Has Obama Made Us Into a Banana Republic?

[NYcarbineer]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

So you disagree with the conservative Republican tax policies that created a large class of Americans that pay no federal income tax?

I disagree with anyone paying zero income tax. You must be one of those that believes living in society means contributing to society yet supports the concept of certain people living here but not contributing.

Was that a yes or a no?

I believe that people should be taxed less on money they need for basic necessities than on money above and beyond necessity. It's really that simple.

 

[FA_Q2]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

Really?

I guess you think that being against minimum wage hikes and reducing regulation makes banana republics . There is noting further from the truth. Banana republics DO NOT exist within unrestrained capitalism. Quite the opposite - they exist within HIGHLY CONSTRAINED capitalism (and really it is not capitalism at all at that point). Unrestrained capitalism might be brutal but it actually makes a banana republic impossible.

the very idea behind such a government is that the business and government have colluded to remove competition and other possible venues of opposing power and wealth - the vrey opposite of actual capitalism. It is the height of partisan idiocy to declare the republicans as the purveyors of this idea. BOTH parties are quite complicit in setting up this banana republic and your need to demand it is a republican problem simply shows your ignorance in understanding what they are at their very core.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If this country had good paying jobs for ordinary folk, in abundance, we wouldn't need to look to the people who took that money for more tax revenue.

 

[FA_Q2]

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

You know what needs to be done about the half that doesn't pay income tax?

Pay them a higher income

You know what needs to be done to EARN a higher income? Provide skills that warrant one instead of demanding someone give you something more than what you have to offer is worth. Someone that offers $7.25/hour skills should get paid $7.25/hour. If that isn't enough to live on, don't blame the one paying what the skills are worth. Blame the one offering skills on a level of what a monkey could be trained to do.

Your pay them a higher income is a fallacy. Take the single parent with two kids earning $8/hour. You say paying him/her more would mean she would pay income taxes. FALSE. You could double the pay to $16/hour ($33,280/year) and he/she still wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

They are doing the same jobs that used to EARN them a higher income. An income they could support a family on, an income they could buy a house with, an income that could be taxed

What happened?

Republicans fought to restrict worker protections, wage increases and opened up global competition

They also sold tax cuts on the rich and had to wrap them up with tax cuts for the poor...then they complain about the low taxes on the poor

The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same skills required to do the same job 50 years ago. When the skills required to do them don't increase, the pay isn't going to change either.

.

50 years ago the minimum wage was much higher than it is today, when you adjust for inflation, which is the only meaningful way to compare.

You've just made the case for raising the minimum wage, and didn't even know you did.

lol. That only works if you fail to understand those are not the only 2 factors in wage. the third factor - the one that you are ignoring - is supply and demand. Labor is a commodity weather you like it or not and the supply of unskilled labor has rising dramatically while the need for it has dropped just as dramatically as systems are put into place that replace such workers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

Really?

I guess you think that being against minimum wage hikes and reducing regulation makes banana republics . There is noting further from the truth. Banana republics DO NOT exist within unrestrained capitalism. Quite the opposite - they exist within HIGHLY CONSTRAINED capitalism (and really it is not capitalism at all at that point). Unrestrained capitalism might be brutal but it actually makes a banana republic impossible.

the very idea behind such a government is that the business and government have colluded to remove competition and other possible venues of opposing power and wealth - the vrey opposite of actual capitalism. It is the height of partisan idiocy to declare the republicans as the purveyors of this idea. BOTH parties are quite complicit in setting up this banana republic and your need to demand it is a republican problem simply shows your ignorance in understanding what they are at their very core.

So how does more competition with China for manufacturing jobs better serve the American worker?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know what needs to be done about the half that doesn't pay income tax?

Pay them a higher income

You know what needs to be done to EARN a higher income? Provide skills that warrant one instead of demanding someone give you something more than what you have to offer is worth. Someone that offers $7.25/hour skills should get paid $7.25/hour. If that isn't enough to live on, don't blame the one paying what the skills are worth. Blame the one offering skills on a level of what a monkey could be trained to do.

