Should big digressions be split to a new topic?
-
Ah, I can see you subscribe to the pedantic dickweed version of socialism
Ah, so we're down to definitions again. That's where we came in, I fear. So when I say "somewhere to the right of Hitler", I do, actually, mean "to the right of Hitler" and I know what I mean when I'm saying it. Not to mention that even if you consider Hitler to be a raving lefty, the position I'm referring to would still be to the right of where you consider Hitler to be located on a political spectrum.
Likewise, when I refer to socialism, I do, indeed, mean the dictionary (or, if you prefer, "pedantic dickweed") definition of socialism, and not what clueless fucknuts like you interpret it as meaning.
I would imagine that "clueless fucknut" is specific enough even for an American.
-
I would imagine that "clueless fucknut" is specific enough even for an American.
You don't have to be an asshole to an entire nationality just because you're pissed at one person. Unless you like being a bigot.
-
Ah, so we're down to definitions again
I think it's less to do with definition, and more to do with reality vs. theory - sure, in theory, the ideal of socialism sounds great, but it robs the people of any benefit of effort, and since people have different opinions and ideals, they will not all subscribe to the idea that risking their life walking the beams at a skyscraper construction site or racking their brains all day discovering how to make electric cars viable, and get the same benefit out of it as the person sitting on their ass all day answering phones. So, in reality, socialism means having a large overbearing government forcing the people to do it, which
attractscreates the power hungry and greedy types that take advantage of running that government.
-
...and I know what I mean when I'm saying it.
But does anyone else? OK, yes, in this case, most people either have or are aware of popular misconceptions, so they probably did.
Not to mention that even if you consider Hitler to be a raving lefty, the position I'm referring to would still be to the right of where you consider Hitler to be located on a political spectrum.
Yes, but it would have had a totally different meaning then.
Likewise, when I refer to socialism, I do, indeed, mean the dictionary (or, if you prefer, "pedantic dickweed") definition of socialism, and not what clueless fucknuts like you interpret it as meaning.
So how would you describe a planned economy where most of the assets are privately owned? Are you familiar with the distinction between essential and accidental?
I would imagine that "clueless fucknut" is specific enough even for an American.
It is, but as always, context matters, and in this context, I'd be worried if you didn't think this about me.
-
@darkmatter said:
Oh, and they want less government income because screw you people who are poor.
Eh, what? Do you mean, they want fewer people getting their income from the government? Doesn't everyone want that? Is having people dependent on the government seen as a good thing in and of itself by anyone?
Actually, I retract that statement because it is too broad to be meaningful. And I didn't mean that the government needs income to pay to poor. It needs income for all sorts of things... police, roads, etc. What I really mean is, they want less government tax income from the wealthy, as in top 1% to 10%. What is hilarious is that they're backed by the moron blue collars in the south who I guess think for some reason that bracket includes them.
-
Are you familiar with the distinction between essential and accidental?
I haven't met any progressives who even believe in essence (that's part of why they are progressives), so I would say no.
-
@tufty said:
Not to mention that even if you consider Hitler to be a raving lefty, the position I'm referring to would still be to the right of where you consider Hitler to be located on a political spectrum.
Yes, but it would have had a totally different meaning then.WARNING: Pedantic dickweedery ahead.
Actually, I think that would make his original statement meaningless. By @tufty's current qualifications, MSNBC could be to the right of Hitler.
-
What I really mean is, they want less government tax income from the wealthy, as in top 1% to 10%. What is hilarious is that they're backed by the moron blue collars in the south who I guess think for some reason that bracket includes them.
Because good economics shouldn't get in the way of politics based on envy. In any case, most people don't seem to realize how much more progressive the US tax system is compared to most places.
It needs income for all sorts of things... police, roads, etc.
Or strawmen. While some hard core libertarians think the government shouldn't build roads, I assure you the sorts of things you mentioned are certainly supported by the right wing. Though I think we should probably cut the budgets of some police forces.
But I think the implications of your post are right in that through the rosy colored glasses of (modern, at least) left wing politics, fiscal incontinence is a desired thing.
-
WARNING: Pedantic dickweedery ahead.
Actually, I think that would make his original statement meaningless. By @tufty's current qualifications, MSNBC could be to the right of Hitler.
It would imply that he thought Fox was actually pretty left wing. Not in a pedantic dickweedish way, of course, but by normal connotations of the idiom.
Less stabby than Jack the Ripper.
Better free throw shooter than Shaq.
Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
-
How did we get from big digressions being split into new topics to a full on discussion about politics? Is there some extended metaphor going on?
<3 this community's ability to thread drift.
-
I've heard that some charter schools have this issue. I hadn't heard this regarding the DC program. Do you have any links?
So the only thing going on was the transfer of money from one corrupt organization that paid teachers well to a corrupt organization that paid teachers poorly and skimmed it off the top for the rich people who owned the private school which, ironically, reduces the chances that the public school will perform because all of the parents who care take their kids and money and leave, further screwing the public school over.
This sounds like loads of bullshit. Firstly, the jobs were offered and accepted. Your skimming theory might be true to a certain extent, but it's loads better than politicians and the (criminal) public teacher unions fleecing the public for their own gain.
One of the problems with public schools is that they have no practical accountability. If they need to compete for students, parents can effectively hold the schools accountable. If anyone is screwing the public over, it's the public schools.
I don't have inks anymore; Gray and all his craziness have somewhat distracted from the school reform work Rhee started.
-
this community's ability to thread drift
Threads here do not drift; they are blown off-course with the intensity of a category 5 hurricane. I'm amazed that on-topic posts were still being made at post #80.
-
Because good economics shouldn't get in the way of politics based on envy. In any case, most people don't seem to realize how much more progressive the US tax system is compared to most places.
Thing is that your top 10%ers are for the most part in control of their own salaries. They own companies, they are giving themselves the money.
Yes, the US tax system is more progressive than most places, but our inequality of weatlth in the US is much higher as well. Ie, the rich are WAY more rich than the middle class. Based on the ratio of taxes vs inequality of wealth, the US should be taxing richer people more not less. If the wealthy wanted less taxing or less inequality of wealth, they'd raise people's salaries other than their own and their CEO friends.
-
they'd raise people's salaries
Which is also a huge movement right now ($15 minimum wage) that the Right Wing is staunchly opposed to, and hilariously backed by a lot of the very morons that would benefit from raising minimum wage!
note: I'm not for either side, I hate them both. and I hate the 3rd and 4th sides just as much. They're all too idealistic for reality.
note 2: I heard a guy on the same foolish right-wing radio show call in and claim that "raising minimum wage is just an attempt to offload the welfare system onto corporations." The funny part is that I thought the entire point of the Right Wing is that people should get jobs with corporations so the government doesn't have to support them. So this right-wing lunatic is now complaining that it might become a reality.... The only reason for the complaint that I can only guess, is because that it was the Liberals that are pushing it.
-
Yes, the US tax system is more progressive than most places, but our inequality of weatlth in the US is much higher as well. Ie, the rich are WAY more rich than the middle class. Based on the ratio of taxes vs inequality of wealth, the US should be taxing richer people more not less.
Oh noes! Inequality!
Do you have any statistics to back up the inequality / taxation assertion? I'd be interested to see them.
If the wealthy wanted less taxing or less inequality of wealth, they'd raise people's salaries other than their own and their CEO friends.
I can't make much sense of this. Why would you arbitrarily raise any salary? Why do you seem to care so much about inequality?
-
Do you have any statistics to back up the inequality / taxation assertion? I'd be interested to see them.
Will try to get back to you on that. I know the 2 facts are true independent of each other, but have never taken the numbers and crunched them together to verify the estimation in my head is 100% true.
-
the rich are WAY more rich than the middle class
Some people may view that to mean people in the US are WAY more successful.
Which is also a huge movement right now ($15 minimum wage) that the Right Wing is staunchly opposed to, and hilariously backed by a lot of the very morons that would benefit from raising minimum wage!
Except many of the goods and services that people on minimum wage rely on are supported by minimum wage workers - and raising the costs of these goods and services to afford higher wages means it will all be a moot point when prices double too (and/or a much higher unemployment rate)
-
Yes, the US tax system is more progressive than most places, but our inequality of weatlth in the US is much higher as well. Ie, the rich are WAY more rich than the middle class. Based on the ratio of taxes vs inequality of wealth, the US should be taxing richer people more not less. If the wealthy wanted less taxing or less inequality of wealth, they'd raise people's salaries other than their own and their CEO friends
Wealth is not the same thing as income. Income can be redistributed; wealth cannot, at least not reliably. To understand why, consider the common occurrence of lottery winners ending up broke a few years later.
-
Which is also a huge movement right now ($15 minimum wage) that the Right Wing is staunchly opposed to, and hilariously backed by a lot of the very morons that would benefit from raising minimum wage!
Those "morons" just haven't succumbed to the same magical thinking that you have. They're probably worried about what's going to happen.
I heard a guy on the same foolish right-wing radio show call in and claim that "raising minimum wage is just an attempt to offload the welfare system onto corporations." The funny part is that I thought the entire point of the Right Wing is that people should get jobs with corporations so the government doesn't have to support them.
You're so cute. You think that laws have just the effects their authors thought they would have. See my previous link.
-
Which is also a huge movement right now ($15 minimum wage) that the Right Wing is staunchly opposed to, and hilariously backed by a lot of the very morons that would benefit from raising minimum wage!
If that really works, why stop there? Let's have a $1000 minimum wage. We'd all be rich!
-
That's cute, you're mad that the lower income might get closer to the middle class. Which would effectively make the middle class the lower class.
Which is why I'm not for that law. The gap that needs to be bridged is between the middle class and the upper class, not the lower and middle classes.
-
Those "morons" just haven't succumbed to the same magical thinking that you have.
You're assuming I agree with these movements. I am only talking about them, not agreeing with them.
The reason I call the people "morons" is because they're the ones this would aid. Clearly the people who are actually already employed at middle class or higher wages would not favor this came to be.
If that really works, why stop there? Let's have a $1000 minimum wage. We'd all be rich!
Speaking of strawmen. I can do that too. Let's just eliminate the minimum wage altogether and let the illegal immigrants battle it out with US citizens for 50 cents an hour janitorial jobs!
See how easy it is to make things sound absurd when you use extremes?
-
That's cute, you're mad that the lower income might get closer to the middle class. Which would effectively make the middle class the lower class.
TDEMSYR. You didn't look at the link, did you?
Which is why I'm not for that law. The gap that needs to be bridged is between the middle class and the upper class, not the lower and middle classes.
But you seem to want to do this by bringing down the upper class instead of raising the middle class. I'd rather do it the other way around.
And we certainly have been, if you measure actual lifestyles instead of dollars.
-
TDEMSYR. You didn't look at the link, did you?
I read the link. Half of the article went on the describe how it was working out ok for the people they were able to keep employed, the other half about how they had to cut some jobs in order to afford the payroll.
-
You're assuming I agree with these movements. I am only talking about them, not agreeing with them.
But you've accepted at face value the arguments of the people who are for them.
The reason I call the people "morons" is because they're the ones this would aid.
Fuck. You still haven't read the article I linked.
Clearly the people who are actually already employed at middle class or higher wages would not favor this came to be.
Anyone who understands economics should be against this.
-
Fuck. You still haven't read the article I linked.
Clearly YOU didn't read your own article?
Has SeaTac collapsed from its minimum wage increase law? Sure sounded like they are surviving just fine.
-
Half of the article went on the describe how it was working out ok for the people they were able to keep employed, the other half about how they had to cut some jobs in order to afford the payroll.
Doing OK, except that the increases were being eaten up in other ways. Because they didn't magically become more productive at their jobs.
-
Fuck. You still haven't read the article I linked.
Quote from your article:
"For now, the clear winners are low-wage workers such as Vicky Castro, 23, a cashier at WallyPark in SeaTac."Oh wait, that's exactly who I said would be the clear winner? (to be fair, I didn't give her name earlier)
-
Sure sounded like they are surviving just fine.
Sure, they're surviving. Though as businesses keep locating elsewhere that will be more difficult. And they're also a bit worse off, but I guess that's OK, since, EQUALITY!
-
Speaking of strawmen. I can do that too. Let's just eliminate the minimum wage altogether and let the illegal immigrants battle it out with US citizens for 50 cents an hour janitorial jobs!See how easy it is to make things sound absurd when you use extremes?
It's not a strawman, it's a reductio ad adsurdum.
lern2fallacy
-
But you seem to want to do this by bringing down the upper class instead of raising the middle class. I'd rather do it the other way around.
But that way wouldn't satisfy his envy.
-
BLOG: What SeaTac tells us about $15 minimum wage
By Assunta Ng While attending an event at a SeaTac hotel last week, I met two women who receive the $15/hour minimum wage. SeaTac has implemented the new law on Jan. 1. I met the women while they w…
Not working out so hot already...
-
http://www.nwasianweekly.com/2014/05/blog-seatac-tells-us-15-minimum-wage/
Not working out so hot already...
So basically the $15/hr minimum wage sucks because the businesses decided to screw their employees over in other ways. Nice. That really shows how much the upper class cares :)
-
And ha... a reply to boomzilla that quotes Drake... that's useless.
-
It's not a strawman, it's a reductio ad adsurdum.
My bad, you are correct. Wrong argument term. Either way, it's still phallic. Err, felatio.
Errr.... fallacious. That's the one.
-
So basically the $15/hr minimum wage sucks because the businesses decided to screw their employees over in other ways. Nice. That really shows how much the upper class cares
I'm starting to think IHBT, because this is just getting really silly.
Where do you suppose the extra money comes from? How did you think the wage increases would be funded?
-
Oh of course, let's not blame it on the government setting arbitrary limits that are unreasonable. I mean I guess they could have just gone out of business from being unable to turn a profit, or jacked up prices to the consumer, then gone out of business for lack of customers. But the employees losing their jobs wouldn't be screwed then, because it's another corporation down, sticking it to the one percent!
-
How did you think the wage increases would be funded?
Well let's see.... a company with 5 CEOs making ~2mil/yr apiece could cut their salary in half and pay 500 employees an extra $20,000 a year. But that'd be way too much to ask for, I know.
-
On the face of it, if raising the minimum wage from $7 to $15 is good, surely raising it from $7 to $5000 must be better. So what am I missing?
-
On the face of it, if raising the minimum wage from $7 to $15 is good, surely raising it from $7 to $5000 must be better. So what am I missing?
Because the math of taking a paycut at the top to fund the bottom doesn't work for $5000? Are you daft?
And again, I do not support $15/hr minimum wage. I think that is too big of a jump to make, it doesn't make sense to me. But that doesn't make me any less irritated by the megasalaries payed at the top level compared to the bottom level, or even the middle level.
-
Yeah! I mean, twelve million dollars for the year want enough for the Clinton's; didn't you hear Hillary talking about how broke they were after Bill came out if office?
Filed Under:The strawman wears a blue dress
-
As a side note, the minimum wage in Canada is $10/hour.
I see they're definitely a failing country though, clearly we couldn't pay our employees as much as they do or we might collapse like they have.
-
Yeah! I mean, twelve million dollars for the year want enough for the Clinton's; didn't you hear Hillary talking about how broke they were after Bill came out if office?
Sorry - maybe you should have checked their income statement from the year he left office. The Clintons were broke. They owed more in attorney fees than they had in assets. That is broke. However, clearly they had the ability to make more money fast as Bill would be in huge speaking engagements bringing in the cash. But that doesn't change the fact that at the time, they were indeed broke.
-
Because the math of taking a paycut at the top to fund the bottom doesn't work for $5000? Are you daft?
I may be daft, but at least I know what a rhetorical question is. So you admit that the minimum wage can't be raised to arbitrary levels without ill effect. The next question is what makes $8 or whatever you want it raised to OK, but $15 or $5000 unworkable? And do concentrate on the $15, since you're obviously not one of those who want to use minimum wage to instantly raise everyone to the middle class.
-
Well let's see.... a company with 5 CEOs making ~2mil/yr apiece could cut their salary in half and pay 500 employees an extra $20,000 a year. But that'd be way too much to ask for, I know.
You are quite the prodigy. I could be a pedantic dickweed and complain about a company with 5 CEOs, but I'll point out that those employees aren't worth an extra $20K per year and it would be a stupid trade for the company. The CEOs are worth what they're being paid, and not because of your fantasy of rich people who delight in lining each others' pockets.
Now, let's be realistic and recall that most jobs are not part of the sort of company whose leaders pull down seven figure salaries. Who the fuck are you to decide what its worth to replace hotel linens and why should I have to pay for your poor judgment?
-
Why stop at wage? We could restrict hours, force copious amounts of vacation (nearing Obama levels maybe), force tons of benefits...
It's worked out well for most of Europe right? They don't have to rely on any imported goods that are cheaper than domestic products right? It's going well, right guys? Greece? Hello?
-
Do you have any statistics to back up the inequality / taxation assertion? I'd be interested to see them.
Maybe this. It's an 80-page report, plenty of room for you to find something vaguely ambiguous to focus onYou might want to try Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-first Century", too.
-
It's worked out well for most of Europe right? They don't have to rely on any imported goods that are cheaper than domestic products right? It's going well, right guys?
Yes, and clearly the US doesn't import cheap goods either? HA.
By the way, I am puzzled as to why everyone is arguing with me about something I don't agree with or want anyway?
-
Sorry - maybe you should have checked their income statement from the year he left office. The Clintons were broke. They owed more in attorney fees than they had in assets. That is broke. However, clearly they had the ability to make more money fast as Bill would be in huge speaking engagements bringing in the cash. But that doesn't change the fact that at the time, they were indeed broke.
It amazes me that people running corporations and supporting other jobs are lambasted for being the one percent, while filthy rich liberal politicians and media moguls get a pass and even sympathy. Sickening.
-
By the way, I am puzzled as to why everyone is arguing with me about something I don't agree with or want anyway?
Because it's Friday and this is more fun that doing actual work.
