The Left " Cosnpires to Produce a Compliant and Unaware Citizenry "

eohrnberger said:

I never said that.

Click to expand...

Yes, you did. You said "All they are really doing is shifting more power and influence from the private sector to the government, not something I think is best." Implying that the private sector doesn't already have power and influence over the government. That's why I laughed out loud at your post. Because it's ridiculous.

Seriously, just because you and your social justice warrior ideology don't like the fact that the market places a certain value on certain type of work being performed, you somehow feel it's the government's job to disrupt it with overt and destructive influence by the force of the government gun.

Click to expand...

When you argue like this against raising wages, all you're really doing is proving that capitalism is structurally unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.

Little do you realize that even if the government went and did just as you believe it should, the market would react and respond probably in exactly opposite of what you want.

Click to expand...

Look man, I don't work on assumptions. That's your guys' deal. The assumption that cutting taxes will somehow translate to increased spending. That premise, in and of itself, is false. It's false because we know that household debt skyrocketed when taxes were cut. We also know that household debt declined when taxes were raised. So it seems to me that we already know how the market responds to such things, and it doesn't respond the way you theorize it does. And let's be clear; everything from you guys is just theory. It's not grounded in any fact or evidence. It's grounded in your unflappable belief that you are right. That's called arrogance, friend.

Case in point are the minimum wage mandated in DC and Seattle (? Might be San Fran). In both cases, there are now fewer workers working fewer hours each week.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's a bad thing, why? You don't think people should spend time with their families? Aren't you the party always belaboring the death of the family? So square that circle for me; how can you be pro-family, but think people should work more hours for less pay, spending less time with their families?

Since the people now earn less

Click to expand...

You sure about that? The difference of higher wages on fewer hours from lower wages on more hours probably nets close to zero. We already know that raising the minimum wage didn't affect prices, despite repeated clamoring from the peanut gallery that it would.

The fiscal reality and fiscal responsibility doesn't change whether it's personal or government debt. Debt is debt

Click to expand...

No. It. Isn't.

eohrnberger said:

And liberals have given us the most corrupt, hell a criminal POTUS candidate.
Hillary's campaign has coordinated with it's SuperPACs, this is violation of FEC regulations / laws.
Hillary ordered deletion of evidence under both a congressional maintain evidence order as well as a Congressional subpena. That's a felony.
Hillary's tenure as SoS was a long lit of foreign business and national leaders Paying to Play and getting favors.
Hillary and the DNC are possibly connected to paid for dark operatives with orders to cause outbreaks of violence at otherwise peaceful political events.

Click to expand...

Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree here. I don't like Hillary. I don't defend her. I voted for Sanders. But one thing's for sure; Trump is unfit to serve as President and must be kept from the Oval Office at all costs.

And BTW - we were talking about wasteful government spending.

Incisor said:

Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree here. I don't like Hillary. I don't defend her. I voted for Sanders. But one thing's for sure; Trump is unfit to serve as President and must be kept from the Oval Office at all costs.

And BTW - we were talking about wasteful government spending.

Click to expand...

At the cost of putting the most corrupt politician in US history in as POTUS? I think I'd rather have a 1 term Trump.

Incisor said:

OK, but here's the thing...as we've cut taxes over the last 35 years, corporations have not passed those gains on to the workers. Which is why wages have stagnated over the same period. So we cut taxes, "letting people keep what they've earned", and the result? Skyrocketing household debt and stagnant wages. So I think we can all agree that the tax cut experiment has failed because it's built on faulty reasoning...namely that if people get a tax cut, they increase their spending. Not the case in 35 years of doing it, and it will never work. If it hasn't worked in the last 35 years, why would it start working now?
. . .
Your theory-based fantasy is not reality. And if you notice, all your arguments boil down to your theory. The theory being that if "people are allowed to keep more of what they earn", that they in turn spend what they've earned in the economy. But that theory has no evidence to support it. It's just something you feel in your gut to be true, because you want it to be. But it's not true. Our economy performs better when tax rates on the wealthy are higher, and when the social safety net is stronger.

Click to expand...

Oh how dare people and businesses not do what you want them to do! That's outrageous.

So we'll have to get the government to force them to do what you want.

Thanks, but I'll pass.

The government needs to stay the hell out of it for a change. The government should stride to NOT be the biggest entity in the economy. It should stride to be the smallest, with the least amount of impact. The control that it relinquishes would, and should, go to the individual.

eohrnberger said:

At the cost of putting the most corrupt politician in US history in as POTUS? I think I'd rather have a 1 term Trump.

Click to expand...

Most corrupt? Well that's a stretch given Nixon, Reagan (who had how many members of his administration end up guilty of corruption charges?), and Bush the Dumber (ditto question). Hillary Clinton is an experienced plutocrat who will probably do just fine. She's been preparing for this her whole life. She's basically Tracey Flick from the movie Election. I know that in her hands, the country will not descend into Idiocracy. Can't say the same thing about Conservatives or Trump.

Jetboogieman said:

Oh my Fenton.

To sink so low as to use Infowars.

Wow...

Click to expand...

I am coming across 2-3 InfoWars threads on average per day. Truly unsettling.

eohrnberger said:

Oh how dare people and businesses not do what you want them to do! That's outrageous

Click to expand...

Thank you for proving that business does not hold the interests of the citizenry as highly as it holds its own interests. That's precisely why we need government to protect us from capitalism which does not take the interests of the citizenry into account. I don't know from where this belief that for-profit = good and government = bad. It seems like a false bill ogf goods you were sold so you don't question when the company you work for pays its executives massive bonuses, but can't seem to find a way to give you a raise.

The government needs to stay the hell out of it for a change. The government should stride to NOT be the biggest entity in the economy. It should stride to be the smallest, with the least amount of impact. The control that it relinquishes would, and should, go to the individual.

Click to expand...

Consumer spending is 70% of our economy, and government is not "striving" to be the biggest entity in the economy. It isn't and it won't be. And why should it stride to be the smallest? What's the reasoning there?