• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

j-mac said:
So then, at the lower income strata, who would work?
Click to expand...
Everyone who wanted to make more than minimum wage.

I think...danial really has odd word choices, so half the time I'm not sure what he's talking about.
 
The Mark said:
Everyone who wanted to make more than minimum wage.

I think...danial really has odd word choices, so half the time I'm not sure what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

Yes. He tries to speak in globalist intellectual pablum, but when pressed to elaborate I don't think he really understands much beyond the talking points, which is why he continually resorts to repeating the same phrases over and over.

What he is alluding to I believe is the same sort of doctrinaire bull that is heard by globalist UN socialist trash that would love nothing more than to see rich nations of the earth redistribute their wealth through things like the carbon credit exchange.

Daniel has little to no understanding of work, or what it takes to make a living and support himself, because as he answered already, he lives at home, doesn't work a job but rather gets an allowance from mom, and dad. Now, I don't point that out to disparage the young man, rather to highlight that we are trying to ultimately figure out not what he knows through experience, but likely what some socialist teacher has filled his head with. After all, Marxism always sounds good to the impressionable.
 
j-mac said:
Yes. He tries to speak in globalist intellectual pablum, but when pressed to elaborate I don't think he really understands much beyond the talking points, which is why he continually resorts to repeating the same phrases over and over.

What he is alluding to I believe is the same sort of doctrinaire bull that is heard by globalist UN socialist trash that would love nothing more than to see rich nations of the earth redistribute their wealth through things like the carbon credit exchange.

Daniel has little to no understanding of work, or what it takes to make a living and support himself, because as he answered already, he lives at home, doesn't work a job but rather gets an allowance from mom, and dad. Now, I don't point that out to disparage the young man, rather to highlight that we are trying to ultimately figure out not what he knows through experience, but likely what some socialist teacher has filled his head with. After all, Marxism always sounds good to the impressionable.
Click to expand...

I'm still kinda confused by his one-time reference to "Keynesian supply-side economics."

I mean..I'm by no means well-versed on economic theories, but as I understand it, Keynesian and supply-side are opposing theories.
 
The Mark said:
I'm still kinda confused by his one-time reference to "Keynesian supply-side economics."

I mean..I'm by no means well-versed on economic theories, but as I understand it, Keynesian and supply-side are opposing theories.
Click to expand...

All he is saying there is to redistribute wealth by using government to tax those with more, and give to those with less. Simple Marxism.
 
j-mac said:
All he is saying there is to redistribute wealth by using government to tax those with more, and give to those with less. Simple Marxism.
Click to expand...
but...haven't we been doing that for decades now?

The hell?
 
The Mark said:
but...haven't we been doing that for decades now?

The hell?
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is why he keeps saying that we already "have the Infrastructure in place" ... He simply wants to increase that.
 
The Mark said:
At first glance your statement makes no sense.

If I'm translating correctly, however, I suspect you're confirming my statement as an accurate summation of your position.

Am I correct?
Click to expand...

It only doesn't make sense because you don't understand the concepts you are trying to debate.

Why do you not believe in the laws of demand and supply?

A form of minimum wage is a market based metric. Anyone who would want to earn more than that would be welcome to compete in the market for labor, for a potential efficiency wage and perchance, even a bonus, besides.
 
The Mark said:
Everyone who wanted to make more than minimum wage.

I think...danial really has odd word choices, so half the time I'm not sure what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

words have meaning; either you comprehend them or you need to read up on the topic until it makes sense in that more cogent and concise manner.
 
j-mac said:
Yes. He tries to speak in globalist intellectual pablum, but when pressed to elaborate I don't think he really understands much beyond the talking points, which is why he continually resorts to repeating the same phrases over and over.

What he is alluding to I believe is the same sort of doctrinaire bull that is heard by globalist UN socialist trash that would love nothing more than to see rich nations of the earth redistribute their wealth through things like the carbon credit exchange.

Daniel has little to no understanding of work, or what it takes to make a living and support himself, because as he answered already, he lives at home, doesn't work a job but rather gets an allowance from mom, and dad. Now, I don't point that out to disparage the young man, rather to highlight that we are trying to ultimately figure out not what he knows through experience, but likely what some socialist teacher has filled his head with. After all, Marxism always sounds good to the impressionable.
Click to expand...

It is merely those of the opposing view who have problems with reading comprehension.
 
