• 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!

Former Soviet Union citizen confronts Socialists at an Occupy protest

1) They aren't paying taxes because businesses aren't paying them high enough wages so they are able to pay taxes. If we raised the wages of these workers, they wouldn't have to be on the government teat.

2) They don't hate capitalism. And they aren't even socialist. What they are is jobless. And they can't get jobs worth their education. Why? Because corporations don't want to pay for that.

Labor is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. IOW, it's all about supply and demand. When there is a shortage of labor and an abundance of capital, wages will rise and vice-versa.

Basically, whenever the government kills jobs, they are only hurting the working class, because the labor supply rises, while the supply of capital remains the same.
 
1) They aren't paying taxes because businesses aren't paying them high enough wages so they are able to pay taxes. If we raised the wages of these workers, they wouldn't have to be on the government teat.

That's wishful thinking. Look at countries like Sweden, Germany, and France. Even though the workers they may make more money, they still suckle on the government teat. Furthermore, how do you propose we raise the wages of the workers? Shall we mandate with the government a higher wage? Or how about we actually make the workers more valuable, so they will earn the higher wage they will get paid. People don't get that labor, like anything else, is a commodity, and it's up to the worker to make their labor appear more valuable than any of the others.

2) They don't hate capitalism. And they aren't even socialist. What they are is jobless. And they can't get jobs worth their education. Why? Because corporations don't want to pay for that.

At the heart of this problem is that a Masters of Fine Arts in Early Chinese Wheel Throwing is more expensive than a Bachelors of Science in Engineering, but people still get one all the same. For these people, their education is worthless, so being jobless is right on the money.
 
Labor is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. IOW, it's all about supply and demand. When there is a shortage of labor and an abundance of capital, wages will rise and vice-versa.

The only problem with that is we now live in a global economy, and so there can be no shortage of labor.

Corporations whined that labor costs in the U.S. is too high, so they move their manufacturing to China. And if the earlier post was correct, labor costs in China are rising, and so corporations are moving to Vietnam.

And if corporations are going to continue to this race to the bottom with regards to all wages it will ultimately hurt these businesses themselves. If corporations aren't willing to pay the wages necessary to maintain a middle class then there won't be any people who can afford their products.

Competitor: "Why do you pay your workers salaries higher than all the other auto companies pay their workers?"
Henry Ford: "So they can afford to buy my cars."
 
2) They don't hate capitalism. And they aren't even socialist. What they are is jobless. And they can't get jobs worth their education. Why? Because corporations don't want to pay for that.

They should have picked more lucritive professions. It's their own fault for not researching their career endeavors. It's just like a business man that wants to start a new business. He must way the risks. Obviosuly, alot of the OWS'ers didn't way the risks They failed to ask themselves: "What if I can't land a job in this field? How will I pay off all those student loans?". If they didn't do that, then I don't have any sympathy for them. They rolled the dice and came up craps, tough ****, welcome to the real world.
 
They should have picked more lucritive professions. It's their own fault for not researching their career endeavors. It's just like a business man that wants to start a new business. He must way the risks. Obviosuly, alot of the OWS'ers didn't way the risks They failed to ask themselves: "What if I can't land a job in this field? How will I pay off all those student loans?". If they didn't do that, then I don't have any sympathy for them. They rolled the dice and came up craps, tough ****, welcome to the real world.

So if it's their own fault they're unemployed, that means that all 9% of people unemployed are so by their own fault, and no one elses.

Which means it's not Obamas fault... :ssst:
 
The only problem with that is we now live in a global economy, and so there can be no shortage of labor.

Corporations whined that labor costs in the U.S. is too high, so they move their manufacturing to China. And if the earlier post was correct, labor costs in China are rising, and so corporations are moving to Vietnam.

And if corporations are going to continue to this race to the bottom with regards to all wages it will ultimately hurt these businesses themselves. If corporations aren't willing to pay the wages necessary to maintain a middle class then there won't be any people who can afford their products.

Then, someone is going to have to give. It's a global economy? Well, the United States will have to figure out how to compete. That's may mean that the backing off of regulations and punitive taxes, frivilous spending, etc. I know this sounds crazy, but maybe we shouldn't be pumping billions into green companies that we know will go belly up, or are located in Finland.

We have a great big energy industry in this country that creates trillions in non-tax revenue for the government. Are we taking advantage of it? Why, hell no!

A wise old man told me years ago: "You can't leave money on the table and then bitch because you're not making enough money".
 
The only problem with that is we now live in a global economy, and so there can be no shortage of labor.

Corporations whined that labor costs in the U.S. is too high, so they move their manufacturing to China. And if the earlier post was correct, labor costs in China are rising, and so corporations are moving to Vietnam.

And if corporations are going to continue to this race to the bottom with regards to all wages it will ultimately hurt these businesses themselves. If corporations aren't willing to pay the wages necessary to maintain a middle class then there won't be any people who can afford their products.

Poor people in this country seem to afford a lot just fine. And, don't forget, not all labor is created equal. I have an engineering degree, and work in a law firm, and I consider my labor to be more valuable than the average bear. My skills are my intellect and training, and I'm very proud of those. Our global economy teaches us that manufacturing labor is not nearly as valuable as it used to be. However, white-collar work is far more valuable than it ever has been.
 