Your pay them a higher income is a fallacy. Take the single parent with two kids earning $8/hour. You say paying him/her more would mean she would pay income taxes. FALSE. You could double the pay to $16/hour ($33,280/year) and he/she still wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

They are doing the same jobs that used to EARN them a higher income. An income they could support a family on, an income they could buy a house with, an income that could be taxed

What happened?

Republicans fought to restrict worker protections, wage increases and opened up global competition

They also sold tax cuts on the rich and had to wrap them up with tax cuts for the poor...then they complain about the low taxes on the poor

The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same skills required to do the same job 50 years ago. When the skills required to do them don't increase, the pay isn't going to change either.

.

50 years ago the minimum wage was much higher than it is today, when you adjust for inflation, which is the only meaningful way to compare.

You've just made the case for raising the minimum wage, and didn't even know you did.

lol. That only works if you fail to understand those are not the only 2 factors in wage. the third factor - the one that you are ignoring - is supply and demand. Labor is a commodity weather you like it or not and the supply of unskilled labor has rising dramatically while the need for it has dropped just as dramatically as systems are put into place that replace such workers.

You're the one who wrong.

Supply and demand is math. It's not morality.

 

[rightwinger]

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

You know what needs to be done about the half that doesn't pay income tax?

Pay them a higher income

You know what needs to be done to EARN a higher income? Provide skills that warrant one instead of demanding someone give you something more than what you have to offer is worth. Someone that offers $7.25/hour skills should get paid $7.25/hour. If that isn't enough to live on, don't blame the one paying what the skills are worth. Blame the one offering skills on a level of what a monkey could be trained to do.

Your pay them a higher income is a fallacy. Take the single parent with two kids earning $8/hour. You say paying him/her more would mean she would pay income taxes. FALSE. You could double the pay to $16/hour ($33,280/year) and he/she still wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

They are doing the same jobs that used to EARN them a higher income. An income they could support a family on, an income they could buy a house with, an income that could be taxed

What happened?

Republicans fought to restrict worker protections, wage increases and opened up global competition

They also sold tax cuts on the rich and had to wrap them up with tax cuts for the poor...then they complain about the low taxes on the poor

The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same skills required to do the same job 50 years ago. When the skills required to do them don't increase, the pay isn't going to change either.

What happened is those who continue to offer low skills now demand they be able to do what costs more although what they offer is still the same.

When income tax rates went down under Bush, they went down on ALL brackets fool. Now, the only ones people like you want going up are the higher ones.

The problem is that the pay to do low skilled jobs hasn't kept up. The same jobs that used to provide a living wage now require taxpayer assistance

Yes Bush sold his tax cuts because he knew they wouldn't sell as a tax cut for the rich only. He had to include tax cuts for the poor also. Those tax cuts, combined with stagnant wages moved more people into the range that doesn't pay taxes

Now, Republicans are insisting on rescinding those tax cuts they made for the poor

Surprised? hardly

 

[FA_Q2]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

When he half that pay zero income taxes start contributing something to the society from which they benefit, you'll have an argument about someone else that already contributes paying more. When a poor person that pays zero percent income taxes can get handout after handout funded by the very taxes they don't pay, they benefit far greater.

so you think deployed military and people on social security should pay taxes.

maybe you should do your homework, bubbie.

perhaps you should worry more about exxon mobil paying taxes.

Deployed military personnel?

Perhaps you should pick a new patsy to try and evade reality with. There were 1.3 million military personnel in 2013 (before the massive draw downs) and the nation had OVER 300 million people. That means military in total (not just deployed military) makes up a whopping 0.4%. Not a factor in the 50% the poster posited whatsoever.

Leave the military out of your social justifications.

 

[FA_Q2]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

Really?

I guess you think that being against minimum wage hikes and reducing regulation makes banana republics . There is noting further from the truth. Banana republics DO NOT exist within unrestrained capitalism. Quite the opposite - they exist within HIGHLY CONSTRAINED capitalism (and really it is not capitalism at all at that point). Unrestrained capitalism might be brutal but it actually makes a banana republic impossible.

the very idea behind such a government is that the business and government have colluded to remove competition and other possible venues of opposing power and wealth - the vrey opposite of actual capitalism. It is the height of partisan idiocy to declare the republicans as the purveyors of this idea. BOTH parties are quite complicit in setting up this banana republic and your need to demand it is a republican problem simply shows your ignorance in understanding what they are at their very core.

So how does more competition with China for manufacturing jobs better serve the American worker?

It doesn't.

Have you EVER seen me support NAFTA?

 

[FA_Q2]

You know what needs to be done to EARN a higher income? Provide skills that warrant one instead of demanding someone give you something more than what you have to offer is worth. Someone that offers $7.25/hour skills should get paid $7.25/hour. If that isn't enough to live on, don't blame the one paying what the skills are worth. Blame the one offering skills on a level of what a monkey could be trained to do.

Your pay them a higher income is a fallacy. Take the single parent with two kids earning $8/hour. You say paying him/her more would mean she would pay income taxes. FALSE. You could double the pay to $16/hour ($33,280/year) and he/she still wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

They are doing the same jobs that used to EARN them a higher income. An income they could support a family on, an income they could buy a house with, an income that could be taxed

What happened?

Republicans fought to restrict worker protections, wage increases and opened up global competition

They also sold tax cuts on the rich and had to wrap them up with tax cuts for the poor...then they complain about the low taxes on the poor

The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same skills required to do the same job 50 years ago. When the skills required to do them don't increase, the pay isn't going to change either.

.

50 years ago the minimum wage was much higher than it is today, when you adjust for inflation, which is the only meaningful way to compare.

You've just made the case for raising the minimum wage, and didn't even know you did.

lol. That only works if you fail to understand those are not the only 2 factors in wage. the third factor - the one that you are ignoring - is supply and demand. Labor is a commodity weather you like it or not and the supply of unskilled labor has rising dramatically while the need for it has dropped just as dramatically as systems are put into place that replace such workers.

You're the one who wrong.

Supply and demand is math. It's not morality.

And?

Where were we talking about morality here?

 

[rightwinger]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

Really?

I guess you think that being against minimum wage hikes and reducing regulation makes banana republics . There is noting further from the truth. Banana republics DO NOT exist within unrestrained capitalism. Quite the opposite - they exist within HIGHLY CONSTRAINED capitalism (and really it is not capitalism at all at that point). Unrestrained capitalism might be brutal but it actually makes a banana republic impossible.

the very idea behind such a government is that the business and government have colluded to remove competition and other possible venues of opposing power and wealth - the vrey opposite of actual capitalism. It is the height of partisan idiocy to declare the republicans as the purveyors of this idea. BOTH parties are quite complicit in setting up this banana republic and your need to demand it is a republican problem simply shows your ignorance in understanding what they are at their very core.

You missed out on those history classes didn't you?

Banana Republics existed because governments were formed to protect the interests of corporations.......let's call them Chiquita Bananas

Those governments ensured Chiquita had open access to banana plantations, low taxes, helpful tariffs and most importantly......low cost labor

Eventually, the labor working for slave wages revolted

Hence......Banana Republics

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know what needs to be done about the half that doesn't pay income tax?

Pay them a higher income

You know what needs to be done to EARN a higher income? Provide skills that warrant one instead of demanding someone give you something more than what you have to offer is worth. Someone that offers $7.25/hour skills should get paid $7.25/hour. If that isn't enough to live on, don't blame the one paying what the skills are worth. Blame the one offering skills on a level of what a monkey could be trained to do.

Your pay them a higher income is a fallacy. Take the single parent with two kids earning $8/hour. You say paying him/her more would mean she would pay income taxes. FALSE. You could double the pay to $16/hour ($33,280/year) and he/she still wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

They are doing the same jobs that used to EARN them a higher income. An income they could support a family on, an income they could buy a house with, an income that could be taxed

What happened?

Republicans fought to restrict worker protections, wage increases and opened up global competition

They also sold tax cuts on the rich and had to wrap them up with tax cuts for the poor...then they complain about the low taxes on the poor

The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same skills required to do the same job 50 years ago. When the skills required to do them don't increase, the pay isn't going to change either.

.

50 years ago the minimum wage was much higher than it is today, when you adjust for inflation, which is the only meaningful way to compare.

You've just made the case for raising the minimum wage, and didn't even know you did.

lol. That only works if you fail to understand those are not the only 2 factors in wage. the third factor - the one that you are ignoring - is supply and demand. Labor is a commodity weather you like it or not and the supply of unskilled labor has rising dramatically while the need for it has dropped just as dramatically as systems are put into place that replace such workers.

The average household income in China is a little over $2000/yr. Will you be happy when US incomes reach equilibrium with China's,

somewhere between that 2 grand and the 50,000/yr average income of an American household?

 

[NYcarbineer]

They are doing the same jobs that used to EARN them a higher income. An income they could support a family on, an income they could buy a house with, an income that could be taxed

What happened?

Republicans fought to restrict worker protections, wage increases and opened up global competition

They also sold tax cuts on the rich and had to wrap them up with tax cuts for the poor...then they complain about the low taxes on the poor

The skills required to do a minimum wage job today are the same skills required to do the same job 50 years ago. When the skills required to do them don't increase, the pay isn't going to change either.

.

50 years ago the minimum wage was much higher than it is today, when you adjust for inflation, which is the only meaningful way to compare.

You've just made the case for raising the minimum wage, and didn't even know you did.

lol. That only works if you fail to understand those are not the only 2 factors in wage. the third factor - the one that you are ignoring - is supply and demand. Labor is a commodity weather you like it or not and the supply of unskilled labor has rising dramatically while the need for it has dropped just as dramatically as systems are put into place that replace such workers.

You're the one who wrong.

Supply and demand is math. It's not morality.

And?

Where were we talking about morality here?

Thanks for making my point.

 

[kaz]

Our subservience to the capitalist has made us a banana republic

LOL, once again you demonstrate your lack of grasp of what capitalism means. Capitalism is economic freedom. How can you be subservient to freedom? An oxymoron by a moron

 

[FJO]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

Benefit is a direct function of contribution. The more you contribute, the more benefit you earn.

Hence the explanation of the inner city slums. Or Appalachian "hollers".

 

[kaz]

Hey, remember in 2006, when people were so fed up with the Iraq War that they voted Republicans out of both houses of Congress? Did the war end? Nope! Bush in fact escalated the war.

Remember in 2008 when people voted Democrats into office to end the wars in the middle east. Did the wars end? Nope! Obama in fact escalated the wars and got us into new ones.

 

[kaz]

You missed out on those history classes didn't you?

Banana Republics existed because governments were formed to protect the interests of corporations

Like Monica, you swallow. Banana Republicans were formed so dictators could dictate, Karl

 

[FJO]

When the world sees that America wastes time and energy bickering about wedding cakes, they have every right to come to the inevitable conclusion that America, indeed, has become a banana republic.

 

[rightwinger]

You can't have a banana republic without unrestrained capitalism.

The purpose of Government is to protect the corporations and create a subservient worker class

What we know of today as the Republican Party

To you, the purpose of government is to take from the one that earns it and hand it to the one that didn't all in the name of "fairness"

What we know of today as the Democrat party.

It is called contributing to the society from which you benefit. Nobody benefits more than the wealthy

Our wealthy are contributing at a lower rate than any time in the last 70 years

Benefit is a direct function of contribution. The more you contribute, the more benefit you earn.

Hence the explanation of the inner city slums. Or Appalachian "hollers".

The more you contribute, the more benefit you earn.


That would be a great society wouldn't it?

 

[rightwinger]

You missed out on those history classes didn't you?

Banana Republics existed because governments were formed to protect the interests of corporations

Like Monica, you swallow. Banana Republicans were formed so dictators could dictate, Karl

No, actually they needed to be Dictatorships because allowing the workers to vote couldn't be tolerated

The Dictators were propped up by the capitalists......until the workers revolted

Havana 1959