The Mark said:
I'm still kinda confused by his one-time reference to "Keynesian supply-side economics."

I mean..I'm by no means well-versed on economic theories, but as I understand it, Keynesian and supply-side are opposing theories.
Click to expand...

it has to do with supply side economics supplying us with better governance at lower cost; it is a form of command economics, but more efficient than our wars on abstractions such as crime, drugs, poverty, or terror.
 
j-mac said:
All he is saying there is to redistribute wealth by using government to tax those with more, and give to those with less. Simple Marxism.
Click to expand...

all i am saying is that full employment of resources should be a benchmark Standard. it is only those of the opposing view that have nothing but stereotypical, propaganda and rhetoric, instead of logic and reason.
 
danielpalos said:
It only doesn't make sense because you don't understand the concepts you are trying to debate.

Why do you not believe in the laws of demand and supply?

A form of minimum wage is a market based metric. Anyone who would want to earn more than that would be welcome to compete in the market for labor, for a potential efficiency wage and perchance, even a bonus, besides.
Click to expand...
Stop it.

I never stated or implied any such thing. Abandon your strawman and address my post.
 
danielpalos said:
words have meaning; either you comprehend them or you need to read up on the topic until it makes sense in that more cogent and concise manner.
Click to expand...
No, you need to explain the topic in different words so that I know what you're talking about.

Otherwise you're just talking to yourself.
 
danielpalos said:
it has to do with supply side economics supplying us with better governance at lower cost; it is a form of command economics, but more efficient than our wars on abstractions such as crime, drugs, poverty, or terror.
Click to expand...
That does not actually address my post.
 
danielpalos said:
no. all we have had is more government programs while decrying the sad state of entitlement mentality.
Click to expand...
That's another topic altogether.
 
danielpalos said:
all i am saying is that full employment of resources should be a benchmark Standard. it is only those of the opposing view that have nothing but stereotypical, propaganda and rhetoric, instead of logic and reason.
Click to expand...
What do you think is stopping people from fully employing their resources?
 
danielpalos said:
a lack of income under our form of capitalism.
Click to expand...
So then what is it about our form of capitalism that stops people from fully employing their resources to produce something that's in demand and will provide income? Surely we can't blame capitalism if someone decides to spend their life doing something of little or no value to others?
 
Taylor said:
So then what is it about our form of capitalism that stops people from fully employing their resources to produce something that's in demand and will provide income? Surely we can't blame capitalism if someone decides to spend their life doing something of little or no value to others?
Click to expand...

It is about full employment of resources under our form of capitalism where it only takes money to make more money.
 
danielpalos said:
It is about full employment of resources under our form of capitalism where it only takes money to make more money.
Click to expand...

What exactly is full employment in your world and where does individual responsibility exist in your world? Capitalism gives everyone an opportunity to be the best you are capable of being and that seems to bother you, why?
 
Full employment could be anything less that one percent unemployment under our current metrics. Individual Liberty should encourage individual responsibility through market based metrics from a form of minimum wage that could clear our poverty guidelines as unemployment compensation; thus, anyone not wanting to stay poor on an at-will basis could become more marketable and compete for a potential, efficiency wage in the market for labor.
 
Conservative said:
I know you told me to have a good evening and don't want to continue this discussion but your comments show someone who really has no business experience at all and never actually hired anyone. Do you have any idea what it costs to hire an employee, to train an employee, and to actually employ the employee or the regulations required for that employee? Business owners cannot print cash and have their own money invested in their business thus aren't going to hire anyone until they know the costs associated with ACA and other govt. regulations including the potential for higher income taxes due to Obama's wealth redistribution program.

How about it, why would anyone hire under this uncertainty and these economic conditions?
Click to expand...

This is the part neither the MSM nor most on the left side of the aisle or our leftist friends here at DP are willing to admit, discuss, or even look at. The fact that maybe the highest percentage of Americans ever are out of the work force now, that has been the case for months, and that percentage has been steadily increasing under Obama's economic policies. That makes the recent good new jobs report look less positive as do the 388,000 new unemployment claims this week. The real unemployment rate--not the officially published public one--is something between 12 and 15 percent.

And why isn't it getting better? For exactly the reasons you listed. Business owners are simply not willing to risk their finite investment capital when they don't KNOW what their liabilities are going to be and don't have a reasonable expectation for a reasonable return on their investment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom