How Would You Pay Off The Debt?

[open mind]

i would cut defense spending to 1/5th of what it currently is.

i would make the tax rate for the richest of the rich 50%

deficit and debt taken care of.......besides some minor quibblings from republicans about statistics i would think i've done my patriotic duty.

i'm sorry middle america but my budget does not require you to die so the rich can keep the gains of the last 10 years.....maybe my next budget will require less humanity.

sincerely,

president, go fuck yourselves

[germypill]

You tax the richest of the rich 50% and they'll take themselves and their money elsewhere.

[StephenYoung]

Yeah, essentially everything there is stupid.


Except have it like Quebec, where middle class families like mine get taxed at like 47% lololol

[JZebrak57]

God I hope this is a joke.

[Juan Jose]

The two main drivers of the debt are social security and welfare, you can cut away discretionary spending all you want but SS revenue will continue to shrink in relation to it's spending as will welfare benefits if this economy keeps stagnating. I hate to say it but something has to be done about those two programs. But I agree that defense spending should be cut as well as our aid to authoritarian regimes.

[Willy McFurgle]

We need Governor Arnold to be prez

[deFobbed14yrs]

what is your definition of middle america

[TomFoolery]

dumb

[PaulPelc5]

i would cut defense spending to 1/5th of what it currently is.

i would make the tax rate for the richest of the rich 50%

deficit and debt taken care of.......besides some minor quibblings from republicans about statistics i would think i've done my patriotic duty.

i'm sorry middle america but my budget does not require you to die so the rich can keep the gains of the last 10 years.....maybe my next budget will require less humanity.

sincerely,

president, go fuck yourselves

This is where you're at in your life at 28 years old? And you have the freedom to vote and breed :shudder: If only the movie Idiocracy weren't so eerily prophetic.

[tfot11]

...wow...

[saysmydoctor]

Dude, seriously, how often do you get shitfaced?

[perceptrons]

Dude, seriously, how often do you get shitfaced?
My thought as well.

Everyone should know by now, if open mind is posting odd shit at odd hours, he's probably quite drunk.

[And Hours Pass]

He's back again with more embittered political ranting. :explode:

[Scrandon]

Favorite part is the sign-off and how it makes zero sense.

[jawstheme]

The sign off is pretty funny. I read it about 4 times trying to understand what it meant.

[re7ard1337]

Prostitute women.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I think open mind has just been listening to too much Anti-Flag

[saysmydoctor]

open mind's drunk mindset:
I8W5SSu6gSk

[oldwirehands]

open mind's drunk mindset:
I8W5SSu6gSk

yndfqN1VKhY

[kidinthebushes]

You tax the richest of the rich 50% and they'll take themselves and their money elsewhere.


And believe it or not the rich help create jobs. Democrats tend to forget this.

[Scrandon]

And believe it or not the rich help create jobs. Democrats tend to forget this.
Republicans tend to forget there are far better ways in doing so.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

And believe it or not the rich help create jobs. Democrats tend to forget this.

It's not that Democrats don't know the rich are job creators, it's the fact that the rich (7-figure earners) can afford to be taxed. Most American families can show they survive with a combined income of less than 100k a year. These CEOs and financial investors can get by without wasting money on extravagant luxuries.

[saysmydoctor]

And believe it or not the rich help create jobs. Democrats tend to forget this.
The Democrats have never forgotten this. Not once. Trying to cast the Democrats as the anti-business party is hilarious.

[Asthenia-182]

lolpoliticaldiscussions

[<*)))><]

It's not that Democrats don't know the rich are job creators, it's the fact that the rich (7-figure earners) can afford to be taxed. Most American families can show they survive with a combined income of less than 100k a year. These CEOs and financial investors can get by without wasting money on extravagant luxuries.
You seriously comparing investors and CEOs? They are in two completely different leagues in salary and personally how much they deserve it.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

You seriously comparing investors and CEOs? They are in two completely different leagues in salary and personally how much they deserve it.

You are welcomed to criticize this. I'm not an expert in the private sector. I just assumed the super rich are swimming in a pool of gold coins à la Scrooge McDuck

http://www.sportaphile.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/scrooge-mcduck-make-it-rain.jpg

[<*)))><]

You are welcomed to criticize this. I'm not an expert in the private sector. I just assumed the super rich are swimming in a pool of gold coins à la Scrooge McDuck

http://www.sportaphile.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/scrooge-mcduck-make-it-rain.jpg
Diamonds actually.

[topher465]

Something should be done, but not that.

[inthemidst]

The day Congress signs off on taxing 50% of the wealthiest Americans will be the day hell reigns on earth. Your idealism is equivalent to foolishness. The only thing I can possibly agree on is cutting spending on military defense. However, 1/5th is quite unrealistic. I seriously don't understand what you mean by "middle america". Do you mean "middle class"?

[open mind]

kez

[Until The Bombs]

The day Congress signs off on taxing 50% of the wealthiest Americans will be the day hell reigns on earth. Your idealism is equivalent to foolishness. The only thing I can possibly agree on is cutting spending on military defense. However, 1/5th is quite unrealistic. I seriously don't understand what you mean by "middle america". Do you mean "middle class"?

So hell has already reigned on earth, in fact, for a long time? Over the history of America, tax rates on the wealthiest Americans have been above 50% for longer than they've been below.

[Simulcast]

So hell has already reigned on earth, in fact, for a long time? Over the history of America, tax rates on the wealthiest Americans have been above 50% for longer than they've been below.

Heh.

[inthemidst]

So hell has already reigned on earth, in fact, for a long time? Over the history of America, tax rates on the wealthiest Americans have been above 50% for longer than they've been below.

http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax-rates-of-the-richest-400-americans.html

[Simulcast]

http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax-rates-of-the-richest-400-americans.html

I think what you are looking for is something like this:

http://s158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/Tax_Rates/TopTaxBracket_TaxRate_600.jpg

Oops.

[inthemidst]

I think what you are looking for is something like this:

http://s158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/Tax_Rates/TopTaxBracket_TaxRate_600.jpg

Oops.

Did you send something?

[Simulcast]

Did you send something?

Can you not see the graph?

[inthemidst]

Can you not see the graph?

Nah, I'm on my work computer, and it's running off IE version 6, so for some reason, posted images don't show...

Maybe a link?

[Simulcast]

Nah, I'm on my work computer, and it's running off IE version 6, so for some reason, posted images don't show...

