What Is Wrong With America ?

[protectionist]

Power and money is the basis of lawmaking, jr.

I was talking about how it SHOULD BE. And don't call me junior, fool.

Then don't act like a petulant child, junior.

Reported to the forum for age discrimination.harassment.

 

[Avatar4321]

First of all. I'm 67 years old, so don't call me "junior", OK asshole ?

Now, the only thing you've exposed is your typical con jobbing salesmanship, which is going over here like a lead balloon. I already refuted the stupid idea about "agreeing" to a wage (but you're so embedded to your hollow talking points, you just can't abandon them, apparently - )

Of course the super rich steal from their workers, and from society in general. That's how they got to be super rich. Assinine to think that one guy should have billions$$ in his pockets (for any reason), when millions of people are unemployed and broke.

And of course thousands of businesses underpay their employees. You think we can have a wage like $7.25/hour (or $12.25/hour for that matter), and you can come in here and get away with saying businesses don't underpay ? I'll bet you're not working for a low wage right now are you ?

"Clearly satisfied", huh ? HA HA HA! Is that what you walk around telling yourself all day long ? I'll bet you've got those words pasted to your living room walls, and a little card in your wallet with them on it, that you take out and look at every once in a while, to insure that you don't slip back to being cognizant of the truth. HA HA. How does it feel to sit in a room and talk to people where every one of you is lying, every one of you knows it, yet you keep up the facade, so as to keep your sham business going at maximum profits (no matter who you hurt), and your sham life as well ? Keep those anti-acid pills handy. That sick to your stomach feeling isn't likely to go away any time soon.

PS - EARTH TO ROTTWEILER: NOBODY "earns" the kind of wealth that the super rich receive in America. The people who EARN the most money, (but don't get what they earn), are the ones who are NOT RICH. In fact, many of them are DEAD from having really EARNED their pay (firefighters, coal miners, troops in Afghanistan. etc) So the next time you think you can come swaggering in here talking about "earning" money, you keep in mind the actual meaning of the word (which you nonchalantly, and stupidly, mangle so recklessly)

So the Rich steal from their workers?

Many of them who own businesses do. Every day. Nothing new about that.

So paying someone what the two of you have voluntarily agreed to for the work they've performed is theft, but using force to take money from people and spend it how you please in the name of goverment isn't?

You do realize that is delusional, right?

 

[Avatar4321]

I was talking about how it SHOULD BE. And don't call me junior, fool.

Then don't act like a petulant child, junior.

Reported to the forum for age discrimination.harassment.

Are you seriously so ignorant that you don't know what age discrimination is? Calling you junior for making childish and foolish statements isn't age discrimination.

You could be 15 or 150 and no one knows on an anonymous internet forum. No one would know, which make it impossible to discriminate against you for your age. But people are going to continue calling you junior if you dont stop acting like a child.

 

[protectionist]

After 46 pages, and I did not read all of them, its clear that the answer is different depending on your income, age, and educational level.

IMHO, whats wrong with America is that we have lost the vision of the founders, we have forgotten what real freedom means, we have forgotten that the founders envisioned a small federal government with a very limited role, we have forgotten that real freedom includes both the freedom to succeed beyond your wildest expectations and to fail miserably, there are no guarantees except the guarantee that you may "pursue" happiness. Equal opportunity is guaranteed, not equal results.

So, to summarize---------------liberal, progressive thinking (as understood in the vernacular of today) is what is wrong with America.

America should not be just an embodiment of the "vision of the founders" (who generally were rich businessmen). We, living today are just as much American as any founder of America, and as far as being in position to steer the nation on a proper path, we are better suited than the founders, because they were not aware of the many more problems of our 2014 humungeous 316 million population country. They also weren't aware of the many intricacies that exist today, and their "vision" (which included slavery) wasn't all that wholesome & proper either.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al could be ressurected back to life now for one day, and see what they'd have to say about out gross gap between the rich and the poor. What would they think about the invasion of 12 million illegal aliens, with 8 million of them taking jobs away from 10 million unemployed Americans ? What would they think about affirmative action discriminating against hundreds of millions of white people, for 50 years now, and pompous idiots swaggering around acting like it's OK ? And what would they think about the way we coddle radical Muslim loonies, who hide behind the first amendment part regarding religious freedom, all the while trashing the Constitution's Supremacy Clause ? And what would they think about millions of Americans lives being endangered by infrastructure not being fixed ? And what might they think about all these problems going to pot, just because a bunch of looney Reaganists think it more important to be ridiculously rich than to (through taxation) fund all these pressing National Security problems ?

