If Election held today, Bernie beats Trump

You're missing the point. It's not about putting a number on it, it's about recognizing a problem. 20 percent of kids in America live in poverty. Is that OK with you? Is that the mark of a great country when one fucking fifth of its children live in poverty. You're obsessed with me putting a number on it, well there's your goddamn number. Answer me, coward. Is that OK with you? Is it? I'm more of a man than you could ever hope to be because I already know your answer. You don't give a fuck. You're the chickenshit coward, not me. Originally Posted by WombRaider

I'm not missing the point at all. You are so caught up in wealth redistribution that you can't see anything else. No matter what you make the minimum wage there will always be poverty. As stated by others here capitalism has done more to raise the poor into prosperity than any other form of government. Your utopian view of socialism only works in fantasy. If I'm wrong then tell me what wage would eliminate poverty? You can't because there is no such wage. If the minimum wage was a million dollars a year there would still be poverty because the COGS would be adjusted to compensate for the increase in cost. If you are so fond of other socialist countries that have it all figured out then move your ass over there.

Actually you ignorant douchebag, someone making $40k a year is doing extremely well vis-a-vis the rest of the world. In fact, if you earn over $34k, you're part of the global 1%. If you make over $12k a year, you're still in the top 10% globally.

More than half the world's population subsists on less than $2 a day.

So let's get our facts straight - the engine of US capitalism has lifted the majority of Americans into what the Occupy Wall Street rabble sneeringly calls "the 1%" on a global basis. And yet you say capitalism is the problem, not the solution?

Are you and your pal Bernie the Socialist in favor of raising taxes on everyone everywhere who makes over $12k a year and transferring it to the world's poorest? If not, why not? Don't you CARE about eliminating world poverty and inequality? Do you lack COMPASSION? If someone earning $12k a year doesn't want his taxes to go up in order to redistribute a big chunk of his income to the world's poorest - is he being GREEDY?

And while you're at it, sewer rat, tell us again how you became an internet app millionaire - and what lessons your success taught you about American capitalism.

http://news.yahoo.com/attention-prot...153806044.html
. Originally Posted by lustylad

Then your problem is with budman, because he says no matter what you pay someone, they'll still be at the bottom of the ladder. Your figures are off. You need to earn over $50K to be in the top 1 percent globally. And you're up to your usual disingenuous ways again. We aren't talking about globally, douchebag, we're talking about the US. That's a big distinction and one you just gloss over without batting an eye. Do you think greed is good, Gecko? What does my personal business have to do with it. It taught me that loyalty is important and that I'm glad there are people much smarter than myself who help me. I act locally, donating time and money to worthy causes that impact people's lives on a daily basis. What about you?

I'm not missing the point at all. You are so caught up in wealth redistribution that you can't see anything else. No matter what you make the minimum wage there will always be poverty. As stated by others here capitalism has done more to raise the poor into prosperity than any other form of government. Your utopian view of socialism only works in fantasy. If I'm wrong then tell me what wage would eliminate poverty? You can't because there is no such wage. If the minimum wage was a million dollars a year there would still be poverty because the COGS would be adjusted to compensate for the increase in cost. If you are so fond of other socialist countries that have it all figured out then move your ass over there. Originally Posted by Budman

I said a living wage, not minimum wage. They're different. Why do you accept less than ideal? You wouldn't accept it in much else, but in this case you're willing to accept it. Why? Capitalism has done more to make a small percentage of the population very rich, not much else. Prosperity? We're a country mired in debt. My utopian view of socialism actually works in practice, and quite well as a matter of fact. Instead of actually agreeing with me that we can do better, you tell me to get the fuck out and go live somewhere else. I don't understand why less than our best is ok with you. Because that's what you're saying by saying that to me.

Denmark, along with several other Scandinavian countries, employs social democracy and they're the happiest people in the world based on several studies. People who work in McDonalds there make the equivalent of $20 per hour and have 5 weeks of paid vacation a year. And guess what? McDonalds amazingly didn't go out of business. Denmark is one of the freest and most competitive economies in the world. All I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe, we don't have the answer for EVERYTHING and others MIGHT have a better idea. Is that possible? Just because you've always done something a certain way doesn't mean that's the way you should keep doing it.

Then put a number on the "living wage". You can't legislate the end of poverty. It will always be here. The best you can do is give people a system that allows them the opportunity to succeed. Will all succeed? Nope. But having the opportunity to succeed or fail is part of what makes this country great.

.... capitalism (is) predicated on cheap labor. That labor is no longer cheap and jobs move overseas. It all comes down to greed. If you think it's anything other than that, you're fucking stupid. There are plenty of companies that pay their workers fairly, make a good product and make a good living. No, they aren't making billions, but they are interested in equality for the working man. It all comes down to greed. How much is enough? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Actually, you are the one who is "fucking stupid" - but we already know that. Your stupidity lights up like a neon light whenever you try to talk about economics. Your generalizations are useless. Some companies are labor-intensive, others aren't. Some companies require high-skilled workers, others rely on unskilled labor. Some companies face strong foreign competition, others don't. Any economist will tell you there are a host of variables that influence wage levels in different industries. Only an ignorant dipshit like you would insist "it all comes down to greed".

If I am the CEO of a US company watching my sales, profits and market share plummet because low-wage foreign competitors are eating my lunch, and I look at the numbers and decide to outsource half the jobs in an attempt to save the other half, am I motivated by GREED or SURVIVAL?

That's a typical decision people in the real world have to make. But then, you and Bernie Sanders know nothing about the real world!

.

Then put a number on the "living wage". You can't legislate the end of poverty. It will always be here. The best you can do is give people a system that allows them the opportunity to succeed. Will all succeed? Nope. But having the opportunity to succeed or fail is part of what makes this country great. Originally Posted by Budman

I agree, you cannot legislate the end of poverty. Does that mean you shouldn't try and improve though? We don't have a system now that allows ALL the opportunity to succeed. The ability to fail is not what makes a country great, imo.

you know womby you should find a new forum to post on because you are getting your ass handed to you here but I guess that's your nature being dominated like they do you at Talley whackers

Actually, you are the one who is "fucking stupid" - but we already know that. Your stupidity lights up like a neon light whenever you try to talk about economics. Your generalizations are useless. Some companies are labor-intensive, others aren't. Some companies require high-skilled workers, others rely on unskilled labor. Some companies face strong foreign competition, others don't. Any economist will tell you there are a host of variables that influence wage levels in different industries. Only an ignorant dipshit like you would insist "it all comes down to greed".

If I am the CEO of a US company watching my sales, profits and market share plummet because low-wage foreign competitors are eating my lunch, and I look at the numbers and decide to outsource half the jobs in an attempt to save the other half, am I motivated by GREED or SURVIVAL?

That's a typical decision people in the real world have to make. But then, you and Bernie Sanders know nothing about the real world!

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Ok, you want me to answer you like a hard-boiled capitalist? You shouldn't have gotten into that business or at least had the foresight to see the eventual moving of jobs overseas. You fucked up, now tough shit. What does it matter what motivates you if the outcome is the same? And I'm not talking about mom and pop companies. I'm talking about Exxon Mobil, etc. For them, it does all come down to greed. If you think it's about anything other than profits, you're dumber than I already think you are.

Whether a company's product is labor intensive, requiring highly skilled labor, etc, the focus is on profit, yes? Can we at least make that generalization?

You know what light blinks when you talk? The red one over your stall at the gloryhole when it comes on, signaling you're ready for the next poor sap to put his dick through the hole so you can take it in your gaping maw.

you know womby you should find a new forum to post on because you are getting your ass handed to you here but I guess that's your nature being dominated like they do you at Talley whackers Originally Posted by gary5912

You don't know shit from shinola. Go back in your hole. You don't know enough to understand what we're talking about, let alone who's getting their ass handed to them.

Actually, you are the one who is "fucking stupid" - but we already know that. Your stupidity lights up like a neon light whenever you try to talk about economics. Your generalizations are useless. Some companies are labor-intensive, others aren't. Some companies require high-skilled workers, others rely on unskilled labor. Some companies face strong foreign competition, others don't. Any economist will tell you there are a host of variables that influence wage levels in different industries. Only an ignorant dipshit like you would insist "it all comes down to greed".

If I am the CEO of a US company watching my sales, profits and market share plummet because low-wage foreign competitors are eating my lunch, and I look at the numbers and decide to outsource half the jobs in an attempt to save the other half, am I motivated by GREED or SURVIVAL?

That's a typical decision people in the real world have to make. But then, you and Bernie Sanders know nothing about the real world!

. Originally Posted by lustylad

this is so true I work in the aircraft industry and they are one industry that still have well paid skilled labor and yes they have done a lot of outsourcing some even to countries like Mexico but finding out that cheap labor doesn't always get the job done right and had to bring back some of what they have outsourced, but the corporate world has always been that way and Bernie Sanders would just make it worse

this is so true I work in the aircraft industry and they are one industry that still have well paid skilled labor and yes they have done a lot of outsourcing some even to countries like Mexico but finding out that cheap labor doesn't always get the job done right and had to bring back some of what they have outsourced, but the corporate world has always been that way and Bernie Sanders would just make it worse Originally Posted by gary5912

How would he make it worse? He would want those jobs filled by american workers. I told you, you don't even know what you're talking about. Bernie doesn't want cheap labor. He wants highly-skilled workers to be paid. Look at the auto industry for fuck's sake. Even the gophers were making bank.

It all comes down to greed. If you think it's anything other than that, you're fucking stupid. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Sure moron, let's talk about greed... Bernie Sanders is a bitter envious old white guy who hasn't had a new or original idea in decades... he was already getting his ass handed to him 5 years ago as this column shows...


GREED = INSATIABLE APPETITE FOR MONEY AND WEALTH = SPENDTHRIFT POLITICIANS


DECEMBER 14, 2010

'Billionaires On the Warpath'?

The GOP needs to address the class-warfare argument in moral terms.

By WILLIAM MCGURN

Say what you will about Bernie Sanders. During his Senate "filibuster" on Friday, the gentleman from Vermont asked a good question: When is enough enough?

The object of Mr. Sanders's ire was the deal between the White House and Republicans that will keep the Bush tax cuts in place. "The billionaires of America are on the warpath," was his explanation. "They want more and more and more."

In his nearly nine-hour remarks, excerpts of which are now going viral on the Internet, he framed the lack of a tax hike for the rich as a surrender to greed. In so doing, he inadvertently raised another question: How come Republicans have such a hard time speaking just as forthrightly about the moral underpinnings of their side of this argument?

In general, Republicans tend to answer these class-warfare screeds with purely functional arguments. How, for example, higher tax rates aimed at "millionaires and billionaires" have a habit of hitting quite a few others (the Alternative Minimum Tax anyone?). How such taxes seldom produce the promised revenue bounty. Or how our real problem is not tax revenues but government spending.

These are all good, solid points, and they have an important place in a debate about policy. Yet they can sometimes convey the impression that the only issue here is about maximizing the return to government.

By contrast, think back to when Barack Obama told Joe Wurzelbacher that he wanted to "spread the wealth around," and the Ohio plumber noted how at odds that high-tax vision was with his pursuit of "the American Dream."

What might a more robustly moral argument look like? For one thing, it would address head-on the rhetoric of greed. One of the Seven Deadly Sins, greed is usually described as an insatiable desire for wealth. If that is true, when taxpayers who want to keep their hard-earned money are compared to politicians who want to take it from them to feed their uncontrolled spending, whose appetite better warrants the word insatiable?

In fact, the desire for higher taxes often seems to justify itself solely by the motive to level down. Mr. Obama suggested as much during a televised campaign debate in April 2008. ABC's Charlie Gibson asked the candidate why he wanted to raise capital gains tax rates even though the experience of the past two presidents—Bill Clinton and George W. Bush—showed that "in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money."

Mr. Obama's answer: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

That's the way with most tax-the-rich rhetoric. For all the talk about "fairness," Mr. Obama, Mr. Sanders and their fellow Democrats never really tell us what the magic number for fairness is. Is it 35% of income? 50%? 75%? Though they never commit themselves to an actual number, in each and every case we get the same answer: Taxes should be higher than they are now, for their own sake.

Americans are a more hopeful and less envious people than that. We are now hearing from them. Thus the heart of the tea party's objections to the Beltway status quo is fundamentally a moral one: that Washington is arrogant about how it takes and spends our money.

The American people understand this. It's not just tea partiers or those who work on Wall Street. Many years ago, the activist Michael Harrington—he, like Mr. Sanders, a self-declared socialist—wrote about the experience a friend of his had while campaigning in 1972 for George McGovern among the mostly black and Latina workers of New York City's garment district.

Harrington told his friend that he must have had an easy time selling the candidate, given Mr. McGovern's proposal for a 100% tax on every dollar over $500,000 of inheritance. This, Harrington thought, must have especially appealed to garment workers laboring for very low pay.

The friend informed Harrington how wrong he was: "Those underpaid women . . . were outraged that the government would confiscate the money they would hand down to their children if they made a million dollars." No matter how he tried to tell these garment workers how unlikely they ever were to see a million dollars in their lifetimes, they couldn't get past the idea that the government would take it from them if they did.

As Mr. Sanders reminded us this past weekend, the politics of higher taxes now rests almost purely on stoking resentment. If Republicans hope to regain the moral high ground, they need to remind citizens that the argument for lower taxes and government that lives within its means is not an argument about numbers or federal revenues. It's an argument about the ability of all our citizens to realize their dreams and opportunities.

.

We aren't talking about globally, douchebag, we're talking about the US. That's a big distinction and one you just gloss over without batting an eye. Do you think greed is good, Gecko? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Huh? What's the matter, sewer rat, why can't you answer the questions? If income redistribution is good for the US, then it should be even better for the entire planet! Right? I mean, why stop at our borders? And if the 1% in this country is being greedy because it doesn't want to surrender its income to fund the government's inept redistribution schemes, then isn't the global 1% just as greedy if it objects to a global redistribution scheme? Or do you apply the "greed" label selectively to ensure that it only pertains to others but not you?

I'm beginning to think you don't really care about ending world poverty and inequality, do you sewer rat? What a greedy, stone-hearted bastard you are!

.

Huh? What's the matter, sewer rat, why can't you answer the questions? Originally Posted by lustylad

Great question ... but I didn't realize you were referring to LLIdiot ... until now.

Go ahead LLIdiot the "sewer rat," your namesake and I want you to answer the following simple question:

Knowing then what we know now, would you have "still" supported the invasion of Iraq?

As for me, my answer is "still" NO!

Huh? What's the matter, sewer rat, why can't you answer the questions? If income redistribution is good for the US, then it should be even better for the entire planet! Right? I mean, why stop at our borders? And if the 1% in this country is being greedy because it doesn't want to surrender its income to fund the government's inept redistribution schemes, then isn't the global 1% just as greedy if it objects to a global redistribution scheme? Or do you apply the "greed" label selectively to ensure that it only pertains to others but not you?

I'm beginning to think you don't really care about ending world poverty and inequality, do you sewer rat? What a greedy, stone-hearted bastard you are!

. Originally Posted by lustylad

You're employing the IB chicken shit school of posting, now. The US doesn't determine the economic system that other countries follow. I apply the cunt label, because it applies to YOU. What I don't care about, is anything you've got to say on the matter. You're warped, fudgepacker.