So you want better paying jobs?

[danielpalos]

simply resorting to fallacy is an "abomination" against philosophy if not religion.

So, that's you failing to answer my question.

Given your behavior, and the consensus on it, I think my question is very fair.

If you are somehow unaware that you are being rude, that goes back to my suggestions that there is really something wrong with you.

I do not believe that is the case.

IMO, you are likely just a very pretentious communist who is trying to cloak his real agenda with unclear jargon and poor sentence structure.

With various rationalizations as to why it is ok of your to be dishonest in avoiding real dialog well trolling those few who are willing to talk with you.

dude; argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy. why not argue the point, unless you want to cede the argument.

I have repeatedly explained why I cannot argue the point. Because you do not present your point in a understandable manner.

I am not attacking you personally. I am seriously and constructively pointing out that either your communication skills or your purposeful obtuseness is making communication difficult if not impossible.

For example. From what you have presented, it appears to me that you are a communist.

I have repeatedly asked you if this is true.

Your response has, at best, been incoherent gibberish.

I ask again, are you a communist?

It has to do with employment at will; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law. If you refuse to be responsive, that is grounds ending your Standing in any serious discussion, but most especially, in legal venues.

And you failed to answer a simple yes or no question.

You are either messed up, or very rude.

The non answer you did post is nothing but gibberish and self serving blather.

What do you think you are doing?

yes or no questions are usually a form of special pleading, in this case, by begging the question of accepting your false dichotomy.

can you re-phrase your question?

 

[Correll]

So, that's you failing to answer my question.

Given your behavior, and the consensus on it, I think my question is very fair.

If you are somehow unaware that you are being rude, that goes back to my suggestions that there is really something wrong with you.

I do not believe that is the case.

IMO, you are likely just a very pretentious communist who is trying to cloak his real agenda with unclear jargon and poor sentence structure.

With various rationalizations as to why it is ok of your to be dishonest in avoiding real dialog well trolling those few who are willing to talk with you.

dude; argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy. why not argue the point, unless you want to cede the argument.

I have repeatedly explained why I cannot argue the point. Because you do not present your point in a understandable manner.

I am not attacking you personally. I am seriously and constructively pointing out that either your communication skills or your purposeful obtuseness is making communication difficult if not impossible.

For example. From what you have presented, it appears to me that you are a communist.

I have repeatedly asked you if this is true.

Your response has, at best, been incoherent gibberish.

I ask again, are you a communist?

It has to do with employment at will; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law. If you refuse to be responsive, that is grounds ending your Standing in any serious discussion, but most especially, in legal venues.

And you failed to answer a simple yes or no question.

You are either messed up, or very rude.

The non answer you did post is nothing but gibberish and self serving blather.

What do you think you are doing?

yes or no questions are usually a form of special pleading, in this case, by begging the question of accepting your false dichotomy.

can you re-phrase your question?

Yes or no question are NOT usually a form of special pleading. In this case, it is, as I am "pleading" for a real informative answer from you.


If the yes or no form of the question was the problem you could have explained that, in your ANSWER, if you had the ability or the honesty to give one.




Are you a communist?

 

[danielpalos]

how is that relevant to our discussion?

in Any case, i am not moral enough to be a True Communist who may believe in establishing a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

so, i can Only claim to be a socialist in our political-economy rather than a truer Capitalist due merely to a lack of capital.

 

[Correll]

how is that relevant to our discussion?

in Any case, i am not moral enough to be a True Communist who may believe in establishing a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

so, i can Only claim to be a socialist in our political-economy rather than a truer Capitalist due merely to a lack of capital.

It's relevance? Lost in the days it took to get an almost straight answer from you. (and why was that?)


"True Communists" are the exact opposite of Moral.

It is indefeasible to ignore or minimize the history of Communism for the weak "reason" of the supposed Utopia that the ideology promises, a promise no reasonable sane person would believe.

 

[danielpalos]

You need to have more than mere propaganda and rhetoric. Why do you believe what you do.

Are you implying that a divine Commune of Heaven may not exist due to your concerns regarding communism?

 

[Correll]

You need to have more than mere propaganda and rhetoric. Why do you believe what you do.

Are you implying that a divine Commune of Heaven may not exist due to your concerns regarding communism?

That was clearly my intent. Was it really difficult for you to get that?

The idea that the way to get the State to "whither away" is though Totalitarianism is very, very, very counter intuitive on the face of it, and strongly undermined by real life HIstory.

To risk such "means" for such a unlikely "end" is not rational.

 

[danielpalos]

It is for discussion of alternatives and hypotheticals for comparison and contrast, not real-politic.

In Any case, our Founding Fathers already Told us how much Socialism we need in our political-economy; merely sufficient to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

[Correll]

It is for discussion of alternatives and hypotheticals for comparison and contrast, not real-politic.

In Any case, our Founding Fathers already Told us how much Socialism we need in our political-economy; merely sufficient to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

YOu are welcome to try to make the case for Communism as a valid alternative, argued on it's supposed merits and explaining it's history, if you can do so.

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and/or social control of the means of production.

The recent attempts by socialists and libertarians to mischaracterize all functions of government as "socialism" is dishonest and incorrect.

Reasonable taxes to pay nationals debts is not socialism.

Providing for the common defense is not socialism.

Providing for the general welfare is a very vague term, and if you want to claim that as a justification for socialism, you need to do more than just quote it, you need to justify your opinion that it is a call for socialism or strong intrusive government.

 

[danielpalos]

I have already stated that socialism merely requires social morals for free; and true communism requires true social morals to enable a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

We are merely and Only, not that moral.

Socialism starts with a social Contract that defines it for that specific nation-State; it does not start with an arbitrary and capricious, political-science definition.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Socialism starts with a social Contract.

did Hitler Stalin and Mao's contract say it was fine to kill 200 million people?

Who was you favorite socialist?

 

[danielpalos]

special pleading much, dear? capitalism lets people die every day due to a simple lack of capital.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

capitalism lets people die every day due to a simple lack of capital.

If everyday why is the liberal fool so afraid to give us his best example?
What is your best example of this??

 

[danielpalos]

anyone who cannot afford life saving medical treatment.

 

[Boss]

anyone who cannot afford life saving medical treatment.

...Can walk into ANY hospital emergency room and, under the law, cannot be denied life saving medical treatment in the United States of America. Capitalism makes this possible by factoring in the cost of treating such cases into the price others who can pay are charged.

 

[danielpalos]

anyone who cannot afford life saving medical treatment.

...Can walk into ANY hospital emergency room and, under the law, cannot be denied life saving medical treatment in the United States of America. Capitalism makes this possible by factoring in the cost of treating such cases into the price others who can pay are charged.

dear, that is due to socialism, not capitalism. socialism bails out the least wealthy with life saving treatment, everyday. the right would prefer John Henry to simply "retire" when he is no longer able to work.

 

[rdean]

We keep hearing about this "widening gap between rich and poor" which has been the nucleus of an ongoing argument for higher wages, living wages, increasing the minimum wage, more taxation on "the wealthy" or whatever. They come armed with graphs and charts... the statistics to show you the middle class is in decline... the wealthy continue to amass great fortunes while the poor struggle to survive. Our hearts bleed as we're lectured on how we need more government regulations, more agencies and programs, more forced wage hikes and mandates, more restrictions and regulations heaped on big business in order to force them to pay up!

The problem is, we're hearing this from morons who don't understand how free market capitalism works. Oh, not all of them are illiterate morons, some have read books by European socialist propagandists and think they have everything all figured out. They don't seem to understand socialism doesn't work in practice like it works on paper. Every significant sized Socialist nation has failed and most of them have failed hideously. The ideas of people like Marx and Mao are responsible for ten's of millions of deaths. It is clearly a failed ideology by every standard.

Let's first dispatch a few myths and misconceptions. Wealthy people tend to gain wealth faster than poor people because they have a propensity for wealth acquisition... it's how they became wealthy for the most part. So it is perfectly natural in a free market capitalist system for the wealthiest to gain wealth faster than everyone else. It's like having a marathon race where there are runners who are seasoned veteran marathoners, runners who are couch potatoes, and some who run for the fun of it.... Now, in an actual race, who would you expect to lead and eventually win? The couch potato? Of course not... the seasoned vets are constantly going to gain more ground than the couch potatoes... that's perfectly natural and expected. The solution to the problem is not to hobble the veterans so they don't run as fast... the better idea would be to motivate the couch potatoes... train them up... make them better able to compete... turn them into veteran runners.

So this is where the idea of increasing their wages comes... but it's not as simple as merely passing some legislation that corporations MUST pay people $X per hour... that does not work in free market capitalism. What happens is, everything is on a sliding scale, so people make more but things cost more... so very shortly, we are back to square one. So come on Boss... get to the point... how do we increase the rate of pay for the average American in the average job without disrupting free market capitalism or causing inflation?

In order to increase pay you have to increase the demand for labor. In order to do that, you have to create new jobs. Not just new service sector, minimum wage, government or part-time jobs... but real, good paying, legitimate jobs. The way to do that is to encourage expansion of business... this requires taking several steps... lower taxes on corporations... or eliminate corporate tax altogether. Offer tax incentives for repatriated wealth... we have over $20 trillion in US wealth abroad... not doing us a bit of good. Let's bring it home and put it to work creating new business and new jobs. Finally, our trade deals need to account for the disparity in cost of labor. We can't compete with countries who pay their workers $1 a day and a bowl of rice... unless that's the standard we want to live with ourselves. Our trade policies have to take this into consideration and we have to apply tougher tariffs on import goods so our American companies can again compete domestically.

For example, let's use a computer keyboard... If you go to the store today to buy one, you will likely pay around $20 for a standard keyboard which is probably made in Indonesia. Now... An American company, with American workers and paying American taxes, can't buy the materials and assemble said keyboard for $20, much less sell it for that and make a profit. A similar American-made keyboard would be probably $40 or more. So if you have the choice to buy the same keyboard for $20 or $40... which would you likely purchase? Most people aren't going to care about where it's made, money is the deciding factor. However... IF you applied a tariff on Indonesian keyboards of say, $10 each... then the price of the Indonesian keyboard is $30 and the US company has the opportunity to compete... they cut some corners use some competitive ingenuity and manage to whittle their price down to $35... now you have a choice between a cheaply-made Indonesian keyboard for $30 or one that is built to last by Americans for $35. Some will still pick the cheaper keyboard but some will go with the quality.

Now my example is a little exaggerated, we'd never apply a 50% tariff on something... but the point is making imports more expensive so that American companies can compete again. When we change this dynamic, jobs will begin to generate as a result.. more jobs = more demand for labor = higher wages.

So you are saying you shouldn't read books?

 

[Boss]

anyone who cannot afford life saving medical treatment.

...Can walk into ANY hospital emergency room and, under the law, cannot be denied life saving medical treatment in the United States of America. Capitalism makes this possible by factoring in the cost of treating such cases into the price others who can pay are charged.

dear, that is due to socialism, not capitalism. socialism bails out the least wealthy with life saving treatment, everyday. the right would prefer John Henry to simply "retire" when he is no longer able to work.

Sorry, it's not.. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, techs, EMTs, etc. do not work for the government or state, and they do not provide their service out of obligation to serve societal need. They may love what they do but they do it for capitalist monetary remuneration.

What Socialism wants to do with John Henry is much worse. If you are no longer productive then you are useless to the State. Expendable. As socialist economies collapse, these people are left to starve to death or they simply euthanize them.

Now I don't really know who you are talking about when you say "the right" because "the right" can be any number of people with a variety of individual viewpoints. Do you mean "those who aren't commies?" Is THAT "the right" you're talking about? Because, Communists damn sure don't care about you if you've become unproductive to the commune.

I can only speak for myself as a Conservative. I want John Henry to be cared for, either through his private sector insurance or through Medicare benefits he paid into his whole life. Furthermore, I want his life to have value and quality, even after he has passed his prime. I know capitalist entrepreneurs who are in their 90s.... it's a beautiful thing. They've used their minds, their ingenuity, their talents, their life-long wisdom, and continue to contribute in their own way to society.

 

[Boss]

We keep hearing about this "widening gap between rich and poor" which has been the nucleus of an ongoing argument for higher wages, living wages, increasing the minimum wage, more taxation on "the wealthy" or whatever. They come armed with graphs and charts... the statistics to show you the middle class is in decline... the wealthy continue to amass great fortunes while the poor struggle to survive. Our hearts bleed as we're lectured on how we need more government regulations, more agencies and programs, more forced wage hikes and mandates, more restrictions and regulations heaped on big business in order to force them to pay up!

The problem is, we're hearing this from morons who don't understand how free market capitalism works. Oh, not all of them are illiterate morons, some have read books by European socialist propagandists and think they have everything all figured out. They don't seem to understand socialism doesn't work in practice like it works on paper. Every significant sized Socialist nation has failed and most of them have failed hideously. The ideas of people like Marx and Mao are responsible for ten's of millions of deaths. It is clearly a failed ideology by every standard.

Let's first dispatch a few myths and misconceptions. Wealthy people tend to gain wealth faster than poor people because they have a propensity for wealth acquisition... it's how they became wealthy for the most part. So it is perfectly natural in a free market capitalist system for the wealthiest to gain wealth faster than everyone else. It's like having a marathon race where there are runners who are seasoned veteran marathoners, runners who are couch potatoes, and some who run for the fun of it.... Now, in an actual race, who would you expect to lead and eventually win? The couch potato? Of course not... the seasoned vets are constantly going to gain more ground than the couch potatoes... that's perfectly natural and expected. The solution to the problem is not to hobble the veterans so they don't run as fast... the better idea would be to motivate the couch potatoes... train them up... make them better able to compete... turn them into veteran runners.

So this is where the idea of increasing their wages comes... but it's not as simple as merely passing some legislation that corporations MUST pay people $X per hour... that does not work in free market capitalism. What happens is, everything is on a sliding scale, so people make more but things cost more... so very shortly, we are back to square one. So come on Boss... get to the point... how do we increase the rate of pay for the average American in the average job without disrupting free market capitalism or causing inflation?

In order to increase pay you have to increase the demand for labor. In order to do that, you have to create new jobs. Not just new service sector, minimum wage, government or part-time jobs... but real, good paying, legitimate jobs. The way to do that is to encourage expansion of business... this requires taking several steps... lower taxes on corporations... or eliminate corporate tax altogether. Offer tax incentives for repatriated wealth... we have over $20 trillion in US wealth abroad... not doing us a bit of good. Let's bring it home and put it to work creating new business and new jobs. Finally, our trade deals need to account for the disparity in cost of labor. We can't compete with countries who pay their workers $1 a day and a bowl of rice... unless that's the standard we want to live with ourselves. Our trade policies have to take this into consideration and we have to apply tougher tariffs on import goods so our American companies can again compete domestically.

For example, let's use a computer keyboard... If you go to the store today to buy one, you will likely pay around $20 for a standard keyboard which is probably made in Indonesia. Now... An American company, with American workers and paying American taxes, can't buy the materials and assemble said keyboard for $20, much less sell it for that and make a profit. A similar American-made keyboard would be probably $40 or more. So if you have the choice to buy the same keyboard for $20 or $40... which would you likely purchase? Most people aren't going to care about where it's made, money is the deciding factor. However... IF you applied a tariff on Indonesian keyboards of say, $10 each... then the price of the Indonesian keyboard is $30 and the US company has the opportunity to compete... they cut some corners use some competitive ingenuity and manage to whittle their price down to $35... now you have a choice between a cheaply-made Indonesian keyboard for $30 or one that is built to last by Americans for $35. Some will still pick the cheaper keyboard but some will go with the quality.

Now my example is a little exaggerated, we'd never apply a 50% tariff on something... but the point is making imports more expensive so that American companies can compete again. When we change this dynamic, jobs will begin to generate as a result.. more jobs = more demand for labor = higher wages.

So you are saying you shouldn't read books?

You shouldn't read Socialist-Communist claptrap and propaganda... unless it is to gain understanding of the magnitude with which these systems have failed and caused horrible and heinous acts of genocide and inhumanity.

If you want to read books to inspire thought and wisdom for the future, read something by one of the Founding Fathers.

 

[danielpalos]

anyone who cannot afford life saving medical treatment.

...Can walk into ANY hospital emergency room and, under the law, cannot be denied life saving medical treatment in the United States of America. Capitalism makes this possible by factoring in the cost of treating such cases into the price others who can pay are charged.

dear, that is due to socialism, not capitalism. socialism bails out the least wealthy with life saving treatment, everyday. the right would prefer John Henry to simply "retire" when he is no longer able to work.

Sorry, it's not.. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, techs, EMTs, etc. do not work for the government or state, and they do not provide their service out of obligation to serve societal need. They may love what they do but they do it for capitalist monetary remuneration.

What Socialism wants to do with John Henry is much worse. If you are no longer productive then you are useless to the State. Expendable. As socialist economies collapse, these people are left to starve to death or they simply euthanize them.

Now I don't really know who you are talking about when you say "the right" because "the right" can be any number of people with a variety of individual viewpoints. Do you mean "those who aren't commies?" Is THAT "the right" you're talking about? Because, Communists damn sure don't care about you if you've become unproductive to the commune.

I can only speak for myself as a Conservative. I want John Henry to be cared for, either through his private sector insurance or through Medicare benefits he paid into his whole life. Furthermore, I want his life to have value and quality, even after he has passed his prime. I know capitalist entrepreneurs who are in their 90s.... it's a beautiful thing. They've used their minds, their ingenuity, their talents, their life-long wisdom, and continue to contribute in their own way to society.

sorry, it is if it is funded by the Peoples' tax monies it is Socialism not Capitalism, dear.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

anyone who cannot afford life saving medical treatment.

...Can walk into ANY hospital emergency room and, under the law, cannot be denied life saving medical treatment in the United States of America. Capitalism makes this possible by factoring in the cost of treating such cases into the price others who can pay are charged.

dear, that is due to socialism, not capitalism. socialism bails out the least wealthy with life saving treatment, everyday. the right would prefer John Henry to simply "retire" when he is no longer able to work.

Sorry, it's not.. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, techs, EMTs, etc. do not work for the government or state, and they do not provide their service out of obligation to serve societal need. They may love what they do but they do it for capitalist monetary remuneration.

What Socialism wants to do with John Henry is much worse. If you are no longer productive then you are useless to the State. Expendable. As socialist economies collapse, these people are left to starve to death or they simply euthanize them.

Now I don't really know who you are talking about when you say "the right" because "the right" can be any number of people with a variety of individual viewpoints. Do you mean "those who aren't commies?" Is THAT "the right" you're talking about? Because, Communists damn sure don't care about you if you've become unproductive to the commune.

I can only speak for myself as a Conservative. I want John Henry to be cared for, either through his private sector insurance or through Medicare benefits he paid into his whole life. Furthermore, I want his life to have value and quality, even after he has passed his prime. I know capitalist entrepreneurs who are in their 90s.... it's a beautiful thing. They've used their minds, their ingenuity, their talents, their life-long wisdom, and continue to contribute in their own way to society.

sorry, it is if it is funded by the Peoples' tax monies it is Socialism not Capitalism, dear.

will someone tell the idiot liberal that in econ 101 they teach that economies are mixed between capitalism and socialism and that the issue is to about to which we want to move closer.