Why is it people just presume they should do away what brilliant men in the past did with absolutely no understanding why they did it.

Why is it that you come in here and respond to notions that were not advanced ? I didn't say we should "do away" with what the founding fathers said, but only that we should act to improve upon their foundations in accordance with present day conditions. Get it ? And I have plenty of understanding of why they did what they did, as well as what needs to be added to it. (such as an alteration of the 14th amendment to abolish birthright citizenship. We should also have a notation to establish Islam as a violation of Constitution Article 6, Section 2, the Supremacy Clause)

PS- I fully understand why the 14th amendment was done, and also how it is being abused by illegal aliens, totally not in accordance with "why they did it"

 

[Avatar4321]

America should not be just an embodiment of the "vision of the founders" (who generally were rich businessmen). We, living today are just as much American as any founder of America, and as far as being in position to steer the nation on a proper path, we are better suited than the founders, because they were not aware of the many more problems of our 2014 humungeous 316 million population country. They also weren't aware of the many intricacies that exist today, and their "vision" (which included slavery) wasn't all that wholesome & proper either.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al could be ressurected back to life now for one day, and see what they'd have to say about out gross gap between the rich and the poor. What would they think about the invasion of 12 million illegal aliens, with 8 million of them taking jobs away from 10 million unemployed Americans ? What would they think about affirmative action discriminating against hundreds of millions of white people, for 50 years now, and pompous idiots swaggering around acting like it's OK ? And what would they think about the way we coddle radical Muslim loonies, who hide behind the first amendment part regarding religious freedom, all the while trashing the Constitution's Supremacy Clause ? And what would they think about millions of Americans lives being endangered by infrastructure not being fixed ? And what might they think about all these problems going to pot, just because a bunch of looney Reaganists think it more important to be ridiculously rich than to (through taxation) fund all these pressing National Security problems ?

Why is it people just presume they should do away what brilliant men in the past did with absolutely no understanding why they did it.

Why is it that you come in here and respond to notions that were not advanced ? I didn't say we should "do away" with what the founding fathers said, but only that we should act to improve upon their foundations in accordance with present day conditions. Get it ? And I have plenty of understanding of why they did what they did, as well as what needs to be added to it. (such as an alteration of the 14th amendment to abolish birthright citizenship. We should also have a notation to establish Islam as a violation of Constitution Article 6, Section 2, the Supremacy Clause)

PS- I fully understand why the 14th amendment was done, and also how it is being abused by illegal aliens, totally not in accordance with "why they did it"

Why is it you can't take ownership of what I just quoted you as saying?

 

[protectionist]

File away. What is it your going to complain about? You were not allowed to limit My speech?

You are NOT a true conservative. Evidenced by the fact that you expect government to step in and make things fair.

I'm about as far right as one can get and remain reasonable. A true conservative is one that opposes government expansion, even at his or her own expense.

I doubt you'd ever argue for something greater than yourself. Self interest is the hallmark of a leftist.

1. Not all speech is free, honcho. Read the forum rules and guidelines. I'd guess age discrimination and harassment is not looked at too favorably. You think ?

2. HA HA. SO you think making things fair is not "conservative" ? You are a Reaganist, and not even close to a conservative. You don't even know the meaning of the word, ans most young people under 40 (who never lived in the pre-Reagan era) don't.

3. I argue for the betterment of society (as both leftists and conservatives do) The ones who argue for their own self-interest are the Reaganists - LIKE YOU.

Knock yourself out. If you want to participate on this forum, you are going to need a thicker skin. I don't care if you are offended or not, and I don't care if you file a complaint. I've not harrassed you, nor done anything other than ignore your demand that I not address you as you want. If you want My respect, then you can earn it. Until then, too fucking bad for you.

