Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 11 Mar 2024, 8:39 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 8:39 pm

I am interested in his answer.

This "income inequality" thing is a real pile of dook. 

Implicit in the complaint is the notion that incomes OUGHT to be equal, as I see it. And that notion is as retarded as any notion I have ever heard. The likelihood of a young man completing law school or medical school or engineering school if he can make the same money washing dishes or lifeguarding or working as a pool boy is pretty **** slim.

Cannon, he’s a **** goddamned *** democrat socialist. He’ll say something real stupid like income redistribution, that the country owes it. Some **** in the head govt policy or tax steal that’ll make sure of it. 

I don’t care what these *** steal artists say or think. It’s always the same. They’re dysfunctional.
 
 
 

Bidencrimefamily » 11 Mar 2024, 9:13 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 9:13 pm

Actually the GDP is growing like never before. 

The oroblem that i see is the bottom half isnt making any money.

Well we are growing faster than Europe and Japan. Wages are up too except for the poor saps still earning minimum wage. They're the ones feeling the squeeze.

Cannonpointer » 11 Mar 2024, 8:09 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 8:09 pm

In the seventies, the very worst year for families saw wives contributing on average 26.4% of the families income. In general,wives continued to raise the kids and keep the home in the 70s. 

Today, it takes two incomes just to pay the bills. 

I will grant that we have bigger homes and more crap - so we should expect that things will be more expensive for families. But anyone who actually shops knows that groceries have basically doubled in price under biden. That puts a hurt on millions and millions of families.

But it's a strong statement for feminism.
 

Monderegal » 11 Mar 2024, 9:29 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 9:29 pm

But it's a strong statement for feminism.

If being forced out of the home and into the workforce is a "strong statement for feminism," then the immediate question which arises is: Of what use is feminism?

Of what use is a thing that deprives women of choice, unless one is a republican?
 
 

Tempest62 » 11 Mar 2024, 9:15 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 9:15 pm

Cannon, he’s a **** goddamned *** democrat socialist. He’ll say something real stupid like income redistribution, that the country owes it. Some **** in the head govt policy or tax steal that’ll make sure of it. 

I don’t care what these *** steal artists say or think. It’s always the same. They’re dysfunctional.

He is an honest poster, in my view. Where he stands on a given issue is subject to change. 

I am more a motion picture fella than a polaroid guy. You have him frozen in time. I see him finding his way - same as I am, same as you are. 
 
I do not have any doubt whatsoever that he is to the left of me on a number of issues. But that does not make him an enemy. It makes him more valuable, in fact, because he can present arguments that will either strengthen my position by making me dig deeper, or that will help me change my position for the better. 

I am always the very MOST grateful to those who make me change my position by presenting better arguments and thus enlightening me. 

I remember in 1984 a jewish fella convincing me that legalizing, taxing and regulating narcotics is the right way to go. I will ALWAYS remember that little fella - and how graciously he beat my head in on the issue. 

Cannonpointer » 11 Mar 2024, 9:30 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 9:30 pm

If being forced out of the home and into the workforce is a "strong statement for feminism," then the immediate question which arises is: Of what use is feminism?

Of what use is a thing that deprives women of choice, unless one is a republican?

I agree. It's sarcasm.
 

Cannonpointer » 11 Mar 2024, 9:33 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 9:33 pm

He is an honest poster, in my view. Where he stands on a given issue is subject to change. 

I am more a motion picture fella than a polaroid guy. You have him frozen in time. I see him finding his way - same as I am, same as you are. 
 
I do not have any doubt whatsoever that he is to the left of me on a number of issues. But that does not make him an enemy. It makes him more valuable, in fact, because he can present arguments that will either strengthen my position by making me dig deeper, or that will help me change my position for the better. 

I am always the very MOST grateful to those who make me change my position by presenting better arguments and thus enlightening me. 

I remember in 1984 a jewish fella convincing me that legalizing, taxing and regulating narcotics is the right way to go. I will ALWAYS remember that little fella - and how graciously he beat my head in on the issue.

No argument sir. I follow what you’re saying.

golfboy » 11 Mar 2024, 8:15 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 8:15 pm

Last quarter our economy "grew" by $380 Billion.
And it only cost us $850 Billion in Government spending. 
 

Christmas time. the other 3 quarters not so much. Know the marketplace of free trade in multiple realities where nothing is free from paying for an eternal debt of gratitude to leaderships promising better tomorrows to each great great grandchild added to the species today population never the same total sum as yesterday.

the promise intellect is eternal and physical forms are temporal. Intellect isn't a supernatural entity.

Cannonpointer » 11 Mar 2024, 8:13 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 8:13 pm

What SHOULD either side do to equalize incomes?

Should fishing in the north sea pay the same as selling mary kay?

And if so, where shall we get our fish?

stop giving huge tax breaks for companies that disappear pensions

MFA so companies don’t have you by the short hairs out of fear of losing your HC

that way a guy can so somewhere else without leaving his family without HC for a while 

a guy could start a business and hire his friends away from **** companies because they are not too scared to make that leap 

no taxes for anyone that makes 50K or less a year would do a lot

living wage requirements for full time employees 

stop letting them cut peoples hours to keep them from being full time 

there is a lot they could do besides wage war and subsidizing large corporations 

but talk like that only leads to $25 hamburgers type conversations 

Im sure that you could come up with some ideas yourself 

I got coffee to drink

 
 

Mrkelly » 11 Mar 2024, 5:32 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 5:32 pm

and neither side has done a damn this about it

just crumbs and lip service

Stop it .
There's plenty of tools in place to help people succeed.

Not everyone is going to have a new car every year 
 

Monderegal » 11 Mar 2024, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 5:21 pm

According to consumer sentiment surveys, the index is saying the economy is worse then it has been in years. Worse then during the Great Recession. Worse then the era of stagflation and the misery index in the late 1970s. Is the economy really that bad?

For people between the ages of 18 - 40, yes.  Here's why:

• Starting salaries for people with a 4-year degree are only double what they were in 1990. 
• Houses are 400% - 500% what they were in 1990
• Food Costs are 400%-600% of what they were in 1990
• Cost of a 4-year degree is 15 times what it was in 1990, causing most young people to start adulthood saddled with huge debt.
• Cost of a professional degree is even higher than a 4-year degree.
• Competition for internships and beginning jobs is fierce, and many graduates are delayed getting meaningful work.
• Jobs for people without college degrees provide sustenance level wages at best. But, the worst thing is that the age-out cycle is about 5 years.  This is when the jobs change so fundamentally due to disruption, AI, robotics and other technological advances that Union-Trade workers become obsolete. 

So, that means there will be 3 categories of people who will be able to afford a decent life:
1.  The extremely bright and functional - IQ's over 130 without being on "the spectrum" - That's about two-thirds of 5%.  I say two-thirds, because there is a significant percentage of those with high IQ's who are not fully functional for various reasons.
2.   Those who have IQ's over 120, are methodical-structured, have an aptitude for finance and investing and have a steady, long-term plan for creating their own wealth.  I'd say that's another 5%
3.  Those who someday inherit wealth from their parents.  This number is quite small and getting smaller due to divorce, vices, age-related diseases, and organized gangs who prey upon older people to con them out of their wealth.

So, do you have children aged 18-40?  If so, at what age were they able to buy their first house?  Get out of debt completely (except what they financed on their house)?

 

Mrkelly » 12 Mar 2024, 7:31 am » wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2024, 7:31 am

stop giving huge tax breaks for companies that disappear pensions

MFA so companies don’t have you by the short hairs out of fear of losing your HC

that way a guy can so somewhere else without leaving his family without HC for a while 

a guy could start a business and hire his friends away from **** companies because they are not too scared to make that leap 

no taxes for anyone that makes 50K or less a year would do a lot

living wage requirements for full time employees 

stop letting them cut peoples hours to keep them from being full time 

there is a lot they could do besides wage war and subsidizing large corporations 

but talk like that only leads to $25 hamburgers type conversations 

Im sure that you could come up with some ideas yourself 

I got coffee to drink

 
 

Companies don't earn money, the people working one do. Your mind cannot distinguish social fantasy from actual evolving anymore. That is your own doing.

Cannonpointer » 11 Mar 2024, 9:33 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 9:33 pm

I remember in 1984 a jewish fella convincing me that legalizing, taxing and regulating narcotics is the right way to go. I will ALWAYS remember that little fella - and how graciously he beat my head in on the issue.
 

He was wrong.  You are wrong.  Making narcotics and other drugs illegal and exacting harsh penalties upon users, manufacturers and distributors is the correct course of action.  Our country is 100 times worse off due to drug use and addiction today than it was in the 1950's.
 

Skans » 12 Mar 2024, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2024, 8:01 am

For people between the ages of 18 - 40, yes.  Here's why:

• Starting salaries for people with a 4-year degree are only double what they were in 1990. 
• Houses are 400% - 500% what they were in 1990
• Food Costs are 400%-600% of what they were in 1990
• Cost of a 4-year degree is 15 times what it was in 1990, causing most young people to start adulthood saddled with huge debt.
• Cost of a professional degree is even higher than a 4-year degree.
• Competition for internships and beginning jobs is fierce, and many graduates are delayed getting meaningful work.
• Jobs for people without college degrees provide sustenance level wages at best. But, the worst thing is that the age-out cycle is about 5 years.  This is when the jobs change so fundamentally due to disruption, AI, robotics and other technological advances that Union-Trade workers become obsolete. 

