- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Discredited?
Neo marxism. Did you think your ideas were novel?
Discredited?
I used to think the way you do. After thinking more deeply about it though, I came to the realization that there will always be a certain percentage of people who are not able to get a good job, likewise, there will always be jobs that need doing which happen to not pay well, for example a hospital janitor.
The fact is, you need someone to serve you burgers, just as you need someone to clean your hospitals, teach your kids, put out fires, and a number of other things that don't pay well.
I think those people deserve to make a living wage, which to me is defined as a wage that allows those people to fully participate in the economy.
Trickle down capitalism has never been proven to work, so I think a managed capitalism is the only real answer.
No, you think exactly like I do, except for a minute difference - you think like I used to.
Of course there will always be some low paying jobs. At the same time, there will always be some people who don't do what it takes to get a good paying job. It pretty much evens out. In fact, I have not met one person who didn't deserve the lifestyle they are living, whether it be good or bad.
For the record, someday most low paying jobs of today will be taken over by robots tomorrow.
----
Anyway, more interestingly, you need to define "fully participate" for me. I don't know what you mean by that.
And trickle down capitalism has never been implemented. Democrats are against it, but Republicans don't try and implement it either.
Are you suggesting that most people are where they want to be in life? Profound insight.
I do think the job guarantee is something that needs to happen, along with universal healthcare.
I also find it intellectually dishonest to just label something "communism" and hope to get a visceral reaction opposing it. How about you attack the man's proposals on the merits?
Yes, we should fight for more dependence on the state, less personal responsibility and less protection of human rights. I hear that is working out well so far. :roll: Shut the **** up Rolling Stone.
Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For | Politics News | Rolling Stone
In Rolling Stone this former Occupy wackobird gets full coverage with his tripe. Warner Todd Hudson sums it up best in Breitbart:
"Recently Rolling Stone magazine published a story that urges the millennial generation to demand communism in America by eliminating private property, "guaranteeing" everyone a job and turning banks into state property. After finding some opposition on Twitter, the writer let loose some ideas that didn't make the cut of his article: "exterminate" the rich and take away their money and property.After reading the article published on January 3, one thing we learn from former Occupy Wall Street organizer Jesse A. Myerson is that he thinks things are bad in America today. America is so bad--or, as he so eruditely puts it, America "blows"--that he thinks it is time to institute some of the worst communist tropes in the anti-capitalist's bag of tricks, all the same boring ideas that have been proven disastrous everywhere they've been tried for over 100 years."
'Rolling Stone' Writer Wants Communism, Redistributed Wealth
All I can do is shake my head at these people....What is the matter with people today?
When I was his age, I would have said that his ideas suck, but to use his term, "it blows."
Overall, the first one might be possible, but what if the job isn't fun or stimulating enough for little Johnny?
The biggest problem with writers like the sniveling putz that wrote that Rolling Stone drivel, is that they don't realize, or understand what they are advocating. This particular weasel said elsewhere that he would like to see all the wealthy killed and their assets taken. What kind of loser, wallowing in jealous inadequacy, and self loathing looks at someone else's success and holds that against them. He is a socialist loser, the kind out Universities are churning out at record rate, and unchecked by rational people...
We'd better get a handle on these people, or the predictions of American decline is all by assured.
I used to think the way you do. After thinking more deeply about it though, I came to the realization that there will always be a certain percentage of people who are not able to get a good job, likewise, there will always be jobs that need doing which happen to not pay well, for example a hospital janitor.
The fact is, you need someone to serve you burgers, just as you need someone to clean your hospitals, teach your kids, put out fires, and a number of other things that don't pay well.
I think those people deserve to make a living wage, which to me is defined as a wage that allows those people to fully participate in the economy.
Trickle down capitalism has never been proven to work, so I think a managed capitalism is the only real answer.
I'll put a number on it.
According to UC Davis, a full-time minimum wage employee currently earns $15,080 annually. I think a living wage is closer to $40,000 annually, and we should make the necessary changes to ensure that happens.
Didn't you say you make $60k? You'd still be making $20k per year more than these guys. I'm not sure why that's unsettling to you. It's not like your taxes would go up to pay for it. I say we should institute an additional 20% tax on the millionaires and billionaires (top 1 percent) and use that money to directly redistribute to the poorest Americans in the form of a check in the mail.
It's ungodly how much these CEO's make. Believe me, they can afford to have 20 percent of their salaries slashed so that everyone else can live a decent life.
You might want $160k per year, that doesn't mean you're going to get it. All I'm saying is that there should be a floor, nobody should make less than $40k per year. That doesn't mean everyone else automatically gets a raise.
Are you suggesting that most people are where they want to be in life? Profound insight.
I'm saying at one point in the past every person made the choices they wanted to and have to live with those decisions in the now present time. Many people choose to take the easy way out, like dropping out of college, not saving for retirement, buying tv's with credit cards, etc. They have a tough day at work and walk out, they get wasted all weekend and then aren't productive half the week.
If you didn't want to work at Mcdonalds, you shouldn't have dropped out of college because you never went to class because "Life is too short" was more important than focusing on your future five years ago.
Didn't you say you make $60k? You'd still be making $20k per year more than these guys.
I'm not sure why that's unsettling to you.
It's not like your taxes would go up to pay for it.
I say we should institute an additional 20% tax on the millionaires and billionaires (top 1 percent) and use that money to directly redistribute to the poorest Americans in the form of a check in the mail.
It's ungodly how much these CEO's make. Believe me, they can afford to have 20 percent of their salaries slashed so that everyone else can live a decent life.
Neo marxism. Did you think your ideas were novel?
They can live on what they make if they control their expenses, but most don't.
So we make everyone else take a pay cut is what you are saying?
Novelty has nothing to do with how good an idea is, I don't really care about that. Neither does using words like "communist" or "marxism" scare anyone off today.
The days of the evil red bogeyman and mccarthyism are over. The Soviet Union has been gone for 25 years, speaking of novelty.
But no, income tax is hardly a novel idea.
Ok Peter, I want to break this down further, because you have made some rather insulting assumptions here that I don't think you intended, but none the less exist. So....
I worked 20 years, and maintained a clean driving record for that 20 years while driving 150,000 miles per year, and driving everything imaginable, long hours, for little pay, and OTR (Over the Road) for years to get to the point I am now. For you to say, or better dismiss that my salary now as compared to a minimum wage McD's worker with less than 6 months at that job, that they should make only $20K less than me is ridiculously insulting. What makes that McD's worker worth that much?
It is "unsettling", your word here not mine, because when you have an entry level job like fast food, or grocery store stocking, or WalMart worker, and their wage just arbitrarily raised to levels that many paths of other high school educated workforce that took them years to achieve, just because you do a couple of things...
1. You take away incentive for people to move on from these jobs, thereby increasing the unemployment problem for those entering the workforce in the future.
2. You instantly increase the cost of goods and services, because if the average fast food entry level worker is making $19.23 per hour based on a 40 hour work week to arrive at your $40K number, then the cost of every other worker out there in jobs also rises to applicable rates, ie; my job for example then rises to $76.92 per hour....And the cost of every good, or service in turn rises...So, in the end that $40K all of the sudden buy's the same as $16K does today...Then what? Raise it to $100K?
My taxes are constantly going up. Last year, I made about the same as this year...Last year I paid about $8k in withholding federally, and this year, I paid over $10K So what are you talking about?
Peter, I assume you are a believing man, after all you used to use the Catholic symbol for Christ as your avatar. Stealing from those whom have succeeded, and redistributing to those whom have not, is a failing strategy...The best way to bring these people up, is to have a more open model of capitalism.
I would ask you just who the hell do you think you are to say that someone else can, or can't afford something? What an arrogant, assuming position to take. The "wealthy" now pay something like 76% of all federal income taxes collected, and 47% pay nothing at all, and in fact get a return in the form of "earned income credits" (what a joke of a name) And you want more?
Why would ANYONE with the ability to create a successful business in this day and age do that here with thinking like yours? In your world success is punished.
Stop dancing, I didn't say novelty meant a good idea. Your ideas (im sure you think by pure coincidence) are simply already discredited neo marxist dribble.
The "red boogeyman" attempt to distract is also bogus. Marxism is alive and well.
There is a reason alcoholism is rampant in Russia. When you impart this illogic on people, cram them all into 600-sq-ft apartments in mega complexes and institute government-run "fairness", you completely kill the human spirit, creativity, zest for life, and freedom to achieve.
I mean how many examples, past and present, do these people need in order to understand this? LOL
Just because you want to call something "marxist" doesn't make it a bad idea.
I'll be on record though: Communism was evil. Reagan was absolutely right to stand up to it. But what was evil about it? The fact that it didn't allow freedom of religion, the fact that it started wars of expansion, the fact that people were starving in bread lines while the communists feasted in their homes. The system was hypocritical, intolerant, and violent.
That has nothing to do with raising income taxes on the top bracket. Apples and oranges.