I think that making things fair is a recipe for ignoring the rule of law and an abuse of governmental power. Ignoring the rule of law sets precedence for abuse under the guise of doing what is best 'in the public interest'. Except that there will always be only those who lust for power who will determine the public interest, and it won't be for the betterment of the public. History is replete with examples of a small group of people determining what is 'best' for everyone. We even fought a war over it, back about 230+ years ago. Perhaps you remember it?

You are NOT arguing for the betterment of society. You are arguing for government. The very antithetical embodiment of a good society.

Whether you discriminated against me or harassed me based on age, is not your call. That is for the moderators to decide. In the meantime, I am not looking for your respect, since I have no respect for you, based on what you've said here.

As for my skin, it's plenty thick enough, and I've dealt with a lot tougher mugs in the various forums I've been in, than you seem to be. I don't need your coaching, and I didn't make any demand on being addressed as I want. I only demanded that I not be addressed how I DON'T want, in a way that is age discriminatory, abusive, and improper. Got it now ?

 

[protectionist]

Then don't act like a petulant child, junior.

Reported to the forum for age discrimination.harassment.

Are you seriously so ignorant that you don't know what age discrimination is? Calling you junior for making childish and foolish statements isn't age discrimination.

You could be 15 or 150 and no one knows on an anonymous internet forum. No one would know, which make it impossible to discriminate against you for your age. But people are going to continue calling you junior if you dont stop acting like a child.

What constitutes age discrimination and harassment regarding age, in this forum isn't your call. That belongs to the moderators of this forum, for them to decide, not you.

As for your BS >> "No one would know, which make it impossible to discriminate against you for your age."

That's a lie! YOU KNOW, since you've been informed right here in this thread, in multiple posts >>

1. Page 46, Post # 682 - I said "I'm 67 years old, so don't call me "junior", OK asshole ?" And you even had this post contained in YOUR Post # 751, when you quoted it. LOL.

2. Just a few posts back (Post # 759), I said this >> "When Operation Wetback went into full swing (no pun intended), I was in the 4th grade, ..." Knowing that OW was in 1954, that would make me 67 years old today.

3. There was a whole discussion about all this over the course of about 70 posts, which you were right here and privvy too.

4. I don't change what I say in deference to what people might call me. I've been called a racist, a bigot, a war hawk, a right-wingnut, a leftist, etc. Couldn't care less what they say.

 

[protectionist]

Why is it people just presume they should do away what brilliant men in the past did with absolutely no understanding why they did it.

Why is it that you come in here and respond to notions that were not advanced ? I didn't say we should "do away" with what the founding fathers said, but only that we should act to improve upon their foundations in accordance with present day conditions. Get it ? And I have plenty of understanding of why they did what they did, as well as what needs to be added to it. (such as an alteration of the 14th amendment to abolish birthright citizenship. We should also have a notation to establish Islam as a violation of Constitution Article 6, Section 2, the Supremacy Clause)

PS- I fully understand why the 14th amendment was done, and also how it is being abused by illegal aliens, totally not in accordance with "why they did it"

Why is it you can't take ownership of what I just quoted you as saying?

Why is it you can't deal with what my answer was ?

 

[protectionist]

So the Rich steal from their workers?

Many of them who own businesses do. Every day. Nothing new about that.

So paying someone what the two of you have voluntarily agreed to for the work they've performed is theft, but using force to take money from people and spend it how you please in the name of goverment isn't?

You do realize that is delusional, right?

How delusional is it for you to come in here and make a statement that I have already refuted about 5 times in this thread. (and YOU KNOW IT)

 

[protectionist]

Yes. Too many people are going through life thinking that the world owes them something, and that life should be fair.

Too many people are going through life thinking that it's OK for life to be unfair, (where it could easily be made to be fair). And I'd say everyone IS owed something. Just a FAIR shake, that's all. But that's not happening in America today with a very small group getting richer and richer, at the expense of everyone else.

If you offer someone a certain amount to do something, and pay them that amount when they've done what they promised to do, how is that unfair?

YOU KNOW (because you've already been told here in this thread-try to keep up)

 

[dcraelin]

A business has no obligation to pay an employee any more than that employee's labor is worth to the business. If you have minimal education and minimal skills, then your labor is not very valuable.
Tell us what hourly wage is needed to provide for "basic existence". is it the same for a guy with 5 kids as a single guy when both are doing the same job? is it the same in NYC as in Fargo, ND ? Is it the same for a healthy person and one with medical issues?
Should the business base its wages on the individual needs of the employees or each employee's contribution to the business?

I agree a business has no obligation to pay more than that employee's labor is worth, but if that worth is so low it doesnt provide a living wage then it would be better for both business and laborer to find other arrangements.
I dont think wage earners at the bottom of the scale are very good negotiators and are often taken advantage of. I dont think 11.11/hr, which is I believe what is being discussed, is out of line. It would not pay for someone with a lot of medical issues, or someone with 5 kids...I think it is a reasonable compromise level.
If a business, even in Fargo, cant pay that wage, then I would say it isn't really a viable business

But that's the beauty of the free market. It really doesn't matter what you think. The business is free to operate as best as it can, whether or not you think it is "viable".
And here is the thing chief - put your money where you mouth is. If you think $11.11 per hour is reasonable, then why don't you start a business and create jobs for people who need them - paying (of course) at least $11.11 per hour?
It amazes me that Dumbocrats demand of others what they themselves are not willing to do. Don't ask me to provide a job for $11.11 per hour if you are not willing to provide a job for $11.11 per hour.

Im not interested in starting a business. If I tryed and failed it still wouldn't refute my arguments.

 

[protectionist]

>> 1. I didn't say anything about taxing to pay someone to sit on their ass. Note: the most ass-sitting ass sitters are the super rich, who never get their hands dirty.

Then what is taxing my income to pay someone to sit on their asses? I call if theft, if not theft what do you call it comrade?

>> 2. By not providing enough taxes (like to pay ICE agents and CBP officers, & build the Mexican border fence) THAT is causing & perpetuating the most welfare drain.

Nonsense we pay enough taxes the problem is our government does not want to spend what we give them on things like protecting our borders. Not when they can spend it on protecting Afghanistan's, Israel's, Europe's, Japan's, Iraq's, ... borders. We could give our government 100% of our income and they still wouldn't spend it on protecting our border. Why? Because they want the welfare drain. Why? Because it creates a population the needs government to live. Why? Because then they are our masters.

>> 3. "agreed upon sum", "court system to take care of that", " free to go elsewhere" >> all rationalizations of cheapskate employers.

Cheapskate employers get the employees they deserve. It's a symbiotic relationship.

>> 3. Of course workers are not getting paid what they should, and of course it is very often the greed of the employers that is the reason. Millions of workers get less tha 10 bucks an hour. You call that acceptable ? Sure you do, because like many others, you are living in a denial dream world, manufactured to maximize profits regardless of the effects. And you bitch about govt regulation. Govt wouldn't have to step in to kick your greedy ass, if you acted properly in the first place.

Why the hell should we pay a 15year old kid the same amount to bag our groceries as we would a plumber with 15years professional experience?

Your post is a mess. Clean it up, and then I'll respond to your questions.

PS- do you know how to use the post system ? If not, check with the moderators for tips.

No. >> is a traditional way to cite statements from the person you are replying to in threads, emails, and all other electronic and non-electronic communications. Get over yourself ass hole.

YOU are the "asshole" who can't get through a post without botching it all up.

 

[protectionist]

For those of you who think that business just sets wages arbitrarily I recommend an introductory book to help you.

Amazon.com: Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, 4th Edition eBook: Thomas Sowell: Kindle Store

Without having to read that book, could you explain how the author justifies the Federal minimum wage not being adjusted for cost-of-living increases (inflation) since the 1970s?

Why does there need to be a Federal Minimum wage when each state has a different cost of living?

HA HA. Think about it. It should take you 10 seconds to find the answer.

 

[dcraelin]

Have you ever run a business?
And don't give us the platitudes about having not run a business does not mean you don't understand how business works. Clearly, you don't.

I have never run a business.......does that give you leeway to not address the points I make?
would also say that is an hourly rate and business could hire part time to save a little, and generally I believe these minimum wage proposals do come with certain exemptions for waiters/waitresses etc.

..........[a lot of pomopus drivel was written here]...............

This provides everyone wages, plus some overhead and expansion cushion for the business. This cushion eventually translates into more demand for My widget, at which time, I can now hire another employee....

And so the cycle goes....

If the government comes along and demands that I pay that employee twice what it costs My business to produce, then one of three things are going to have to happen. The employees are going to have to double their output, or one of the employees is going to lose his or her job, or I am going to pass the cost along to the consumer. If I do that last thing, I may lose business because consumers won't pay a higher price, and then I end up losing an employee anyway.

In any case, the arbitrary assignment of a higher minimum wage will cost the country economic activity in lost sales, lost production and lost wages.

A free labor market is a much better way to set wages than a forced theft by government.

This is, of course, a very simplified version of what actually goes on. I don't have years to write out business scenarios for an Internet forum discussion.

u say expansion cushion "eventually translates into more demand"...
I dont think that makes sense. You could have all the cushion in the world and it might not translate into more demand.

u say "If the government comes along and demands that I pay that employee twice what it costs My business to produce" huh? i dont think that sentence makes any sense.

nothing of what u said refutes my points.

you may have economic theory down fairly well. But when I was in college we did labs. The labs, never turned out exactly as the theory would predict. That is because many factors can come in to disrupt the pure theory.

 

[protectionist]

I have never run a business.......does that give you leeway to not address the points I make?
would also say that is an hourly rate and business could hire part time to save a little, and generally I believe these minimum wage proposals do come with certain exemptions for waiters/waitresses etc.

..........[a lot of pomopus drivel was written here]...............

This provides everyone wages, plus some overhead and expansion cushion for the business. This cushion eventually translates into more demand for My widget, at which time, I can now hire another employee....

And so the cycle goes....

If the government comes along and demands that I pay that employee twice what it costs My business to produce, then one of three things are going to have to happen. The employees are going to have to double their output, or one of the employees is going to lose his or her job, or I am going to pass the cost along to the consumer. If I do that last thing, I may lose business because consumers won't pay a higher price, and then I end up losing an employee anyway.

In any case, the arbitrary assignment of a higher minimum wage will cost the country economic activity in lost sales, lost production and lost wages.

A free labor market is a much better way to set wages than a forced theft by government.

This is, of course, a very simplified version of what actually goes on. I don't have years to write out business scenarios for an Internet forum discussion.

u say expansion cushion "eventually translates into more demand"...
I dont think that makes sense. You could have all the cushion in the world and it might not translate into more demand.

u say "If the government comes along and demands that I pay that employee twice what it costs My business to produce" huh? i dont think that sentence makes any sense.

nothing of what u said refutes my points.

you may have economic theory down fairly well. But when I was in college we did labs. The labs, never turned out exactly as the theory would predict. That is because many factors can come in to disrupt the pure theory.

He doesn't even have his "theory" right, anyway. Raising the minimum wage does not do what he says. It puts more spending money into the pockets of the most energetic consumer spenders (the working poor), and sends them straight into the stores (AKA the economy), boosting sales$$, income, and profits$$

 

[Uncensored2008]

Unless you are rich enough to itemize your deductions you pay the exact same tax someone without a mortgage pays.

Two issues, "rich enough to itemize" is an income of about $40,000.

Secondly, I already stated in another post that most people are better off taking the standard deduction. Which is more beneficial has more to do with "mix" than with wealth.

Your class envy and class warfare is noted - then dismissed.

Yet only the rich benefit from the mortgage interest deduction.

Utter bullshit. People making less than $100K take the interest deduction all the time. Further, since the deduction ONLY covers interest - or about 4% of the home price, it isn't a huge sum. FURTHER, the wealthy will often pay cash for a home. FURTHER, the deduction only covers the primary residence, not rental properties or vacation homes.

Question, do you actually KNOW anything at all about the subject.

Can we bet on that?

Let me get this straight, you claim (Or rather, KOS does) that "Only the rich take a mortgage deduction," BUT that "the mortgage deduction drives people to buy houses they can't afford..."

Contradict much?

Then use facts, not lies.

What lie is that?

Try using logic rather than ad hom.

The subject of the thread is what's wrong with America.

Which the OP claimed was "tax breaks for the rich" in typical OWS demagoguery.

Part of what is wrong it that the government uses taxes to encourage a preferred social policy. If you don't see that, then you are also part of what's wrong.

I oppose direct taxation, as our founding fathers did.