Maybe a link?


http://s158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/Tax_Rates/TopTaxBracket_TaxRate_600.jpg

[inthemidst]

http://s158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/Tax_Rates/TopTaxBracket_TaxRate_600.jpg

I've been cyber-blocked haha. Like I said, I'm at work. I'll take a gander at it later.

[Nevuk]

The tax rate for the rich has been above 80% before and they didn't exactly up and leave.

[jawstheme]

And they were still very rich.

[Until The Bombs]

http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax-rates-of-the-richest-400-americans.html

I have no idea how your link was in anyway meant to be a response to what I said.

[jawstheme]

I have no idea how your link was in anyway meant to be a response to what I said.

His link shows that recently the rich have only been paying about 16%. He didn't understand what you were trying to say, I think.

[Until The Bombs]

Although, as that link actual does speak to, it's capital gains taxes that are the biggest sham. Bush did a tremedous job with those.

[inthemidst]

I have no idea how your link was in anyway meant to be a response to what I said.

As stated below, it's relative to capital gains, where the wealthy truly make their true capital. The top 1% may be withheld at a high rate for their base income, but that's only part of the equation.

[Until The Bombs]

As stated below, it's relative to capital gains, where the wealthy truly make their true capital. The top 1% may be withheld at a high rate for their base income, but that's only part of the equation.

Effective was not mentioned/alluded to once in this thread, until your link.

Not in your response to the OP/thread.
Not in my response to you.

[Until The Bombs]

Anyway, to say that "capital gains [is] where the wealthy truly make their true capital," is to completely ignore the gigantic mass of wealthy taxpayers who do not fall into the top 1% and do not report significant capital gains.

That mass of taxpayers may not be able to match the impact of the top 1%, but it hardly makes their contribution negligible.

[inthemidst]

Effective was not mentioned/alluded to once in this thread, until your link.

Not in your response to the OP/thread.
Not in my response to you.

Ok.

[Smash Adams]

HuGIgf-ICHM
problem solved

[saysmydoctor]

I remember Tate posted a link when taxes were higher on the rich, it actually SPURRED investment, presumably because such investment usually garners tax credits and such.

[Scrandon]

uhhh... That makes zero sense.

[zigsdr]

Cutting defense spending sounds like a disaster... people are already having trouble finding jobs, and you want to cripple a market?

[saysmydoctor]

Cutting defense spending sounds like a disaster... people are already having trouble finding jobs, and you want to cripple a market?
Wow, this sounds hugely uninformed.

[Jake Denning]

I would invest in Goo Punch and then make tons of money and give it the government

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I would invest in Goo Punch and then make tons of money and give it the government

ADQPcNvqymo

[apoemtothedead]

I remember Tate posted a link when taxes were higher on the rich, it actually SPURRED investment, presumably because such investment usually garners tax credits and such.
Or because capital gains on those investments are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary income.

That may not be the best situation for the economy as a whole, though.

[zigsdr]

Wow, this sounds hugely uninformed.
how so? I am not going to claim to be an expert, but as the gov't asks from defense contractors, defense contractors require more works. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop, General Dynamics, Raytheon, ect ect do business as defense contractors in the US. Cutting defense spending cuts defense contracts these companies would be working on. Therefore, job gone.

Seems simple enough?

[saysmydoctor]

how so? I am not going to claim to be an expert, but as the gov't asks from defense contractors, defense contractors require more works. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop, General Dynamics, Raytheon, ect ect do business as defense contractors in the US. Cutting defense spending cuts defense contracts these companies would be working on. Therefore, job gone.

Seems simple enough?
So we either get guns or nothing by your logic.

[zigsdr]

So we either get guns or nothing by your logic.
Umm.... this thread is about cutting spending to improve the debt, not redistributing funds. So yes, in this context, that is a very reasonable conclusion. And I'd rather have the jobs than "improving the debt."

[saysmydoctor]

Umm.... this thread is about cutting spending to improve the debt, not redistributing funds. So yes, in this context, that is a very reasonable conclusion. And I'd rather have the jobs than "improving the debt."
Wasn't aware the two were mutually exclusive.

[zigsdr]

Wasn't aware the two were mutually exclusive.
Unless you know of a place to transfer the funds to create the lost jobs and to improve the current debt, removing money from the defense spending remains to be a poor idea.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Unless you know of a place to transfer the funds to create the lost jobs and to improve the current debt, removing money from the defense spending remains to be a poor idea.

As a former war profiteer, I had a hard time sleeping at night knowing my product ended human life.

[open mind]

i am prone to go on a bit of an extreme rant when i get shitfaced, but when i come to my proper senses i usually feel pretty justified when it comes to the remarks i make here.

raising taxes on our most prosperous citizens has historically brought on little human cost......in fact it's quite the opposite. when our taxes were the highest on the richest of the rich we saw nearly unprecedented economic growth and an uplifting of the masses quality of life.

cutting our military budget and the wars it needs to justify such outrageous expenditures will save many american lives.....and countless foreign lives.

i hate to rain on everyones parade but cutting healthcare, education, social security, unemployment benefits, infrastructure maintenance, and the number of public safety servants out on the streets will result in deaths.....and those who die will overwhelmingly be middle/lower income people.....and a good deal of them will be elderly people with no way of saving themselves.







i notice that almost none of you have bothered to stay on topic........so i repeat......how would you pay off the debt?

[caveBEAR]

As a former war profiteer, I had a hard time sleeping at night knowing my product ended human life.

Is this real?

[captivewear]

Umm.... this thread is about cutting spending to improve the debt, not redistributing funds. So yes, in this context, that is a very reasonable conclusion. And I'd rather have the jobs than "improving the debt."
I am all for job creation and saving jobs but we need to cut off the defense contractors now. People are sitting here and acting like these contractors are getting paid $30,000 a year. These guys are making 6 figure and above salaries while producing products that they sell to the US gov't (and anyone else who will pay for them) for millions of dollars and I can promise you the cost aren't half of what they are selling. The only reason why we are still in this "war" is because of defense contractors and lobbyist (and oil of course). I don't think the average person realizes how much we spend on pointless missiles and weapons that we never use. The fact that Americans are fine with a war but not wanting a single payer health care system makes us look really bad and stupid in my opinion. This "war" has cost us more then health care ever will.
The most frustrating thing about the money part of the war is that the military sub-contracts out everything including meals and laundry for the troops. That is all stuff that the troops had to do. And that is only a few of hundreds of things we sub contract out that we spend wasted money on.
I am fine with taking away jobs from lobbyist and sub contractors that are rapping this country of billions of dollars. If that person can sleep at night knowing that they are a part in destroying the economic state of a country then they don't deserve our tax payer dollars. Put our money to a good use like healthcare for all, job creating programs, green technology and actually taking care of our veterans who fought for us instead of forgetting about them the second they put down their guns...

