Progressive or Conservative

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-16-2015, 02:09 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: He's apparently ok with all other perverts.
Isn't "liberal college student" redundant ?

True...I like things in a tight little box though.

[Benton]

(09-15-2015, 11:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Conservative, slightly Libertarian.

Why?  Because the great depression showed that when faced with huge loss, working people bounce back.  Let the market dictate the economy, government inflating it only prolongs the inevitable.

Thread derailing in 3... 2... 1...


The Great Depression ended because the government picked up when private investing stopped. It did that through two factors, the New Deal (which probably lengthened the Depression but created more business and jobs which helped lessen it) and war (which brought back private investment because big wars are a great time to ramp up profit).

The market didn't dictate the economy, governments just spent a lot.

[Rotobeast]

(09-16-2015, 02:22 PM)Benton Wrote: Thread derailing in 3... 2... 1...


The Great Depression ended because the government picked up when private investing stopped. It did that through two factors, the New Deal (which probably lengthened the Depression but created more business and jobs which helped lessen it) and war (which brought back private investment because big wars are a great time to ramp up profit).

The market didn't dictate the economy, governments just spent a lot.

Nope.... they redistributed the confiscated gold.
Didn't cost them a thing

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(09-16-2015, 10:35 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: You don't feel ashamed that you have the likes of Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, etc.,  gay perverts, liberal college students,etc. on your side?
That makes sense, the only time you should feel embarrassed is if youre a conservative or agree with one.


One of your kind crapping on the American flag. 




 I'll spare the pictures of naked gay parade marchers fornicating on the street.

No, there are definitely a few liberal people who I'd rather not have on my side.  But...Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnel are not representative of the whole though.  They're extreme cases.  I'm talking about when I end up having the same view of the average, every day, dimwit conservative hill-person.  That's what's embarrassing....

[BmorePat87]

I'm a libertarian leaning Independent. I hate hippies, rednecks, and kids with neck-beards and fedoras. Things would be much better without Occupy Wall St, the TEA Party, and anyone who thinks Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders is infallible.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-15-2015, 04:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have looked at lots of progressive policies that do not take away any freedoms.

And just because the government addresses a problem does not mean we lose personal freedoms.

Everytime the federal gov addresses a problem they take away our rights little by little.

Give me three examples of progressive policies and I will show you where we lost our freedoms.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-16-2015, 10:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm a libertarian leaning Independent. I hate hippies, rednecks, and kids with neck-beards and fedoras. Things would be much better without Occupy Wall St, the TEA Party, and anyone who thinks Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders is infallible.

Those groups could all have an honest debate of the progressives werent in charge of both parties.

We really lose out from only having two parties. Really we need 4.

[Benton]

(09-17-2015, 01:51 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Everytime the federal gov addresses a problem they take away our rights little by little.  

Give me three examples of progressive policies and I will show you where we lost our freedoms.

Women's suffrage. Trust busting by Taft. Child labor laws.

All those were progressive policies. I'm interested to see how repressing women's rights, working children with no voice and a lack of competition by businesses are freedoms.

Personally, we could use a bit more of that these days. More competitive business field, clearer voting rules, student loan reform, campaign reform. All those are currently among considered progressive policies.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-17-2015, 02:06 PM)Benton Wrote: Women's suffrage. Trust busting by Taft. Child labor laws.

All those were progressive policies. I'm interested to see how repressing women's rights, working children with no voice and a lack of competition by businesses are freedoms.

Personally, we could use a bit more of that these days. More competitive business field, clearer voting rules, student loan reform, campaign reform. All those are currently among considered progressive policies.

Well child labour laws hurt the family farmers. So it stripped the rights of those who wished to work in their family business.

as far as trust busting. For example: There is no competition for my internet service. I have 1 choice. Because Comcast and time warner have colluded to not compete in the same markets. The FCC doesn't do anything and almost let them merge. ATT and Verizon have also divided up the map for TV bundled service. They never compete. .... Basically the gov is limiting competition in these cases.