The use of taxation to effect social policy, such as cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, etc. I have no issue with, provided they are up for review by the electorate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, it's robbery. Robbery is theft by force. Far worse than just theft.

Besides which, I fail to see how making money by providing people with goods and services they want and need is theft.

People didn't become rich by stealing from you when you gave it to them voluntarily.

I don't agree.

Taxation is part of the social contract. Taxation is needed for a government to function. Since I do not support anarchy, I must acknowledge the need for taxation.

That said, "taxation without representation" is a serious issue. In order for a social contract to be valid, it must be accomplished with the consent of the governed, and I do not see that this is the case in the United States.

Direct taxation leads to corruption - 100% of the time. This is because direct taxation targets people and businesses directly. Thus a Country assessor can take a bribe to write an exemption for Joe Blow. On indirect taxes, this is not possible, as the tax is anonymous. Can't write an exemption for Joe Blow on sales tax, because there is no way to know what his liability will be in advance. (Though crooked politicians certainly try.) The closest the crooks can get is exempting certain products,

There should never be direct taxation, neither income nor property tax.

All taxes should be transactional in nature, sales, use, and tariff.

 

[dcraelin]

Actually, it's robbery. Robbery is theft by force. Far worse than just theft.

Besides which, I fail to see how making money by providing people with goods and services they want and need is theft.

People didn't become rich by stealing from you when you gave it to them voluntarily.

I don't agree.

Taxation is part of the social contract. Taxation is needed for a government to function. Since I do not support anarchy, I must acknowledge the need for taxation.

That said, "taxation without representation" is a serious issue. In order for a social contract to be valid, it must be accomplished with the consent of the governed, and I do not see that this is the case in the United States.

Direct taxation leads to corruption - 100% of the time. This is because direct taxation targets people and businesses directly. Thus a Country assessor can take a bribe to write an exemption for Joe Blow. On indirect taxes, this is not possible, as the tax is anonymous. Can't write an exemption for Joe Blow on sales tax, because there is no way to know what his liability will be in advance. (Though crooked politicians certainly try.) The closest the crooks can get is exempting certain products,

There should never be direct taxation, neither income nor property tax.

All taxes should be transactional in nature, sales, use, and tariff.

sales taxes can be elluded especially on private sales

your overstating the case on direct taxes, a corrupt official can do a lot of things.

sales & use taxes are regressive. Sales taxes can and often do violate the principle of "no taxation without representation"

 

[Uncensored2008]

sales taxes can be elluded especially on private sales

Private sales will by their nature be of second hand, smaller items. 46 states have sales tax, all of them rake in huge sums.

your overstating the case on direct taxes, a corrupt official can do a lot of things.

Direct tax is corrupt 100% of the time, none so much as "income tax." We have volumes running into hundreds of thousands of pages to deal with income taxe. Why? To cover the thousands of exemptions that have been sold over the years.

sales & use taxes are regressive. Sales taxes can and often do violate the principle of "no taxation without representation"

Bullshit.

Sales and use taxes are blind, thus completely fair. You buy, you pay - end of story.

 

[Contumacious]

Your prescription of small, weak govt, low taxes, low spending, is the reason why we have such a ridiculously advanced welfare state. As long as the govt is strapped for cash and can't pay the cost of immigration containment, we'll have runaway immigration, where most of the welfare budget is going to illegal alien families, by way of the anchor baby racket and false documentation.

https://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

Excuse me ding dong, prior to 1965 we had open borders with Canada and Mexico. There were NO problems.

The problem began AFTER LBJ's "War on Poverty" programs.

Ding dong. Your instructor is at the door. Here to educate you about illegal immigration PRIOR TO 1965. IN 1954, illegal immigration was so bad that then President Eisenhower called emergency meetings among top experts to deal with it. The result was Operation Wetback. .

Wrong again, 0-9

the program came as a result of pressure from the Mexican government to stop illegal entry of Mexican Laborers in the United States based largely on the Bracero Program.

The reality of "Operation Wetback" wasn't so simple. Eisenhower's sweep was effective because it was mass deportation on the Soviet model, not because it was admirable, let alone fair or, in thousands of cases, legal. Mexicans were especially targeted whether they were legal immigrants or not. Children of Mexican parents, who were American citizens for having been born on American soil, were deported, too".

.