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Is this real?

I kid

[caveBEAR]

I kid

Hahahaha, it seemed super serious for a moment, and that would have been a great story. Want to make one up anyway?

[Love As Arson]

Aren't growing deficits a problem we all have to be concerned about?

No. Big deficits are a problem for the ruling class, but working people shouldn't shoulder any responsibility for solving their problem.

When a country's deficit is large, the cost of financing state debt by issuing bonds often goes up, since the government has to offer higher interest rates on bonds in order to attract buyers. Speculation on currency markets can also lead to a fall in the value of the country's currency.

Big deficits often lead to higher inflation. This eats into the value of interest income, which is bad news for bankers and other ultra-rich people who own lots of interest-paying assets. Capitalists fear that higher inflation will lead workers to demand higher wages to maintain the value of their wages.

Higher levels of inflation also allow less-competitive firms to take advantage of the fluctuating prices of inputs and outputs. These firms can then survive without investing in the newest technology and ways of organizing work.

These are problems for capitalists, governments and top civil servants trying to steer a country's economy on the stormy seas of global capitalism (an impossible challenge, since the global capitalist economy is beyond the ability of any state to control).

When ordinary people accept the idea that the deficit is our problem, too, it leads to support for the "solutions" proposed by capitalists and pro-capitalist political parties: cuts to spending on education, health care, social assistance and other government programs, along with privatization and higher college and university tuition and other user fees.

We've seen what this means: In the mid-1990s, the Liberal federal government headed by Jean Chretien cut 45,000 jobs, privatized CN Rail and Petro Canada, slashed funding to the provinces for social programs and weakened unemployment insurance, all in the name of lowering the deficit. If either Stephen Harper's Tories or Michael Ignatieff's Liberals had a majority government, we could well see another massive round of cuts. Some European governments are starting to implement big cuts in the name of deficit reduction.

http://socialistworker.org/2010/05/21/its-not-our-deficit

[David87]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html


Figure out where you'd cut, what taxes you would raise, etc to cut int othe projected 2015 debt.



Also, let's stop repeating the lies that SS is part of the debt, or that it's broke, or blah blah blah. Stop listening to Republican politicians, please. SS currently is sitting on a 2.5 trillion surplus...The worry isn't about it right now, it's down the line when the majority of the baby boom population retires. As for the debt right now, it's nothing.

[David87]

here's Krugman on SS, BTW
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html

[Scrandon]

Also, let's stop repeating the lies that SS is part of the debt, or that it's broke, or blah blah blah. Stop listening to Republican politicians, please. SS currently is sitting on a 2.5 trillion surplus...The worry isn't about it right now, it's down the line when the majority of the baby boom population retires. As for the debt right now, it's nothing.
So look, the program is estimated to eat through its 2.5 trillion dollar surplus over the next 17 years. That's terrible. It needs to be fixed and people need to be starting to look at it now due to the nature of the system and how slow politics works. Cuts might need to happen, it sucks but its a reality that we are forced to deal with. It was great when there were a dozen workers for every retiree, but soon there will be only 2 or 3. There's no point in trying to force a broken system into the future, it just can't handle the reality of our situation anymore. Maybe that means cuts to benefits, maybe that means a raise in the tax rate, maybe it means we need to design a better system that can adapt to a newer age.

But I mean, I swear, only in politics can you be made out to look like a loon for trying to address the problems of a seventy-five year-old institution that can no longer meet our needs.

[David87]

It's 27 years, not 17. From the Krugman article...

But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger. Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund. The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that that day will never come.



Meanwhile, an aging population will eventually (over the course of the next 20 years) cause the cost of paying Social Security benefits to rise from its current 4.8 percent of G.D.P. to about 6 percent of G.D.P. To give you some perspective, that’s a significantly smaller increase than the rise in defense spending since 2001, which Washington certainly didn’t consider a crisis, or even a reason to rethink some of the Bush tax cuts.



But those same people saying "it's 75 years old and outdated" sure have no problem clinging to every word of the constitution/bill of rights like they don't need to change with the times (2nd Amendment, anyone?)....The founding fathers wrote those documents without knowledge of electricity, cars, automatic weapons, tanks, the flu, AIDS, slaves being free, etc. The amendment process is dead because you will never get 3/4ths of both houses and the president to agree to something anymore.

I'm very curious as to what the founding fathers would have written living in today's world. That is assuming they came from today's world, not from a world where they believed only male WASPS could have the rights they wrote about.

[captivewear]

Social security is fine and needs nothing done to it. The only thing we have to do as a country to keep it going is to keep having kids and keep working.

[Zeran]

paying off the debt seems actually pretty easy - just not politically possible.

raise taxes on the rich.
go to single-payer universal healthcare, as well as other minor reforms of healthcare.
reduce the military budget.
reduce military bases worldwide.
take troops out of iraq/afghanistan.
close corporate tax loopholes.

keep that going for several years and there you go.

[Scrandon]

Social security is fine and needs nothing done to it. The only thing we have to do as a country to keep it going is to keep having kids and keep working.
Not gonna happen.

[linoleum665]

how would you pay off the debt?


Murder the Rockefellers. That private trust should take care of a good chunk.

Old money gone.

[Simulcast]

Murder the Rockefellers. That private trust should take care of a good chunk.

Old money gone.

You're sick in the head.

[open mind]

You're sick in the head.

i would guess (or hope) that he's joking.

murder is to far.....taxing the shit out of the ungrateful bastards (for MAKING them to be the successes that they are) is not.

[Simulcast]

i would guess (or hope) that he's joking.

murder is to far.....taxing the shit out of the ungrateful bastards (for MAKING them to be the successes that they are) is not.

Nobody MADE the Rockefellers rich, except themselves. No one else has any right to that money.