And women's rights is a weak choice. But what has developed has been a hiring quota. Which takes away opportunity to the most qualified candidate. Which ironically is what the argument for this policy. But by forcing women to be hired, admitted to univeristy you have taken away the opportunity of men who have paid their dies and were more qualified. Is it right that women were over looked . Ofc not. But it's equally not right how men have suffered to "correct" the first problem. Instead of letting women break through on their own merits.

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2015, 02:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well child labour laws hurt the family farmers.  So it stripped the rights of those who wished to work in their family business.  

as far as trust busting.   For example:  There is no competition for my internet service.   I have 1 choice.  Because Comcast and time warner have colluded to not compete in the same markets.    The FCC doesn't do anything and almost let them merge.     ATT and Verizon have also divided up the map for TV bundled service.  They never compete.   .... Basically the gov is limiting competition in these cases.  

And women's rights is a weak choice.   But what has developed has been a hiring quota.   Which takes away opportunity to the most qualified candidate.   Which ironically is what the argument for this policy.   But by forcing women to be hired, admitted to univeristy you have taken away the opportunity of men who have paid their dies and were more qualified.    Is it right that women were over looked .  Ofc not.  But it's equally not right how men have suffered to "correct" the first problem.    Instead of letting women break through on their own merits.

1.  Child labor laws do not apply to family farmers.

2.  You just complained about monopolies in order to prove that busting monopolies took away your rights.

3.  Women's voting rights have nothing to do with hiring quotas, and the government has never established hiring quotas for women.

[Benton]

(09-17-2015, 02:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well child labour laws hurt the family farmers.  So it stripped the rights of those who wished to work in their family business.  

as far as trust busting.   For example:  There is no competition for my internet service.   I have 1 choice.  Because Comcast and time warner have colluded to not compete in the same markets.    The FCC doesn't do anything and almost let them merge.     ATT and Verizon have also divided up the map for TV bundled service.  They never compete.   .... Basically the gov is limiting competition in these cases.  

And women's rights is a weak choice.   But what has developed has been a hiring quota.   Which takes away opportunity to the most qualified candidate.   Which ironically is what the argument for this policy.   But by forcing women to be hired, admitted to univeristy you have taken away the opportunity of men who have paid their dies and were more qualified.    Is it right that women were over looked .  Ofc not.  But it's equally not right how men have suffered to "correct" the first problem.    Instead of letting women break through on their own merits.

First:

Quote:Minors of any age may be employed by their parents at any time in any occupation on a farm owned or operated by his or her parent(s).

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/youthlabor/agriculturalemployment.htm


Second:
Agreed. Because we stopped being progressive and started regressing. Now businesses can have monopolies for services provided they pay the government. Or, like in the case of ATT, get laws changed so you don't have to honor previous agreements that allowed you to build a monopoly. In that case, last year they got voters to deregulate them, so they would no longer have to provide a basic service to Kentuckians. Basically, so their "entry level" plan could be much higher. They told voters they wouldn't get rid of basic services in rural areas and charge more, but in one year alone they spent $165,000 on lobbyists.

Why would you spend $165,000 in one year unless you plan on making more than $165,000.

Third:
I was referring to a woman's right to vote and or hold public office. That doesn't have anything to do with hiring quotas.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-17-2015, 02:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well child labour laws hurt the family farmers.  So it stripped the rights of those who wished to work in their family business.  

as far as trust busting.   For example:  There is no competition for my internet service.   I have 1 choice.  Because Comcast and time warner have colluded to not compete in the same markets.    The FCC doesn't do anything and almost let them merge.     ATT and Verizon have also divided up the map for TV bundled service.  They never compete.   .... Basically the gov is limiting competition in these cases.  

And women's rights is a weak choice.   But what has developed has been a hiring quota.   Which takes away opportunity to the most qualified candidate.   Which ironically is what the argument for this policy.   But by forcing women to be hired, admitted to univeristy you have taken away the opportunity of men who have paid their dies and were more qualified.    Is it right that women were over looked .  Ofc not.  But it's equally not right how men have suffered to "correct" the first problem.    Instead of letting women break through on their own merits.

Wow.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-17-2015, 02:35 PM)Benton Wrote: First:

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/youthlabor/agriculturalemployment.htm


Second:
Agreed. Because we stopped being progressive and started regressing. Now businesses can have monopolies for services provided they pay the government. Or, like in the case of ATT, get laws changed so you don't have to honor previous agreements that allowed you to build a monopoly. In that case, last year they got voters to deregulate them, so they would no longer have to provide a basic service to Kentuckians. Basically, so their "entry level" plan could be much higher. They told voters they wouldn't get rid of basic services in rural areas and charge more, but in one year alone they spent $165,000 on lobbyists.

Why would you spend $165,000 in one year unless you plan on making more than $165,000.

Third:
I was referring to a woman's right to vote and or hold public office. That doesn't have anything to do with hiring quotas.

Why does the Asian family here have to hide the fact their young kids work the cash register at their restaurant? That's ridiculous. Kids should be able to work any family business without any limitations.

[fredtoast]

(09-18-2015, 09:59 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why does the Asian family here have to hide the fact their young kids work the cash register at their restaurant?   That's ridiculous.   Kids should be able to work any family business without any limitations.

So how exactly do they hide this fact.  Do they have the cash register behind a wall so no one can see who is running it?

Most state laws allow children over 13 to work in family businesses.  The only requirements are that the child is still getting an education, is in safe working conditions, is under adult supervision, and is being properly reported for tax purposes.

[Benton]

(09-18-2015, 09:59 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why does the Asian family here have to hide the fact their young kids work the cash register at their restaurant?   That's ridiculous.   Kids should be able to work any family business without any limitations.

Because.... that's not agricultural.



Really, though, two things. First, there should be limitations. Working a cash register isn't such a big deal. But "without any limitations" takes on a different meaning in coal mines, strip clubs and munitions plants. Some basic safety is needed there that no limitations doesn't allow for.

Second, as Fred mentions below, it's up to the state. Which I thought you were in favor of. If Florida has strict child labor laws, try a Democrat run state like Kentucky. You can have employees here 14 years of age or older, whether they're family or not. You can have them under 14 provided it's part of a school sanctioned learning experience.

(09-18-2015, 11:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So how exactly do they hide this fact.  Do they have the cash register behind a wall so no one can see who is running it?

Most state laws allow children over 13 to work in family businesses.  The only requirements are that the child is still getting an education, is in safe working conditions, is under adult supervision, and is being properly reported for tax purposes.

And that's just the legally part. You mention a Chinese restaurant. I've got two in my area where the family participates. Somtimes the kids ring up the register, sometimes they bring out the food. Sometimes they're just there doing homework. It's not the same as child labor in the 1800s where kids were working in coal mines 12 hours a day.

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2015, 01:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Those groups could all have an honest debate of the progressives werent in charge of both parties.  

We really lose out from only having two parties.   Really we need 4.

I realize that when you say "progressives", you're really just referring to "moderates". 

[Rotobeast]

(09-17-2015, 01:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Those groups could all have an honest debate of the progressives werent in charge of both parties.  

We really lose out from only having two parties.   Really we need 4.

We need zero.
Everyone should run on their own merit.

[Belsnickel]

(09-18-2015, 09:59 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why does the Asian family here have to hide the fact their young kids work the cash register at their restaurant? That's ridiculous. Kids should be able to work any family business without any limitations.

That may be state, but it's certainly not federal.

http://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/026.htm

Quote:What is the youngest age at which a person can be employed?

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets 14 as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work. However, at any age, youth may deliver newspapers; perform in radio, television, movie, or theatrical productions; work in businesses owned by their parents (except in mining, manufacturing or hazardous jobs); and perform babysitting or perform minor chores around a private home. Also, at any age, youth may be employed as homeworkers to gather evergreens and make evergreen wreaths.

Different age requirements apply to the employment of youth in agriculture.

Many states have enacted child labor laws, some of which may have a minimum age for employment which is higher than the FLSA. Where both the FLSA and state child labor laws apply, the higher minimum standard must be obeyed.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-18-2015, 11:58 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I realize that when you say "progressives", you're really just referring to "moderates". 

That's how messed up we are atm. We actually think progressive = moderate lol

[StLucieBengal]

(09-18-2015, 12:21 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: We need zero.
Everyone should run on their own merit.

Well yes.  But I'm trying to be realistic.