually flat out saying that black people are not capable of seeing through deceit and need white crusaders like you to aid them in that regard?  Your posts definitely read that way, I'm just wondering if you realize that.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-26-2015, 10:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Outstanding job of not even attempting to address the point made.  Or are you actually flat out saying that black people are not capable of seeing through deceit and need white crusaders like you to aid them in that regard?  Your posts definitely read that way, I'm just wondering if you realize that.

I didn't see a point to address, for starters.

I don't claim to be a white crusader.  I'd consider someone that is a white crusader is someone that thinks so little of black people that they don't think they're capable of things like procuring an ID to vote, or that any talk of shrinking social programs is racism. 

Yes, I do think a lot of blacks vote based on what party will do the most for them.  Most whites vote for the same reason. 

I don't see any noble crusade in making that claim, your lame attempt at playing the race card notwithstanding. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-26-2015, 10:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Economic inequality is a problem, a very serious one. It is a threat to the democratic and republican forms of government. It is a threat to nations. It is a threat to the people. How does economic inequality get solved? Redistribution of income/wealth. Latch onto it as the right wing's current evil to fight against, it's economics. It's why 70% of economists are in favor of it. For the sustainable, long term, survival of this nation and our economy it has to happen in some form no matter how much some people would like to deny it.

Sounds like collectivism to me. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-26-2015, 12:00 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Sounds like collectivism to me. 

Is it? How much do your individual freedoms matter in a plutocracy?