[open mind]

Nobody MADE the Rockefellers rich, except themselves. No one else has any right to that money.

yeah, i overstated but the federal government forcibly clearing out the land on which they made their huge profits had nothing to do with them getting rich......or anybody else making a living in the u.s. either.

if you think they didn't have other helping hands from various government entities and officials you're delusional.

[Simulcast]

yeah, i overstated but the federal government forcibly clearing out the land on which they made their huge profits had nothing to do with them getting rich......or anybody else making a living in the u.s. either.

if you think they didn't have other helping hands from various government entities and officials you're delusional.

I'm sure they did receive help, however that doesn't entitle you to take away that money...especially considering we're several generations removed from that time.

Not to mention the fact that money wasn't poured into their laps. They still created their own wealth for the most part.

[domotime2]

can someone explain to me the big dilemna of cutting our budget and the importance of it, and/or why that's #1 on our prioroity list rather than job creation, edcuation improvement, techonological advances/less dependency on oil?

[David87]

Because the republicans have latched onto it as a fear tactic, and most of their followers are dumb enough to believe it.


Fact is, teh deficits will fall when we have more job creation, education improvement, etc

[saysmydoctor]

Nobody MADE the Rockefellers rich, except themselves. No one else has any right to that money.
That's not true. Unless the Rockefellers drilled the oil themselves, like actually manned the rigs themselves. But otherwise, someone else made them rich.

[plyb]

That's not true. Unless the Rockefellers drilled the oil themselves, like actually manned the rigs themselves. But otherwise, someone else made them rich.
not a big fan of management i see

[saysmydoctor]

not a big fan of management i see
No, my point was that to say the Rockefellers did it all themselves is laughable. Now whether their managerial role entitles them to a bigger cut of the profit is debatable.

[Simulcast]

That's not true. Unless the Rockefellers drilled the oil themselves, like actually manned the rigs themselves. But otherwise, someone else made them rich.


A simpleton's response, but not unexpected.

[saysmydoctor]

A simpleton's response, but not unexpected.
Neither is this.

[plyb]

No, my point was that to say the Rockefellers did it all themselves is laughable. Now whether their managerial role entitles them to a bigger cut of the profit is debatable.
Everyone who worked for him agreed to the money his company offered to do the work.

And your point to begin with is still baffling. He got in the right market, at the right time and capitalized. Seems like earning it to me. Yes, he did rely on circumstance... but he, unlike many many many others was the one to take advantage.

[Simulcast]

Neither is this.


Sorry man, but it's true. You completely disregard the fact that it was the ingenuity of the Rockefellers that brought that oil out of the ground. All of the workers in the world cannot bring oil from out of the earth without the mind of a Rockefeller, or a Getty. It's a simpleton who looks at an achievement like that with scorn.

[saysmydoctor]

Sorry man, but it's true. You completely disregard the fact that it was the ingenuity of the Rockefellers that brought that oil out of the ground. All of the workers in the world cannot bring oil from out of the earth without the mind of a Rockefeller, or a Getty. It's a simpleton who looks at an achievement like that with scorn.
The Rockefellers didn't do it alone. That's all I said. You can extrapolate what you will, which you've done.

A Rockefeller can have all the ingenuity in the world, but he clearly couldn't achieve it alone. He needed workers. That was my point. There was no scorn. I just found it funny and simple-minded that just because Rockefeller owns the means of productions, he is therefore credited with the actual production.

[Simulcast]

The Rockefellers didn't do it alone. That's all I said. You can extrapolate what you will, which you've done.

A Rockefeller can have all the ingenuity in the world, but he clearly couldn't achieve it alone. He needed workers. That was my point. There was no scorn. I just found it funny and simple-minded that just because Rockefeller owns the means of productions, he is therefore credited with its actual production.


He invented the means of production. He invested in them himself. Therefore, he deserves the credit.

[saysmydoctor]

The workers invested in them too.

[rawesome]

The workers invested in them too.
Stop that. It destroys the post-Reagan myth that one person makes billions upon billions of dollars alone and then is allowed to be a dick to everyone afterward.

[anab]

There are many means to do that.

[saysmydoctor]

There are many means to do that.
Go on....

[open mind]

I'm sure they did receive help, however that doesn't entitle you to take away that money...especially considering we're several generations removed from that time.

Not to mention the fact that money wasn't poured into their laps. They still created their own wealth for the most part.

it's true that that does not entitle ME to take a large part of the profits......but it does entitle my government to take a big chunk of the profits...as those profits would not have been had without a large investment (human and monetary) on the governments part.

[The_Blackout94]

No, my point was that to say the Rockefellers did it all themselves is laughable. Now whether their managerial role entitles them to a bigger cut of the profit is debatable.

The fact that you're hinting that everyone should get the same pay regardless of their job on the operation smacks of Communism. :)

[Simulcast]

it's true that that does not entitle ME to take a large part of the profits......but it does entitle my government to take a big chunk of the profits...as those profits would not have been had without a large investment (human and monetary) on the governments part.

Source?

[saysmydoctor]

The fact that you're hinting that everyone should get the same pay regardless of their job on the operation smacks of Communism. :)
That's not what I was hinting at. I do think there is a place for pay hierarchy and people who assume leadership roles should receive more compensation. What I was hinting at was that the actually laborers aren't compensated nearly as well as they should be.

Simulcast is right in that Rockefeller is entitled to his wealth--my issue is the people that helped generate it for him weren't compensated nearly as well. As such, I'm not opposed to taxing him heavily (or his modern-day counterparts) to force the issue.

Business leaders have an option: compensate their workers fairly or we'll do it for them. If you find that to be unreasonable, then I'm not sure what to say.

[Emarosa12]

That's not what I was hinting at. I do think there is a place for pay hierarchy and people who assume leadership roles should receive more compensation. What I was hinting at was that the actually laborers aren't compensated nearly as well as they should be.

Simulcast is right in that Rockefeller is entitled to his wealth--my issue is the people that helped generate it for him weren't compensated nearly as well. As such, I'm not opposed to taxing him heavily (or his modern-day counterparts) to force the issue.

Business leaders have an option: compensate their workers fairly or we'll do it for them. If you find that to be unreasonable, then I'm not sure what to say.

It's called minimum wage. Isn't it?

[plyb]

That's not what I was hinting at. I do think there is a place for pay hierarchy and people who assume leadership roles should receive more compensation. What I was hinting at was that the actually laborers aren't compensated nearly as well as they should be.