So if it's their own fault they're unemployed, that means that all 9% of people unemployed are so by their own fault, and no one elses.

Which means it's not Obamas fault... :ssst:

'Where did I say that? I'll save you the trouble, I didn't. Go ahead and admit it.
 
the states WOULD have to raise taxes, but without the layers of federal bull****eacracy the federal tax burden would be significantly reduced and the resources would be much more directly managed and applied. It makes no sense to send 70 billion to the fed in taxes for the Dept of Ed for example, have them absorb 35 billion in operating costs, and then graciously return 35 billion back to the states. Medicare...medicade...we know they are being buried in fraud annually. Again...much easier to manage locally. I think if people saw their money and where it was actually going they would be more likely to vote and we would have much higher turnout at local elections than we do now (which is embarassingly low).

I'm certainly open to the idea of state-run programs. But there would be complications from the lack of consistent policy.

I know from experience that local schools bend over backward for federal monies that are so tightly earmarked they become nearly impractical for dealing with a district's core needs, which is fine for districts with a solid tax base, but tends to divorce struggling schools from funding where its most needed. The lack of local flexibility you cite is a real problem.

But the flip side: Without federal funding for Title I, why would a local district spend on such a program? It's not that the program isn't useful for a minority of students, but upgrading the bleachers at the football stadium might be more attractive. To provide a baseline education, there is some need for standardization.

So, in short, I'm open to persuasion on this issue. I'd be interested to see policy proposals.
 
As with all things... moderation is needed. I like libraries, I like the post office, I like that those who have fallen on hard times can be given a chance to get back what they lost or improve themselves. I don't like when things are taken to the extreme and the arguments for 99 weeks of unemployment are used, or those who game the system are allowed to do so. Just as there needs to be some social assistance, there also needs to be some independence and a need to be more self sufficient to balance it all out.

I agree that we need balance. I suspect the two of us might arrange the weights differently, but I appreciate what you're saying here.
 
If you folks in Canada want more socialism, then that's great, go for it. Most folks in the States don't want that and we are rejecting it.

The United States was founded in defiance and rebellion against a horrendous tyrant. Canada was founded in cowering and groveling before the same tyrant. Once in a while, we get an example, such as this one, that shows what difference this has made.
 
The United States was founded in defiance and rebellion against a horrendous tyrant. Canada was founded in cowering and groveling before the same tyrant. Once in a while, we get an example, such as this one, that shows what difference this has made.

I know.

Canada is Better :lol:
 
1) They aren't paying taxes because businesses aren't paying them high enough wages so they are able to pay taxes. If we raised the wages of these workers, they wouldn't have to be on the government teat.

2) They don't hate capitalism. And they aren't even socialist. What they are is jobless. And they can't get jobs worth their education. Why? Because corporations don't want to pay for that.
If 'WE' raised their wages... We. YOU. Go ahead...by all means...start a business and pay them your hearts content. OH...wait...you mean THEY. THEY should pay them more...right? Always THEY. ALWAYS someone elses responsibility to do what you think should be done.

No doubt there should be a change in industry and jobs. It requires industry AND labor to be a bit smarter. That doesnt excuse the students that go out and spend hundreds of thousands on college degrees without following marketing trends and pursuing degrees in viable fields. We opnl;y need so many political scientists...so many liberal arts degrees...so many chefs...etc. Regardless...you have to be a complete idiot to go to college, take out loans to pay the SCHOOLS, then blame THE BANKS.
 
"We the people" is not "I the person."

The gist I get from your Constitution is that working together will result in the greater good of society. The gist that I get from many here at DP is every man should be out for themselves. To me, it's not a reflection on the principles started by your forefathers.

You are right. Working together will result in a great country. It's weird how the Founders put that in there and yet didn't implement socialist programs to "take care" of everyone. Hmm. Why didn't they?
 
You are right. Working together will result in a great country. It's weird how the Founders put that in there and yet didn't implement socialist programs to "take care" of everyone. Hmm. Why didn't they?

Because they weren't needed in the same way back then that they are now, they weren't able to be provided the same way they are now, and it was fiscally difficult back then.
 
Because they weren't needed in the same way back then that they are now, they weren't able to be provided the same way they are now, and it was fiscally difficult back then.

There weren't any poor people? No disabled people? Orphans? Elderly?

No rich people?
 
Yeah - actually - I imagine having come from the Soviet Union he'd know a lot about that kind of thing in his life.

Yes, right - I lived in Rhondda, Cymru: decent, concerned councillors not feathering their own nests, internationalism and care for others. Hugely preferable to today's squalid 'competition' between the very rich and the rest of us - and, of course, to the USSR.
 
Last edited:
A socialist community? I'm sure it was great. Try a socialist run country... there's a difference.

Yes, the difference between existence and non-existence. The capitalists do not allow socialist countries - it is a socialist world or nothing.
 
There weren't any poor people? No disabled people? Orphans? Elderly?

No rich people?

Nope, we didn't have rich people the same way we have rich people now. The economics and social factors at work are completely different compared to what they were in 1787.
 
Yes, the difference between existence and non-existence. The capitalists do not allow socialist countries - it is a socialist world or nothing.
Then I choose nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom