So you want better paying jobs?

[danielpalos]

You are confusing poverty with simply being poor...

Will you PLEASE shut the fuck up, you incessant moronic idiot?

nothing but fallacy for your Cause; how much is that worth?

 

[Correll]

Not true.

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

I believe that "the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair."

But, IMO, that is because of Trade and Immigration policies designed looking at the economy as a whole and not at a breakdown of how it hits smaller groups WITHIN the US.

And the answer, in my opinion is NOT "redistribution of wealth" but trade policy and immigration policy designed with the interests of the US Middle Class as the primary goal.

actually; i believe we should start with basic metrics and benchmark Standards. there is no reason to not abolish simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through a form of minimum wage that can be applied for on an at-will basis whenever labor can claim to be unemployed.

I am not sure of your usage of the terms Basic metrics and benchmark standards, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, claim to be unemployed.

Other than that you seem to think that we can legislate reality without concerns of cost.

Which is obviously incorrect.

The money available to the US government is finite.

It is about the laws of demand and supply; and full employment of resources as a benchmark standard.

Why do you believe solving for simple poverty would have any harmful effect you may claim, in the private sector. What private sector would be worse off, if more potential customers have more money to buy more goods and services?

hearsay and soothsay is just that; when is the right going to have more than merely fallacy to work with.

This statement "full employment of resources as a benchmark standard." has no obvious meaning.

If by "solving simply poverty" you mean a Guaranteed Minimum Income, the problems would be, off the top of my head, huge costs to be paid with huge taxes and the creation of a large and ever growing dead weight population that contributes nothing but social problems such as crime and violence.

The Private sector would be worse off due to supporting this new huge government program, when we are already in the deep red already, and due to the negative effects of this on the social fabric I touched on above.

 

[Correll]

I am merely recommending solving simple poverty

China just solved 40% of the world's poverty by switching to capitalism, not by putting people on the liberal dole.

China solved a lot of poverty by switching to Mercantilism and tapping into the Fountain of Wealth Creation that is the United States Economy.

there should be no official poverty in any command economy.

And yet every command economy has or had poverty.

Either everyone who has every been in charge of a Command Economy has been doing it wrong, or your understanding of the capabilities of a Command Economy is mistaken.

My point that much of China's success in dealing with it's poverty is because of the Wealth created here and transferred there stands.

 

[danielpalos]

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

I believe that "the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair."

But, IMO, that is because of Trade and Immigration policies designed looking at the economy as a whole and not at a breakdown of how it hits smaller groups WITHIN the US.

And the answer, in my opinion is NOT "redistribution of wealth" but trade policy and immigration policy designed with the interests of the US Middle Class as the primary goal.

actually; i believe we should start with basic metrics and benchmark Standards. there is no reason to not abolish simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through a form of minimum wage that can be applied for on an at-will basis whenever labor can claim to be unemployed.

I am not sure of your usage of the terms Basic metrics and benchmark standards, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, claim to be unemployed.

Other than that you seem to think that we can legislate reality without concerns of cost.

Which is obviously incorrect.

The money available to the US government is finite.

It is about the laws of demand and supply; and full employment of resources as a benchmark standard.

Why do you believe solving for simple poverty would have any harmful effect you may claim, in the private sector. What private sector would be worse off, if more potential customers have more money to buy more goods and services?

hearsay and soothsay is just that; when is the right going to have more than merely fallacy to work with.

This statement "full employment of resources as a benchmark standard." has no obvious meaning.

If by "solving simply poverty" you mean a Guaranteed Minimum Income, the problems would be, off the top of my head, huge costs to be paid with huge taxes and the creation of a large and ever growing dead weight population that contributes nothing but social problems such as crime and violence.

The Private sector would be worse off due to supporting this new huge government program, when we are already in the deep red already, and due to the negative effects of this on the social fabric I touched on above.

sure it does; as any form of weight and measure. one hundred percent is a Standard.

I mean recourse to a form of minimum wage as unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Is Capitalism really that Useless to the Right?

 

[danielpalos]

I am merely recommending solving simple poverty

China just solved 40% of the world's poverty by switching to capitalism, not by putting people on the liberal dole.

China solved a lot of poverty by switching to Mercantilism and tapping into the Fountain of Wealth Creation that is the United States Economy.

there should be no official poverty in any command economy.

And yet every command economy has or had poverty.

Either everyone who has every been in charge of a Command Economy has been doing it wrong, or your understanding of the capabilities of a Command Economy is mistaken.

My point that much of China's success in dealing with it's poverty is because of the Wealth created here and transferred there stands.

I am not sure what you mean; socialism may require a work ethic, not voluntary capitalism.

 

[Correll]

Right now a lot more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class.

Not true.

View attachment 49195

Depending on the local, 75k seems a low number to be considered upper income...

I don't understand your point. The graphic shows where the so-called "middle class" are going. Now you want to get anal over the parameters of the graphic but I can't change that. Some number had to be used to distinguish between low-middle-high and $25k-$75k seems to be reasonable parameters for "middle income" to me.

The data clearly shows the number of families below $25k are declining since 1967. The number of families below $75k are also declining. Where are they going? The graphic clearly shows you where they are going.

So when you say "more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class" that's just not correct according to the US Census Bureau statistics since 1967.

My point is that your graph seem contrary to most data I have seen that shows wage stagnation for middle class workers.

And I do not believe that more people are descending that ascending, I think the group as a whole is stagnating.

I want increasing wages for the Middle Class and Working Poor.

Well that's because my graph didn't have anything to do with wages for some mythical "worker class" that we don't have in America. It is showing you the movement in percentage of families in various economic levels. We have a free enterprise system whereby people don't have to be "workers" in America, they can be Bosses!

Across the kingdoms and dictatorships of Europe and Asia in the 19th century, this wasn't the case... people were born into the "worker class" and that's where they remained all their life. It was in this environment your heroes developed all this emotive bullshit you spew about "the workers" today. It's not relevant here because if you're not happy with your situation as a "worker" you can be something else. You have that freedom.

In your brainwashed little mind, you somehow assume that "middle class" families are the same group of people across a period of time and that's simply not true. People move up from poor to middle class, people move from middle class to wealthy, people move from wealthy to middle class. In some rare cases, people can skip middle class altogether and go from rich to poor or poor to rich. This dynamic is fluid and changes every single day. So when you talk about "the middle class" it's NOT the same people. It's a mythical group that doesn't exist. Created solely for the purpose of promoting class warfare because that is how Socialism is packaged, promoted and sold to useful idiots such as yourself.

I want every American to prosper and succeed, to reach their best potential, to use their talents and skills in a vibrant free market capitalist system which allows them the freedom of enterprise. I want our policies to encourage and promote that at every level. I want the pity trips and victim mentality to be replaced with motivations and maybe even a little 'tough love' when needed, in order to revive the human spirit.

I am not advocating Class Warfare.

The "Middle Class" is a real socio-economic group of people in the "middle" between rich and poor.

Yes, in the US today, it is far more fluid than in the past in Europe.

None of that means that we should not consider their interests when crafting National Polices such as Economic, Trade or Immigration Policy.

Most Data I have seen has shown stagnating Middle Class incomes.

 

[Correll]

You are confusing poverty with simply being poor...

Will you PLEASE shut the fuck up, you incessant moronic idiot?

nothing but fallacy for your Cause; how much is that worth?

You are purposefully being obtuse, are you not?

So, don't be surprised when people dismiss you.

 

[Correll]

I believe that "the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair."

But, IMO, that is because of Trade and Immigration policies designed looking at the economy as a whole and not at a breakdown of how it hits smaller groups WITHIN the US.

And the answer, in my opinion is NOT "redistribution of wealth" but trade policy and immigration policy designed with the interests of the US Middle Class as the primary goal.

actually; i believe we should start with basic metrics and benchmark Standards. there is no reason to not abolish simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through a form of minimum wage that can be applied for on an at-will basis whenever labor can claim to be unemployed.

I am not sure of your usage of the terms Basic metrics and benchmark standards, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, claim to be unemployed.

Other than that you seem to think that we can legislate reality without concerns of cost.

Which is obviously incorrect.

The money available to the US government is finite.

It is about the laws of demand and supply; and full employment of resources as a benchmark standard.

Why do you believe solving for simple poverty would have any harmful effect you may claim, in the private sector. What private sector would be worse off, if more potential customers have more money to buy more goods and services?

hearsay and soothsay is just that; when is the right going to have more than merely fallacy to work with.

This statement "full employment of resources as a benchmark standard." has no obvious meaning.

If by "solving simply poverty" you mean a Guaranteed Minimum Income, the problems would be, off the top of my head, huge costs to be paid with huge taxes and the creation of a large and ever growing dead weight population that contributes nothing but social problems such as crime and violence.

The Private sector would be worse off due to supporting this new huge government program, when we are already in the deep red already, and due to the negative effects of this on the social fabric I touched on above.

sure it does; as any form of weight and measure. one hundred percent is a Standard.

I mean recourse to a form of minimum wage as unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Is Capitalism really that Useless to the Right?

It seems you are trying to hint at Full Employment as a government policy. If that is your intent why not simply say so clearly?

NO. YOu are describing a Guaranteed Minimum Income, disguised by made up jargon.

I have pointed out the huge cost economically and the negative social impact of creating a dead weight population.

YOu have not responded to either of my points.

 

[Correll]

I am merely recommending solving simple poverty

China just solved 40% of the world's poverty by switching to capitalism, not by putting people on the liberal dole.

China solved a lot of poverty by switching to Mercantilism and tapping into the Fountain of Wealth Creation that is the United States Economy.

there should be no official poverty in any command economy.

And yet every command economy has or had poverty.

Either everyone who has every been in charge of a Command Economy has been doing it wrong, or your understanding of the capabilities of a Command Economy is mistaken.

My point that much of China's success in dealing with it's poverty is because of the Wealth created here and transferred there stands.

I am not sure what you mean; socialism may require a work ethic, not voluntary capitalism.

I find it hard to believe you don't understand what I meant.

You stated that there "should be no official poverty in any command economy"

I pointed out that historically, that there always has been.

Either everyone who has every been in charge of a Command Economy has been doing it wrong, or your understanding of the capabilities of a Command Economy is mistaken.

Also, much of China's success in raising the Socio-economic status of it's citizens is because of the Wealth created here and transferred there.


WHat of that is hard to understand?

 

[Boss]

Not true.

View attachment 49195

Depending on the local, 75k seems a low number to be considered upper income...

I don't understand your point. The graphic shows where the so-called "middle class" are going. Now you want to get anal over the parameters of the graphic but I can't change that. Some number had to be used to distinguish between low-middle-high and $25k-$75k seems to be reasonable parameters for "middle income" to me.

The data clearly shows the number of families below $25k are declining since 1967. The number of families below $75k are also declining. Where are they going? The graphic clearly shows you where they are going.

So when you say "more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class" that's just not correct according to the US Census Bureau statistics since 1967.

My point is that your graph seem contrary to most data I have seen that shows wage stagnation for middle class workers.

And I do not believe that more people are descending that ascending, I think the group as a whole is stagnating.

I want increasing wages for the Middle Class and Working Poor.

Well that's because my graph didn't have anything to do with wages for some mythical "worker class" that we don't have in America. It is showing you the movement in percentage of families in various economic levels. We have a free enterprise system whereby people don't have to be "workers" in America, they can be Bosses!

Across the kingdoms and dictatorships of Europe and Asia in the 19th century, this wasn't the case... people were born into the "worker class" and that's where they remained all their life. It was in this environment your heroes developed all this emotive bullshit you spew about "the workers" today. It's not relevant here because if you're not happy with your situation as a "worker" you can be something else. You have that freedom.

In your brainwashed little mind, you somehow assume that "middle class" families are the same group of people across a period of time and that's simply not true. People move up from poor to middle class, people move from middle class to wealthy, people move from wealthy to middle class. In some rare cases, people can skip middle class altogether and go from rich to poor or poor to rich. This dynamic is fluid and changes every single day. So when you talk about "the middle class" it's NOT the same people. It's a mythical group that doesn't exist. Created solely for the purpose of promoting class warfare because that is how Socialism is packaged, promoted and sold to useful idiots such as yourself.

I want every American to prosper and succeed, to reach their best potential, to use their talents and skills in a vibrant free market capitalist system which allows them the freedom of enterprise. I want our policies to encourage and promote that at every level. I want the pity trips and victim mentality to be replaced with motivations and maybe even a little 'tough love' when needed, in order to revive the human spirit.

I am not advocating Class Warfare.

The "Middle Class" is a real socio-economic group of people in the "middle" between rich and poor.

Yes, in the US today, it is far more fluid than in the past in Europe.

None of that means that we should not consider their interests when crafting National Polices such as Economic, Trade or Immigration Policy.

Most Data I have seen has shown stagnating Middle Class incomes.

The "Middle Class" is a real socio-economic group of people in the "middle" between rich and poor.

NO, they certainly are NOT!

You believe they are the same people but the "group" is constantly changing. Some who were in that group yesterday woke up in a different group today and tomorrow the same thing will happen all over again. People are constantly changing which group they are in.

Maybe middle-incomes are stagnant, and maybe that explains why more middle-income families have moved up to higher-income families since 1967?

When we "craft" policies... we should adhere to free market, free enterprise capitalist principles and not delude ourselves with out-dated 19th century Socialist propaganda which relies on "groups" to exploit in class warfare against each other.

 

[Correll]

Depending on the local, 75k seems a low number to be considered upper income...

I don't understand your point. The graphic shows where the so-called "middle class" are going. Now you want to get anal over the parameters of the graphic but I can't change that. Some number had to be used to distinguish between low-middle-high and $25k-$75k seems to be reasonable parameters for "middle income" to me.

The data clearly shows the number of families below $25k are declining since 1967. The number of families below $75k are also declining. Where are they going? The graphic clearly shows you where they are going.

So when you say "more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class" that's just not correct according to the US Census Bureau statistics since 1967.

My point is that your graph seem contrary to most data I have seen that shows wage stagnation for middle class workers.

And I do not believe that more people are descending that ascending, I think the group as a whole is stagnating.

I want increasing wages for the Middle Class and Working Poor.

Well that's because my graph didn't have anything to do with wages for some mythical "worker class" that we don't have in America. It is showing you the movement in percentage of families in various economic levels. We have a free enterprise system whereby people don't have to be "workers" in America, they can be Bosses!

Across the kingdoms and dictatorships of Europe and Asia in the 19th century, this wasn't the case... people were born into the "worker class" and that's where they remained all their life. It was in this environment your heroes developed all this emotive bullshit you spew about "the workers" today. It's not relevant here because if you're not happy with your situation as a "worker" you can be something else. You have that freedom.

In your brainwashed little mind, you somehow assume that "middle class" families are the same group of people across a period of time and that's simply not true. People move up from poor to middle class, people move from middle class to wealthy, people move from wealthy to middle class. In some rare cases, people can skip middle class altogether and go from rich to poor or poor to rich. This dynamic is fluid and changes every single day. So when you talk about "the middle class" it's NOT the same people. It's a mythical group that doesn't exist. Created solely for the purpose of promoting class warfare because that is how Socialism is packaged, promoted and sold to useful idiots such as yourself.

I want every American to prosper and succeed, to reach their best potential, to use their talents and skills in a vibrant free market capitalist system which allows them the freedom of enterprise. I want our policies to encourage and promote that at every level. I want the pity trips and victim mentality to be replaced with motivations and maybe even a little 'tough love' when needed, in order to revive the human spirit.

I am not advocating Class Warfare.

The "Middle Class" is a real socio-economic group of people in the "middle" between rich and poor.

Yes, in the US today, it is far more fluid than in the past in Europe.

None of that means that we should not consider their interests when crafting National Polices such as Economic, Trade or Immigration Policy.

Most Data I have seen has shown stagnating Middle Class incomes.

The "Middle Class" is a real socio-economic group of people in the "middle" between rich and poor.

NO, they certainly are NOT!

You believe they are the same people but the "group" is constantly changing. Some who were in that group yesterday woke up in a different group today and tomorrow the same thing will happen all over again. People are constantly changing which group they are in.

Maybe middle-incomes are stagnant, and maybe that explains why more middle-income families have moved up to higher-income families since 1967?

When we "craft" policies... we should adhere to free market, free enterprise capitalist principles and not delude ourselves with out-dated 19th century Socialist propaganda which relies on "groups" to exploit in class warfare against each other.

THe fact that some of the members of the group changes does not mean it is not reasonable to talk about the group as a group.

The purpose of American policy should be to serve the interests of American citizens, not to adhere to ideological principles.

If policies designed to adhere to ideological principles are not serving the interests of American Citizens, they should be changed.

 

[Boss]

I don't understand your point. The graphic shows where the so-called "middle class" are going. Now you want to get anal over the parameters of the graphic but I can't change that. Some number had to be used to distinguish between low-middle-high and $25k-$75k seems to be reasonable parameters for "middle income" to me.

The data clearly shows the number of families below $25k are declining since 1967. The number of families below $75k are also declining. Where are they going? The graphic clearly shows you where they are going.

So when you say "more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class" that's just not correct according to the US Census Bureau statistics since 1967.

My point is that your graph seem contrary to most data I have seen that shows wage stagnation for middle class workers.

And I do not believe that more people are descending that ascending, I think the group as a whole is stagnating.

I want increasing wages for the Middle Class and Working Poor.

Well that's because my graph didn't have anything to do with wages for some mythical "worker class" that we don't have in America. It is showing you the movement in percentage of families in various economic levels. We have a free enterprise system whereby people don't have to be "workers" in America, they can be Bosses!

Across the kingdoms and dictatorships of Europe and Asia in the 19th century, this wasn't the case... people were born into the "worker class" and that's where they remained all their life. It was in this environment your heroes developed all this emotive bullshit you spew about "the workers" today. It's not relevant here because if you're not happy with your situation as a "worker" you can be something else. You have that freedom.

In your brainwashed little mind, you somehow assume that "middle class" families are the same group of people across a period of time and that's simply not true. People move up from poor to middle class, people move from middle class to wealthy, people move from wealthy to middle class. In some rare cases, people can skip middle class altogether and go from rich to poor or poor to rich. This dynamic is fluid and changes every single day. So when you talk about "the middle class" it's NOT the same people. It's a mythical group that doesn't exist. Created solely for the purpose of promoting class warfare because that is how Socialism is packaged, promoted and sold to useful idiots such as yourself.

I want every American to prosper and succeed, to reach their best potential, to use their talents and skills in a vibrant free market capitalist system which allows them the freedom of enterprise. I want our policies to encourage and promote that at every level. I want the pity trips and victim mentality to be replaced with motivations and maybe even a little 'tough love' when needed, in order to revive the human spirit.

I am not advocating Class Warfare.

The "Middle Class" is a real socio-economic group of people in the "middle" between rich and poor.

Yes, in the US today, it is far more fluid than in the past in Europe.

None of that means that we should not consider their interests when crafting National Polices such as Economic, Trade or Immigration Policy.

Most Data I have seen has shown stagnating Middle Class incomes.

The "Middle Class" is a real socio-economic group of people in the "middle" between rich and poor.

NO, they certainly are NOT!

You believe they are the same people but the "group" is constantly changing. Some who were in that group yesterday woke up in a different group today and tomorrow the same thing will happen all over again. People are constantly changing which group they are in.

Maybe middle-incomes are stagnant, and maybe that explains why more middle-income families have moved up to higher-income families since 1967?

When we "craft" policies... we should adhere to free market, free enterprise capitalist principles and not delude ourselves with out-dated 19th century Socialist propaganda which relies on "groups" to exploit in class warfare against each other.

THe fact that some of the members of the group changes does not mean it is not reasonable to talk about the group as a group.

The purpose of American policy should be to serve the interests of American citizens, not to adhere to ideological principles.

If policies designed to adhere to ideological principles are not serving the interests of American Citizens, they should be changed.

Uhm.. there is no "group" if the "group" is constantly changing. That't the point I am making. You've bought into the concept that the "group" is this monolithic segment of the population that simply doesn't exist. It's like concerning ourselves with the "group of people perpetually stuck in revolving doors and on escalators!" Every second of the day, these poor people are deprived of food and water! No opportunity! No chance in life! We MUST do something about this unfortunate group of people who always seem to be stuck in revolving doors and on escalators... throw in the elevator people too! Somewhere out there in America, some poor soul is trapped in this state because idiots have decided to define them as a "group" and refuse to see their failure of logic.

The problem is the ideological principles of the policies we set. It seems we have this fucking hard on to be like Socialist Europe.... or a good 47% of us, anyway! The policies we're implementing are failed 19th century Socialist policies that never work. All premised on this emotive bleating about mythical sub-classes and groups that don't actually exist in America where we are FREE to be anything we desire!

 

[Correll]

My point is that your graph seem contrary to most data I have seen that shows wage stagnation for middle class workers.

And I do not believe that more people are descending that ascending, I think the group as a whole is stagnating.

I want increasing wages for the Middle Class and Working Poor.

Well that's because my graph didn't have anything to do with wages for some mythical "worker class" that we don't have in America. It is showing you the movement in percentage of families in various economic levels. We have a free enterprise system whereby people don't have to be "workers" in America, they can be Bosses!

Across the kingdoms and dictatorships of Europe and Asia in the 19th century, this wasn't the case... people were born into the "worker class" and that's where they remained all their life. It was in this environment your heroes developed all this emotive bullshit you spew about "the workers" today. It's not relevant here because if you're not happy with your situation as a "worker" you can be something else. You have that freedom.

In your brainwashed little mind, you somehow assume that "middle class" families are the same group of people across a period of time and that's simply not true. People move up from poor to middle class, people move from middle class to wealthy, people move from wealthy to middle class. In some rare cases, people can skip middle class altogether and go from rich to poor or poor to rich. This dynamic is fluid and changes every single day. So when you talk about "the middle class" it's NOT the same people. It's a mythical group that doesn't exist. Created solely for the purpose of promoting class warfare because that is how Socialism is packaged, promoted and sold to useful idiots such as yourself.

I want every American to prosper and succeed, to reach their best potential, to use their talents and skills in a vibrant free market capitalist system which allows them the freedom of enterprise. I want our policies to encourage and promote that at every level. I want the pity trips and victim mentality to be replaced with motivations and maybe even a little 'tough love' when needed, in order to revive the human spirit.

I am not advocating Class Warfare.

The "Middle Class" is a real socio-economic group of people in the "middle" between rich and poor.

Yes, in the US today, it is far more fluid than in the past in Europe.

None of that means that we should not consider their interests when crafting National Polices such as Economic, Trade or Immigration Policy.

Most Data I have seen has shown stagnating Middle Class incomes.

The "Middle Class" is a real socio-economic group of people in the "middle" between rich and poor.

NO, they certainly are NOT!

You believe they are the same people but the "group" is constantly changing. Some who were in that group yesterday woke up in a different group today and tomorrow the same thing will happen all over again. People are constantly changing which group they are in.

Maybe middle-incomes are stagnant, and maybe that explains why more middle-income families have moved up to higher-income families since 1967?

When we "craft" policies... we should adhere to free market, free enterprise capitalist principles and not delude ourselves with out-dated 19th century Socialist propaganda which relies on "groups" to exploit in class warfare against each other.

THe fact that some of the members of the group changes does not mean it is not reasonable to talk about the group as a group.

The purpose of American policy should be to serve the interests of American citizens, not to adhere to ideological principles.

If policies designed to adhere to ideological principles are not serving the interests of American Citizens, they should be changed.

Uhm.. there is no "group" if the "group" is constantly changing. That't the point I am making. You've bought into the concept that the "group" is this monolithic segment of the population that simply doesn't exist. It's like concerning ourselves with the "group of people perpetually stuck in revolving doors and on escalators!" Every second of the day, these poor people are deprived of food and water! No opportunity! No chance in life! We MUST do something about this unfortunate group of people who always seem to be stuck in revolving doors and on escalators... throw in the elevator people too! Somewhere out there in America, some poor soul is trapped in this state because idiots have decided to define them as a "group" and refuse to see their failure of logic.

The problem is the ideological principles of the policies we set. It seems we have this fucking hard on to be like Socialist Europe.... or a good 47% of us, anyway! The policies we're implementing are failed 19th century Socialist policies that never work. All premised on this emotive bleating about mythical sub-classes and groups that don't actually exist in America where we are FREE to be anything we desire!

YOu have discussed the Rich as a group, arguing that the size and success of the group of the Rich is a sign of the success of the American model.

I agree.

I also believe that the size and success of the Middle Class is also a sign of the success of the American model and think that INCREASING THAT Size and success would be a sign of ever increasing success of the American model.

(assuming the growth came out of lower levels primarily)

 

[danielpalos]

You are confusing poverty with simply being poor...

Will you PLEASE shut the fuck up, you incessant moronic idiot?

nothing but fallacy for your Cause; how much is that worth?

You are purposefully being obtuse, are you not?

So, don't be surprised when people dismiss you.

No, I am not; I actually have valid arguments and don't rely on appeals to ignorance for my "gospel Truth" Causes.

 

[danielpalos]

actually; i believe we should start with basic metrics and benchmark Standards. there is no reason to not abolish simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through a form of minimum wage that can be applied for on an at-will basis whenever labor can claim to be unemployed.

I am not sure of your usage of the terms Basic metrics and benchmark standards, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, claim to be unemployed.

Other than that you seem to think that we can legislate reality without concerns of cost.

Which is obviously incorrect.

The money available to the US government is finite.

It is about the laws of demand and supply; and full employment of resources as a benchmark standard.

Why do you believe solving for simple poverty would have any harmful effect you may claim, in the private sector. What private sector would be worse off, if more potential customers have more money to buy more goods and services?

hearsay and soothsay is just that; when is the right going to have more than merely fallacy to work with.

This statement "full employment of resources as a benchmark standard." has no obvious meaning.

If by "solving simply poverty" you mean a Guaranteed Minimum Income, the problems would be, off the top of my head, huge costs to be paid with huge taxes and the creation of a large and ever growing dead weight population that contributes nothing but social problems such as crime and violence.

The Private sector would be worse off due to supporting this new huge government program, when we are already in the deep red already, and due to the negative effects of this on the social fabric I touched on above.

sure it does; as any form of weight and measure. one hundred percent is a Standard.

I mean recourse to a form of minimum wage as unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Is Capitalism really that Useless to the Right?

It seems you are trying to hint at Full Employment as a government policy. If that is your intent why not simply say so clearly?

NO. YOu are describing a Guaranteed Minimum Income, disguised by made up jargon.

I have pointed out the huge cost economically and the negative social impact of creating a dead weight population.

YOu have not responded to either of my points.

You have done nothing but appeal to ignorance.

dude; what Part of abolishing simple poverty, a natural rate of unemployment, and a concept of "wage slavery" are you missing as a Point and a Cause?

 

[danielpalos]

China just solved 40% of the world's poverty by switching to capitalism, not by putting people on the liberal dole.

China solved a lot of poverty by switching to Mercantilism and tapping into the Fountain of Wealth Creation that is the United States Economy.

there should be no official poverty in any command economy.

And yet every command economy has or had poverty.

Either everyone who has every been in charge of a Command Economy has been doing it wrong, or your understanding of the capabilities of a Command Economy is mistaken.

My point that much of China's success in dealing with it's poverty is because of the Wealth created here and transferred there stands.

I am not sure what you mean; socialism may require a work ethic, not voluntary capitalism.

I find it hard to believe you don't understand what I meant.

You stated that there "should be no official poverty in any command economy"

I pointed out that historically, that there always has been.

Either everyone who has every been in charge of a Command Economy has been doing it wrong, or your understanding of the capabilities of a Command Economy is mistaken.

Also, much of China's success in raising the Socio-economic status of it's citizens is because of the Wealth created here and transferred there.


WHat of that is hard to understand?

Poor and poverty are two different things. Socialism has abolished capitalism's boom and bust cycles via command economics.

 

[Correll]

You are confusing poverty with simply being poor...

Will you PLEASE shut the fuck up, you incessant moronic idiot?

nothing but fallacy for your Cause; how much is that worth?

You are purposefully being obtuse, are you not?

So, don't be surprised when people dismiss you.

No, I am not; I actually have valid arguments and don't rely on appeals to ignorance for my "gospel Truth" Causes.

I am operating of the belief system that you are some type of drama queen who is trying to appear more intelligent than he is though the use of overly complicated and idiosyncratic terminology and sentence structure.

If this is NOT true, I would be concerned that you are having a bad interaction between multiple prescriptions or something else interfering with normal brain function.

I do not mean this as a personal attack. Your ideas are ones I would be happy to address seriously and honestly, if and when I can understand them.

 

[Correll]

I am not sure of your usage of the terms Basic metrics and benchmark standards, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, claim to be unemployed.

Other than that you seem to think that we can legislate reality without concerns of cost.

Which is obviously incorrect.

The money available to the US government is finite.

It is about the laws of demand and supply; and full employment of resources as a benchmark standard.

Why do you believe solving for simple poverty would have any harmful effect you may claim, in the private sector. What private sector would be worse off, if more potential customers have more money to buy more goods and services?

hearsay and soothsay is just that; when is the right going to have more than merely fallacy to work with.

This statement "full employment of resources as a benchmark standard." has no obvious meaning.

If by "solving simply poverty" you mean a Guaranteed Minimum Income, the problems would be, off the top of my head, huge costs to be paid with huge taxes and the creation of a large and ever growing dead weight population that contributes nothing but social problems such as crime and violence.

The Private sector would be worse off due to supporting this new huge government program, when we are already in the deep red already, and due to the negative effects of this on the social fabric I touched on above.

sure it does; as any form of weight and measure. one hundred percent is a Standard.

I mean recourse to a form of minimum wage as unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Is Capitalism really that Useless to the Right?

It seems you are trying to hint at Full Employment as a government policy. If that is your intent why not simply say so clearly?

NO. YOu are describing a Guaranteed Minimum Income, disguised by made up jargon.

I have pointed out the huge cost economically and the negative social impact of creating a dead weight population.

YOu have not responded to either of my points.

You have done nothing but appeal to ignorance.

dude; what Part of abolishing simple poverty, a natural rate of unemployment, and a concept of "wage slavery" are you missing as a Point and a Cause?

Appeal to Ignorance? I don't see how.

I have addressed your support of Full Employment and a Guaranteed Minimum Income. Stop claiming I have not and respond to my criticism of those policies please.

 

[Correll]

China solved a lot of poverty by switching to Mercantilism and tapping into the Fountain of Wealth Creation that is the United States Economy.

there should be no official poverty in any command economy.

And yet every command economy has or had poverty.

Either everyone who has every been in charge of a Command Economy has been doing it wrong, or your understanding of the capabilities of a Command Economy is mistaken.

My point that much of China's success in dealing with it's poverty is because of the Wealth created here and transferred there stands.

I am not sure what you mean; socialism may require a work ethic, not voluntary capitalism.

I find it hard to believe you don't understand what I meant.

You stated that there "should be no official poverty in any command economy"

I pointed out that historically, that there always has been.

Either everyone who has every been in charge of a Command Economy has been doing it wrong, or your understanding of the capabilities of a Command Economy is mistaken.

Also, much of China's success in raising the Socio-economic status of it's citizens is because of the Wealth created here and transferred there.


WHat of that is hard to understand?

Poor and poverty are two different things. Socialism has abolished capitalism's boom and bust cycles via command economics.

The Boom and Bust issue has been reduced, at least for a while due to regulations. To call such regulation "command economics" overstates the case.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Socialism has abolished capitalism's boom and bust cycles via command economics.

true enough, with socialism you get total bust and 120 million slowly starving to death!

palos is obviously an idiot communist illiterate who could just as easily be supporting Nazism