Simulcast is right in that Rockefeller is entitled to his wealth--my issue is the people that helped generate it for him weren't compensated nearly as well. As such, I'm not opposed to taxing him heavily (or his modern-day counterparts) to force the issue.

Business leaders have an option: compensate their workers fairly or we'll do it for them. If you find that to be unreasonable, then I'm not sure what to say.
You do realize taxation doesn't go into the people they work for's pockets though, right? It turns into some sort of gov't allocated spending, which may or may not be something the workers or the business man really wants that money spent on.

[saysmydoctor]

It's called minimum wage. Isn't it?
$7.25. A fair compensation?
You do realize taxation doesn't go into the people they work for's pockets though, right? It turns into some sort of gov't allocated spending, which may or may not be something the workers or the business man really wants that money spent on.
Social security? Medicare? Other social programs?

[plyb]

$7.25. A fair compensation?

Social security? Medicare? Other social programs?
I don't see why its not fair for minimum wage... but I don't know enough on the subject to make to many judgements.

As for Social Security & Medicare...both are part of FICA, and every worker contributes the same percent of their paycheck to it. If you raise those taxes, it is raised for everyone.. its been that way for a long time.

[Simulcast]

$7.25. A fair compensation?



What would be fair?

[saysmydoctor]

I don't see why its not fair for minimum wage... but I don't know enough on the subject to make to many judgements.

As for Social Security & Medicare...both are part of FICA, and every worker contributes the same percent of their paycheck to it. If you raise those taxes, it is raised for everyone.. its been that way for a long time.
I support a minimum wage and believe it should be raised.

Yes, I know how the programs are funded. The point I was trying to make clearly went over your head. Try again.
What would be fair?
Something that you can live off.

[Simulcast]

Something that you can live off.

What happens to the additional jobs lost because of a rise in minimum wage? Those people who would otherwise be working don't get to make a living at all. Unfortunately a mandated increase in productivity typically does not follow and mandatory increase in the minimum wage.

[saysmydoctor]

What happens to the additional jobs lost because of a rise in minimum wage? Those people who would otherwise be working don't get to make a living at all. Unfortunately a mandated increase in productivity typically does not follow and mandatory increase in the minimum wage.
Show me a correlation between raising the minimum wage and jobs loss.

I understand that imposing a price floor on labor is essentially an artificial manipulation of the market, but the alternative we've seen is unfair compensation instead. I'm willing to deal with it and I don't think an increase automatically means we will lose jobs or slow job growth; I believe that to be a slippery slope.

[plyb]

Yes, I know how the programs are funded. The point I was trying to make clearly went over your head. Try again.
Well, if you know how they are funded, you would know raising taxes and the extra taxes gained as a result would not go to supporting the social programs you referenced... which makes me question why you would reference them in the first place.

Unless you are suggesting changing entirely how FICA is funded, which is a totally different argument... and not the same as just raising taxes as you suggested....

[saysmydoctor]

Well, if you know how they are funded, you would know raising taxes and the extra taxes gained as a result would not go to supporting the social programs you referenced... which makes me question why you would reference them in the first place.

Unless you are suggesting changing entirely how FICA is funded, which is a totally different argument... and not the same as just raising taxes as you suggested....
You're acting really dense right now. You asked what good raising taxes would do. I named social programs that have been created by raising taxes or implementing ones, specifically two programs that are highly regarded and appreciated services provided by the government. My argument was essentially raising taxes to provide new programs or expand current ones.

Now whatever the fuck you're talking about, I have no idea. You're right though, it is a totally different argument, one that I didn't even bring up.

[Simulcast]

Show me a correlation between raising the minimum wage and jobs loss.

I understand that imposing a price floor on labor is essentially an artificial manipulation of the market, but the alternative we've seen is unfair compensation instead. I'm willing to deal with it and I don't think an increase automatically means we will lose jobs or slow job growth; I believe that to be a slippery slope.

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/153901_unemploy26.html

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0913/curing-unemployment-federal-uncle-sam-scrap-minimum-wage.html


Logically speaking, an employer who suddenly has to pay more money per hour to his employee should expect to see an increase in productivity in order to recuperate that cost of the higher wage. Since there is no "productivity clause" associated with minimum wage increases, the effect on the business' income is zero. Now the business is forced to pay more money for no return. This forces employers to consolidate their work forces. At 5.15 an hour a restaurant could afford to have an abundance of staff to serve customers. Now at 7.25, the restaurant hasn't seen an increases in business and realizes it needs to let go of people in order to meet their overhead. That, or raise prices. What effect has raising the minimum wage had then? Higher prices or less jobs.

[Scrandon]

No, jobs would be lost. No getting around that, but don't you think that the right to a means of subsistence is necessary for a right to life? As in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Tax rich people to subsidize the subsistence of the people who lose jobs after the wage change. Businesses are making enormous profits right now, they can afford to bear a larger burden than they currently do and still make money, and contribute to a better society.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/153901_unemploy26.html

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0913/curing-unemployment-federal-uncle-sam-scrap-minimum-wage.html


Logically speaking, an employer who suddenly has to pay more money per hour to his employee should expect to see an increase in productivity in order to recuperate that cost of the higher wage. Since there is no "productivity clause" associated with minimum wage increases, the affect on the business' income is zero. Now the business is forced to pay more money for no return. This forces employers to consolidate their work forces. At 5.15 an hour a restaurant could afford to have an abundance of staff to serve customers. Now at 7.25, the restaurant hasn't seen an increases in business and realizes it needs to let go of people in order to meet their overhead. That, or raise prices. What effect has raising the minimum wage had then? Higher prices or less jobs.
Your presumption is based on the fact that an employer isn't already getting sufficient productivity while still unfairly compensating their employers. You're missing the crux of my argument: labor is largely undervalued.

And it's not just an option between layoffs and raising prices--there is also the third option that you ignored--cut into your profits.
No, jobs would be lost. No getting around that, but don't you think that the right to a means of subsistence is necessary for a right to life? As in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Tax rich people to subsidize the subsistence of the people who lose jobs after the wage change. Businesses are making enormous profits right now, they can afford to bear a larger burden than they currently do and still make money, and contribute to a better society.
Which essentially was what I was driving at when I said that job loss isn't the natural conclusion of raising the minimum wage. If I remember correctly, the minimum wage was raised under Clinton and we saw some of the lowest unemployment numbers of our time during his presidency.

[plyb]

You're acting really dense right now. You asked what good raising taxes would do. I named social programs that have been created by raising taxes or implementing ones, specifically two programs that are highly regarded and appreciated services provided by the government. My argument was essentially raising taxes to provide new programs or expand current ones.

Now whatever the fuck you're talking about, I have no idea. You're right though, it is a totally different argument, one that I didn't even bring up.
I don't see where you suggested new programs.

As for expanding the new ones, it goes back to FICA. If you want to raise taxes on higher levels of income to add extra support to these programs, it would result in them paying a higher percent of their paycheck into Medicare and Social Security than those making less, which would be an entirely new precedent, as it has been currently the same percent for all workers since its inception. That would be a rather large, controversial change... Which is the only point i am trying to make.

But we are way off on a tangent, this has nothing paying off the debt, so whatever.

[Simulcast]

No, jobs would be lost. No getting around that, but don't you think that the right to a means of subsistence is necessary for a right to life? As in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Tax rich people to subsidize the subsistence of the people who lose jobs after the wage change. Businesses are making enormous profits right now, they can afford to bear a larger burden than they currently do and still make money, and contribute to a better society.

What about not raising the minimum wage at all? Then those people still have jobs. Any subsistence from the government will hardly equal the wages earned at the job.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't see where you suggested new programs.

As for expanding the new ones, it goes back to FICA. If you want to raise taxes on higher levels of income to add extra support to these programs, it would result in them paying a higher percent of their paycheck into Medicare and Social Security than those making less, which would be an entirely new precedent, as it has been currently the same percent for all workers since its inception. That would be a rather large, controversial change... Which is the only point i am trying to make.

But we are way off on a tangent, this has nothing paying off the debt, so whatever.
Well, actually, fixing how we fund Social Security and Medicare is a very important factor in paying off the debt and decreasing the deficit over the next few years.

[saysmydoctor]

What about not raising the minimum wage at all? Then those people still have jobs. Any subsistence from the government will hardly equal the wages earned at the job.
How about we just do away with the minimum wage altogether and tell the 68% of Americans currently making less than $20,000 a year to suck it the fuck up and quit whining?

I wish you would just say that.

[Emarosa12]

How about we just do away with the minimum wage altogether and tell the 68% of Americans currently making less than $20,000 a year to suck it the fuck up and quit whining?

I wish you would just say that.

I think that statistic is kinda exaggerated.

[Simulcast]

Your presumption is based on the fact that an employer isn't already getting sufficient productivity while still unfairly compensating their employers. You're missing the crux of my argument: labor is largely undervalued.

And it's not just an option between layoffs and raising prices--there is also the third option that you ignored--cut into your profits.

Which essentially was what I was driving at when I said that job loss isn't the natural conclusion of raising the minimum wage. If I remember correctly, the minimum wage was raised under Clinton and we saw some of the lowest unemployment numbers of our time during his presidency.

Cutting into your profits is what known as a disincentive. It won't cause employers to suddenly higher more people at a higher wage. The only way to do that is force them to hire people. Undervalued or not, employment will not increase as a result of a minimum wage increase.

Clinton benefited from a historic boon in the economy. At that point he could afford, politically, to implement such a raise. Unemployment would have remained low no matter what.

[Simulcast]

How about we just do away with the minimum wage altogether and tell the 68% of Americans currently making less than $20,000 a year to suck it the fuck up and quit whining?

I wish you would just say that.

68% of Americans make less that 20,000 a year? Or do you mean 68% of the working force? Because that doesn't sound right at al (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm#2)l. So that's 2 million people who make at or below the minimum wage. That doesn't seem like 68%.

[saysmydoctor]

I think that statistic is kinda exaggerated.
Pulled it from my notes from an old class.
Cutting into your profits is what known as a disincentive. It won't cause employers to suddenly higher more people at a higher wage. The only way to do that is force them to hire people. Undervalued or not, employment will not increase as a result of a minimum wage increase.

Clinton benefited from a historic boon in the economy. At that point he could afford, politically, to implement such a raise. Unemployment would have remained low no matter what.
Employers are given plenty of other incentives, a single disincentive isn't the end of the world.

Thanks for highlighting my point. Unemployment would have remained no matter what, but it required government intervention in order for workers to be fairly compensated even while executives and manager types were drawing in record profits.

[Scrandon]

Which essentially was what I was driving at when I said that job loss isn't the natural conclusion of raising the minimum wage. If I remember correctly, the minimum wage was raised under Clinton and we saw some of the lowest unemployment numbers of our time during his presidency.
Here's the key: they might not be so willing to cut jobs if they knew that their tax rate would be proportionally raised to take care of the laid-off workers. Maybe keeping the workers would be a better alternative than letting them go. Something I wish would have been conditional to the TARP program.

Clinton may have seen growth, but it certainly wasn't a result of raising min. wage, there were probably many other factors.

[saysmydoctor]

68% of Americans make less that 20,000 a year? Or do you mean 68% of the working force? Because that doesn't sound right at al (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm#2)l. So that's 2 million people who make at or below the minimum wage. That doesn't seem like 68%.
I'm not sure where my professor drew the statistic from, I will be emailing him now.

[Simulcast]

Pulled it from my notes from an old class.

Employers are given plenty of other incentives, a single disincentive isn't the end of the world.

Thanks for highlighting my point. Unemployment would have remained no matter what, but it required government intervention in order for workers to be fairly compensated even while executives and manager types were drawing in record profits.

I wonder if their quality of life was improved as a result. Got any data on that?

[Simulcast]

I'm not sure where my professor drew the statistic from, I will be emailing him now.

Probably from his Marxist newsletter. I kid

Professors have a penchant for telling you want they want, not what actually is.

[saysmydoctor]

Here's the key: they might not be so willing to cut jobs if they knew that their tax rate would be proportionally raised to take care of the laid-off workers. Maybe keeping the workers would be a better alternative than letting them go. Something I wish would have been conditional to the TARP program.

Clinton may have seen growth, but it certainly wasn't a result of raising min. wage, there were probably many other factors.
There are different factors at work in every single aspect of economics ever, hence why I'm not buying into the doomsday prophecy being provided by Simulcast that suddenly raising the minimum wage means unemployment will increase.

You're right, my correlation between Clinton's move to increase minimum wage and low unemployment was probably a stretch, but one thing that didn't happen: unemployment didn't rise because of it. Which is exactly what Simulcast said is the end result of raising the minimum wage.

[saysmydoctor]

Probably from his Marxist newsletter. I kid

Professors have a penchant for telling you want they want, not what actually is.
I trust this professor.

[Simulcast]

There are different factors at work in every single aspect of economics ever, hence why I'm not buying into the doomsday prophecy being provided by Simulcast that suddenly raising the minimum wage means unemployment will increase.

You're right, my correlation between Clinton's move to increase minimum wage and low unemployment was probably a stretch, but one thing that didn't happen: unemployment didn't rise because of it. Which is exactly what Simulcast said is the end result of raising the minimum wage.

You can't draw that conclusion.

[Simulcast]

I trust this professor.

Well, it looks like he's already misled you.

[saysmydoctor]

You can't draw that conclusion.
Says who?

[Simulcast]

Says who?

Me. I could just as easily assert that it prevented unemployment from dipping down even further. Which I will.

[Scrandon]

You have to do some mind bending to try to get around it. It's a basic economic principle. I would rather acknowledge the downsides to my argument, that unemployment will rise, but put forth the idea that there are more important things that will be gained.

[saysmydoctor]

I understand how price floors work and the basic economics around it. But we've had a minimum wage in place for decades and employment hasn't suffered much because of it. Why? Because there are tons of other incentives, credits, provided to employers that make up for it.

[Simulcast]

I understand how price floors work and the basic economics around it. But we've had a minimum wage in place for decades and employment hasn't suffered much because of it. Why? Because there are tons of other incentives, credits, provided to employers that make up for it.

I don't like when you don't quote me!

It shouldn't have to suffer at all. Can we say with confidence that a minimum wage mitigated the problem of unemployment at any point in time?

[saysmydoctor]

You keep acting like it's the only thing that affects employment. How about you name your alternative to the minimum wage?

[Scrandon]

I understand how price floors work and the basic economics around it. But we've had a minimum wage in place for decades and employment hasn't suffered much because of it. Why? Because there are tons of other incentives, credits, provided to employers that make up for it.
So what's that problem with outsourcing all about then?

[saysmydoctor]

So what's that problem with outsourcing all about then?
I guess $7.25 was just too fucking much for employers. Which I said earlier, employers undervalue labor. That's not the fault of the minimum wage though. We've created an atmosphere where it's acceptable to fuck over the average worker--both here and overseas.

[Scrandon]

I guess $7.25 was just too fucking much for employers.
Not endorsing their actions, but just trying to convey the bigger picture. There does need to be some balance between taxes and regulations and things like that. There's no easy answer.

[saysmydoctor]

There's a simple and easy answer: when your company is recording billion dollar profits, it doesn't hurt to bless your employees with better pay. What, instead $2 billion in profits, they're reduced to $1.5? The sky won't fall and you'll still have $1.5 billion.

[Simulcast]

You keep acting like it's the only thing that affects employment. How about you name your alternative to the minimum wage?


I do not. I just don't believe raising it will solve any problems.

Get rid of it and let employees and employers determine wages based on free-market principles. Businesses that pay too little in an effort to gorge on profits will find their workforce liquidated by competitors willing to pay more money for work. Basically, the In-N-Out model. They pay well above the market value for their labor and are hugely successful at doing it. They attract professional, skilled individuals and as a result they have a very successful business model. Not only that, but they maintain competitive prices with other fast food restaurants.

Mandating high wages and pension programs only gets us into trouble. Look at California and GM.

[saysmydoctor]

I do not. I just don't believe raising it will solve any problems.

Get rid of it and let employees and employers determine wages based on free-market principles. Businesses that pay too little in an effort to gorge on profits will find their workforce liquidated by competitors willing to pay more money for work. Basically, the In-N-Out model. They pay well above the market value for their labor and are hugely successful at doing it. They attract professional, skilled individuals and as a result they have a very successful business model. Not only that, but they maintain competitive prices with other fast food restaurants.

Mandating high wages and pension programs only gets us into trouble. Look at California and GM.
Oh, so basically, you want to revert back to pre-New Deal. Yawn.

[saysmydoctor]

Also, anyone can name the worst two examples. What about countries like Sweden and Norway who don't do what you're suggesting and aren't in trouble and manage to be competitive globally? Mandating high wages and pension programs only gets us into trouble if you half-ass it, when you try mix pro-business and pro-labor policies to appease both sides.

[Simulcast]

Oh, so basically, you want to revert back to pre-New Deal. Yawn.

Yes, with even less government intervention.

[saysmydoctor]

Yes, with even less government intervention.
Market, government....I don't see the difference except one I have (or should have) control over.

[Scrandon]

Yes, with even less government intervention.
That wasn't too hot the first time around.

[apoemtothedead]

This could be the first time I've heard a burger flipper referred to as "professional" and "skilled."

[Simulcast]

Market, government....I don't see the difference except one I have (or should have) control over.


The market, operating on supply and demand, is superior to any sort of command economy, in my opinion.

[Simulcast]

This could be the first time I've heard a burger flipper referred to as "professional" and "skilled."


Ever worked in an In-N-Out? Ever been to one? It's not easy work.

[apoemtothedead]

Ever worked in an In-N-Out? Ever been to one? It's not easy work.
Having lived in California for 18+ years, I went to In-n-Out once or twice.

And don't talk it up like it's hard work. I can only imagine how strenuous or mind-challenging wiping down tables and pulling the lever on the shake machine is. The employees work harder because they know if they get fired McDonalds only pays minimum wage.

[Simulcast]

That wasn't too hot the first time around.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/

[Simulcast]

Having lived in California for 18+ years, I went to In-n-Out once or twice.

And don't talk it up like it's hard work. I can only imagine how strenuous or mind-challenging wiping down tables and pulling the lever on the shake machine is. The employees work harder because they know if they get fired McDonalds only pays minimum wage.


I'd like to see you work in a fast-paced environment like that during peak hours. It's not easy. That's why In-N-Out pays more.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/
What's his excuse for the depressions that occurred prior to the Fed then?

[Scrandon]

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/
The Great Depression According to Scrandon
The Great Depression could have been avoided had the government insured bank deposits.

See, I can do it too.

[saysmydoctor]

I'd like to see you work in a fast-paced environment like that during peak hours. It's not easy. That's why In-N-Out pays more.
McDonald's is just as fast-paced, especially at peak hours. Ever been to an airport McDonald's?