So, that means there will be 3 categories of people who will be able to afford a decent life:
1.  The extremely bright and functional - IQ's over 130 without being on "the spectrum" - That's about two-thirds of 5%.  I say two-thirds, because there is a significant percentage of those with high IQ's who are not fully functional for various reasons.
2.   Those who have IQ's over 120, are methodical-structured, have an aptitude for finance and investing and have a steady, long-term plan for creating their own wealth.  I'd say that's another 5%
3.  Those who someday inherit wealth from their parents.  This number is quite small and getting smaller due to divorce, vices, age-related diseases, and organized gangs who prey upon older people to con them out of their wealth.

So, do you have children aged 18-40?  If so, at what age were they able to buy their first house?  Get out of debt completely (except what they financed on their house)?

Well, I'm not going to check all your statistics but I will tell you economics tends to be a shake up. Some people pay more, some people earn more. The trends are worrying though especially after people stopped demanding better working conditions. Of course we could be like France where they block off highways because train fare rises by 1 euro. That's really the other side of it.

Monderegal » 12 Mar 2024, 8:55 am » wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2024, 8:55 am

... but I will tell you economics tends to be a shake up. Some people pay more, some people earn more.

That is not at all what economics is.  Economics is the study of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services using statistical analysis in attempts to discern trends and make future predictions about production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. Please, if you do not understand what Economics is, refrain from creating your own ludicrous definitions. If you persist in doing this, I will treat you as I do 1stArival and Murdock for simply making stupid **** up.

The trends are worrying though especially after people stopped demanding better working conditions.

 

• What "trends" are you speaking of?
• What do you find "worrisome" about the trends to which you refer?
• Define what is wrong with current "working conditions"
• Explain your basis for saying that "people stopped demanding better working conditions"
• Then, explain how your statement about demand for better working conditions ties into these "trends" you speak of.

Of course we could be like France where they block off highways because train fare rises by 1 euro. That's really the other side of it.

 

• Protesters shut down bridge near downtown Memphis - CNN
• Shutting a freeway in traffic-clogged L.A. gets attention.
• Why Highways Are the Center of America's Protests
• Texas protesters could face felony charges for blocking emergency ...

Again, that's not "the other side of it" - Marxists and Leftists already block highways when they don't like something in America.  And, Americans are sick and tired of these cry-babies.

I was hoping for a better thought out rebuttal from you to what I said.  And, I will say that I am disappointed that not one thing you've said in this rebuttal of yours addresses the hard-cold facts I presented to you to show that, YES, THE ECONOMY REALLY IS THAT BAD!  Today's young people do not and will not have the opportunities of those older than 45 have had.

 
 

Mrkelly » 12 Mar 2024, 7:31 am » wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2024, 7:31 am

stop giving huge tax breaks for companies that disappear pensions

MFA so companies don’t have you by the short hairs out of fear of losing your HC

that way a guy can so somewhere else without leaving his family without HC for a while 

a guy could start a business and hire his friends away from **** companies because they are not too scared to make that leap 

no taxes for anyone that makes 50K or less a year would do a lot

living wage requirements for full time employees 

stop letting them cut peoples hours to keep them from being full time 

there is a lot they could do besides wage war and subsidizing large corporations 

but talk like that only leads to $25 hamburgers type conversations 

Im sure that you could come up with some ideas yourself 

I got coffee to drink

Gasp.

That kind of talk leads to 25 dollar hamburgers! mg:  

What would we ever do as a nation if our people couldn't subsist on fast food?

COOK????

You're just a commu-nazi with a secret agenda to force women - who are HAPPY - back into the kitchen, where they were sad!

Our women are happy, sir, and they don't need any outside agitators down here stirrin' 'em up!

Peddle your "revolutionary" programme of government representing the interests of the population, rather than wall street, to your comrades, herr comrade.

If we do it your way, we'll end up with our sons being fops and dandies, and our daughter being lesbians. Or worse - miscegenators!
 
 

Skans » 12 Mar 2024, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2024, 9:12 am

That is not at all what economics is.  Economics is the study of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services using statistical analysis in attempts to discern trends and make future predictions about production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. Please, if you do not understand what Economics is, refrain from creating your own ludicrous definitions. If you persist in doing this, I will treat you as I do 1stArival and Murdock for simply making stupid **** up.

• What "trends" are you speaking of?
• What do you find "worrisome" about the trends to which you refer?
• Define what is wrong with current "working conditions"
• Explain your basis for saying that "people stopped demanding better working conditions"
• Then, explain how your statement about demand for better working conditions ties into these "trends" you speak of.

• Protesters shut down bridge near downtown Memphis - CNN
• Shutting a freeway in traffic-clogged L.A. gets attention.
• Why Highways Are the Center of America's Protests
• Texas protesters could face felony charges for blocking emergency ...

Again, that's not "the other side of it" - Marxists and Leftists already block highways when they don't like something in America.  And, Americans are sick and tired of these cry-babies.

I was hoping for a better thought out rebuttal from you to what I said.  And, I will say that I am disappointed that not one thing you've said in this rebuttal of yours addresses the hard-cold facts I presented to you to show that, YES, THE ECONOMY REALLY IS THAT BAD!  Today's young people do not and will not have the opportunities of those older than 45 have had.

Careful, son. You've gone to a lot of trouble establishing yourself as a neocon cold warrior fox fed fool who can be counted on by the war machine to make the right ape sounds at the right moment and side with the MIC reliably. 

You start talking like a populist and you'll find yourself kicking through the walls of tautologies and dichotomies that bring comfort to the lazy-minded...

You'll have to build a new house - a whole new ideasphere!!!
 

Monderegal » 11 Mar 2024, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Mar 2024, 5:21 pm

According to consumer sentiment surveys, the index is saying the economy is worse then it has been in years. Worse then during the Great Recession. Worse then the era of stagflation and the misery index in the late 1970s. Is the economy really that bad?

No the economy is not bad at all  

Its just election silly season and republucans want to make it sound bad. 

Stock market at all time highs. 

More people working than ever. 

Oil production at record highs. 


 

Skans » 12 Mar 2024, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2024, 9:12 am

That is not at all what economics is.  Economics is the study of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services using statistical analysis in attempts to discern trends and make future predictions about production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. Please, if you do not understand what Economics is, refrain from creating your own ludicrous definitions. If you persist in doing this, I will treat you as I do 1stArival and Murdock for simply making stupid **** up.

 
 

ha ha ha ha what **** is that? Economics is the free exchange of people giving away their biological time to manifest realities cradle to grave for the dream intellectual life exceeds their time adapting as displaced here now. Buying one's stairway to heaven paving the highway through eternal hell.

what the hell do you think Catholicism's purgatory is? Humanity. the church is the symbolic utopia for the people being the chosen ones to inherit the earth through power of suggesting life isn't self evident and no political state of mind can top that in plain sight intellectually.

Just another form of mind over matter semantics.

Skans » 12 Mar 2024, 8:21 am » wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2024, 8:21 am

He was wrong.  You are wrong.  Making narcotics and other drugs illegal and exacting harsh penalties upon users, manufacturers and distributors is the correct course of action. 

We did that. We build scores of prisons - to do that.

Skans » 12 Mar 2024, 8:21 am » wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2024, 8:21 am

Our country is 100 times worse off due to drug use and addiction today than it was in the 1950's.

So we ARE in agreement.

You are NOT with the drug pushers - at least, not wittingly.

That is a start.

Right now, criminals control who buys drugs, where and when and under what conditions. And I don't know whether you're aware of this, but criminals actually give out free samples. Criminals are not in the business of SATISFYING the market; they are in the business of CREATING the market.

If we had one generation of children who were NOT approached by criminals, we would be back to the 1950s. And there are quite a number of reasons that criminals would stop trying to addict kids to drugs, if the black market had competition from a legitimate market. Just look at booze.

How many people do you know who have even TASTED bootleg liquor - much less rely on it consistently, preferring to deal with unregulated criminals over just stopping at the Grab and Gulp?

Black markets do not exist in any statistically meaningful way, when a legitimate market is available. With all of the real money going to state-regulated drug stores, the black market for drugs would become statistically meaningless. And the taxes collected from drug sales - and the monies saved on prisons - would more than pay for voluntary treatment for addiction.

Mind you, I said legalize, tax, AND regulate. Clearly, the more dangerous drugs like meth would be more tightly regulated. Users would need to be licensed and on record, stating where and when and under what conditions the meth is to be consumed. Police would have a record that this person is using meth, and if he is found outside the district where that is allowed, he would be subject to arrest. If he used the meth in a manner significantly different than the plan, he would be subject to arrest.

Strict regulation of the bad stuff, light regulation of weed and such.