[apoemtothedead]

I'd like to see you work in a fast-paced environment like that during peak hours. It's not easy. That's why In-N-Out pays more.
I'm sorry that I'll never have the privilege.

[Simulcast]

McDonald's is just as fast-paced, especially at peak hours. Ever been to an airport McDonald's?

Yes.

[saysmydoctor]

Yes.
So, wouldn't you agree McDonald's employees deserve to be compensated more?

[Simulcast]

So, wouldn't you agree McDonald's employees deserve to be compensated more?

Maybe, but McDonald's is only willing to pay them the amount that they do and people are willing to work for it. That's their freedom. Just like In-N-Out is free to pay their employees 10$ and hour.

[saysmydoctor]

Maybe, but McDonald's is only willing to pay them the amount that they do and people are willing to work for it. That's their freedom. Just like In-N-Out is free to pay their employees 10$ and hour.
You're confusing "willing to work" with "no other alternatives."

[saysmydoctor]

Illegal immigrants deserve to get paid more, but they're just so willing to work in terrible conditions for a dollar a day; that's their freedom!

[Simulcast]

Illegal immigrants deserve to get paid more, but they're just so willing to work in terrible conditions for a dollar a day; that's their freedom!

You idealism is touching. I know you are coming from a place where you wish to help people. So do I. I don't want to see people starve or suffer. That's why I support capitalism, the system which created a vast amount of wealth for this country. The poorest of our poor live better than half of the population of the Earth. Our lot has only improved with time. I want to see that happen on a global scale.

[Simulcast]

The Great Depression According to Scrandon
The Great Depression could have been avoided had the government insured bank deposits.

See, I can do it too.

Thou shalt read the article and respond accordingly.

[saysmydoctor]

You idealism is touching. I know you are coming from a place where you wish to help people. So do I. I don't want to see people starve or suffer. That's why I support capitalism, the system which created a vast amount of wealth for this country. The poorest of our poor live better than half of the population of the Earth. Our lot has only improved with time. I want to see that happen on a global scale.
Concentrated in the hands of a few. Don't try to dismiss my argument as idealism.

[David87]

Wait are we talking about the Fed?


The new Fed was created specifically to combat a series of depressions that occurred in the late 1800's/early 1900's.
If you look at the history of employment numbers, there's only been 2 times (excluding the Great Depression)that unemployment even came close to the depressions and panics before the Fed was created....Now, and the early 1980's.

Depressions before the new Fed saw unemployment numbers in the teens

[Simulcast]

Concentrated in the hands of a few. Don't try to dismiss my argument as idealism.

The hands of a few? Really? Because last time I checked millions upon millions of people in this country are doing very well for themselves. And again, the "poor" in this country are leagues ahead of half the world. Don't ignore that fact.

[Simulcast]

Food for thought:

If you took the total wealth of the Forbes 400 (1.54 trillion) richest and spread it over 50 percent of the country (175 million), each person would receive 9,000 dollars. That's it. That's a one time payment.

[Scrandon]

Food for thought:

If you took the total wealth of the Forbes 400 (1.54 trillion) richest and spread it over 50 percent of the country (175 million), each person would receive 9,000 dollars. That's it. That's a one time payment.
GDP per capita is $45,000 in the U.S. That's $45,000 a year for every person.

[saysmydoctor]

The hands of a few? Really? Because last time I checked millions upon millions of people in this country are doing very well for themselves. And again, the "poor" in this country are leagues ahead of half the world. Don't ignore that fact.
Yeah, really, it's well known that wealth is concentrated in the top 5% of this country's population. Don't ignore that fact.

Also, sorry, I don't find any consolation in the fact that we are better off than the rest of the world. People should not have a headstart at life based simply on where they were born--something that they have no say.

[Scrandon]

World GDP per capita: $10,500.

[Dan1234]

Having lived in California for 18+ years, I went to In-n-Out once or twice.

And don't talk it up like it's hard work. I can only imagine how strenuous or mind-challenging wiping down tables and pulling the lever on the shake machine is. The employees work harder because they know if they get fired McDonalds only pays minimum wage.

You are seriously talking like you've never had a job.

[StephenYoung]

Ever worked in an In-N-Out? Ever been to one? It's not easy work.

Working in fast food is a joke, regardless of where it is.

[Scrandon]

Well who would have thought we would see a conservative respecting the working class and a spoiled liberal douche ripping on them? That's new.

[mattyrocks]

Working in fast food is a joke, regardless of where it is.


and why is that?

[StephenYoung]

and why is that?

Brainless tasks, little to no workload, takes no skill, easy instructions.

[peder458]

Food for thought:

If you took the total wealth of the Forbes 400 (1.54 trillion) richest and spread it over 50 percent of the country (175 million), each person would receive 9,000 dollars. That's it. That's a one time payment.

That sounds like a lot to me...? What were you getting at?

[Simulcast]

That sounds like a lot to me...? What were you getting at?

You dissolved the wealth making entities of the country and that money won't be there next year.

It would never happen like that, but it's something to think about.

[NHammondDesign]

I'm from Wisconsin and the stuff going on at our state capitol is absolutely crazy. Never seen or even heard of 40,000+ protestors in one place in WI... desperate times :/

[mattyrocks]

Brainless tasks, little to no workload, takes no skill, easy instructions.

to be fair, you could apply those colorful descriptions to a slew of occupations.

not just fast food.

[StephenYoung]

to be fair, you could apply those colorful descriptions to a slew of occupations.

not just fast food.

But we aren't talking about a slew of occupations.

We're talking about how even the least competent members of society can work in fast food.

[open mind]

Source?

the wiping out of indigenous tribes, the internet, sattelite tech, radar, mass transit, roads, trains, bridges, various conflicts around the world that made business safe to conduct for western companies in previously hostile environments, cell phone tech, computer tech, corporate welfare, subsidies, medical breakthroughs and studies, defense spending, private prisons, the war on drugs, the incredibly low prices that the government sells our infrastructure off one piece at a time, corporate welfare, deregulation, bailouts, government sanctioned slavery, air travel infrastructure, paying to build stadiums and a whole host of other things that i'm to lazy to list.......all government provided windfalls for business and the rich (with the exception of trains in some early cases.....but most of the early train systems would not have been possible without the u.s. government forcing or killing natives off their land), and without which most of the wealth in our country would not exist.

i'd provide a source but since this shit is common knowledge i don't believe one is needed.