• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elizabeth Warren: proving progressive ideals are for the weak minded.

Jack Hays said:
Open borders only works with free trade, low taxes and minimized regulations. I'm for all of that. The greatest period of economic growth in US history coincided with virtually free immigration.:peace
Click to expand...

Correlation is not causation. There was a year when the rise in the number of rapes exactly matched the rise in the number of nuns. Damn those rapist nuns!
 
ocean515 said:
Not at all. This liberal/progressive blather that attempts to equate the two is laughable. You need to gather up the troops and come up with a better excuse.
Click to expand...

Equates what "two." The immigrants who came here from Europe versus the immigrants coming here today? In almost all respects, they come here for the same reasons. If you disagree, you'll have to do better than just assert some fundamental difference. What is that difference?
 
Jack Hays said:
Open borders only works with free trade, low taxes and minimized regulations. I'm for all of that. The greatest period of economic growth in US history coincided with virtually free immigration.:peace
Click to expand...

Find me an example in all of civilization's history where a nation permitted free trade and open borders and succeeded in perpetuity. Can you point to the years where America had virtually free immigration, and did that happen to coincide with settling America and more specifically the West, where there was virtually nobody living there (no disrespect, my native American friends)? The West has been settled as of to date. You see, you have to be a good student of history in order take all of these things into consideration, and then say yes, it was the best time America ever knew, and it was simply because of free immigration (since nobody, and especially America, has ever practiced free trade).
 
Raven1 said:
So your idea is to get rid of "big government" and let "big business" run buck wild? The two aren't necessarily pals, and when that happens, we call it a different system of governance, but here in America, the only protection people have against big business is the big, bad, mean ole federal gubmint. I know we have our problems right now, but giving "big business" further power is certainly not the answer, nor is keeping "big government" from reigning them in.
Click to expand...

Government doesn't "reign in business." The politicians are sitting back with pockets full of cash and gigantic grins on their faces. Always have. The problem of corporatism is stemmed from two things: capitalism and big government. Capitalism provides the profit mechanism, government provides the enforcement mechanism. Between the two, they have created a vast machine that exploits the worker for the benefit of the few.
 
ocean515 said:
I used to think along the lines of your little story. What would I do if I were stuck in Mexico. After a lot of thought, and experience, I came to the conclusion that these people coming here illegally aren't heros, their self absorbed failures. They don't care what future damage they do to their children, they don't care what harm the do to the employers the scam for jobs, and they don' care what economic harm they cause to this country. The are self absorbed failures from failed cultures. If they want to help their families, they go to any lengths to insure the actions they take truly benefit their families, not harm others.
Click to expand...

Wow, how did you come to those conclusions? They're "self absorbed failures" for being born in a country that's turning into a hellhole, and want to leave that hellhole for a better life? You don't think the odds of a good life for their family increase dramatically if they leave Guatemala and come to the U.S.? And why would they think coming here for a job, working for an employer who is glad to have them, 'harms others?' When YOU take a job, you 'harm others' who didn't get that job. You don't care and aren't expected to - the employer hired you, not someone else and your goal is to provide for you and your family, not worry that some other schmuck didn't get hired. So immigrants must weigh all that when they take a job and analyze the global implications of themselves immigrating?

Some company relocating a plant from Indiana to Thailand doesn't give a damn what harm that does to the workers left behind in the U.S. or the broader implications to the U.S. economy. Free capital seeks out opportunities. Free labor can't do the same without breaking some moral guideline of your own making? Why should capital be free to move globally with few to no restrictions, but workers chained by arbitrary national borders?

Besides, you didn't say what you WOULD do if stuck in Mexico. Start a revolution? Surely you haven't boiled the two acceptable options down to 1) accept your plight in Guatemala, or 2) lead an armed revolution to overthrow the existing order. Give me a break.

I have no empathy for the people who have come here to exploit the promise our forefathers died to secure.

Our ancestors faced the same dilemma, and took up arms so they could determine their own destiny. I suggest Mexicans do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Very FEW of our 'ancestors' took up arms. The vast majority of our ancestors got on a boat and moved here. Mine came her from the Isle of Man, about 140 years ago. I guess they should have stayed there and led a revolution? Maybe your ancestors did fight in the revolutionary war. You're in a very small minority of Americans if so. Are all the rest who came here somehow less deserving or somehow illegitimate?
 
fedup said:
Government doesn't "reign in business." The politicians are sitting back with pockets full of cash and gigantic grins on their faces. Always have. The problem of corporatism is stemmed from two things: capitalism and big government. Capitalism provides the profit mechanism, government provides the enforcement mechanism. Between the two, they have created a vast machine that exploits the worker for the benefit of the few.
Click to expand...

And so your answer is to what? Snap your fingers and corporatism will disappear? Get rid of government and really let corporatism take hold? Or just sit back and ridicule any efforts made by the people and those who are supposed to represent us to reign in corporatism? What's your answer? Don't just sit there and complain, give some answers, please.
 
fedup said:
Her policies will only benefit the very corporations she hates. I don't dislike the woman, but she's either a hypocrite or incredibly stupid. Big business LOVES big government. The two are pals.
Click to expand...


I see, so the big banks and big corporations are lining up to support her?

She's raised about $44 million. 97% from individuals. https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033492&newmem=Y

Let's compare that to, say, Mitch McConnell. Gosh, look at all those PAC contributions from big corporate interests....
 
Raven1 said:
And so your answer is to what? Snap your fingers and corporatism will disappear? Get rid of government and really let corporatism take hold? Or just sit back and ridicule any efforts made by the people and those who are supposed to represent us to reign in corporatism? What's your answer? Don't just sit there and complain, give some answers, please.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Government doesn't reign in corporations, but puts in place policies and regulations that pushes forward their interest and protects them from competition. The vast majority of the complaints people like yourself have are the result of government and the policies you support.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
Every paycheck I have ever earned, government has taken some of it in taxes. The same is true of everyone else I know who has ever had a job. It has always been Republicans/Conservatives who were for policies that would result in less being taken out of my paycheck in taxes, and it has always been Democrats/liberals/“progressives” who have advocated policies that would result in more being taken out of my paycheck in taxes.

I call solid digestive waste from a male bovine on your claim that “progressives” are, have ever been, or will ever be, in favor of allowing honest workers to keep more of their rightful earnings. Your side has consistently supported policies that are very obviously intended to have the opposite effect.
Click to expand...
Yeah. You had better believe that those lawmakers have us (common people.) in interest when it comes to paying taxes. :roll:

You Pay Higher Taxes Than Boeing (and GE, Verizon & 23 More U.S. Corporations)

Corporation and 2008-2012 Rate
1. Pepco Holdings -33.0%
2. PG&E Corp. -16.7%
3. NiSource -13.6%
4. Wisconsin Energy -13.5%
5. General Electric -11.1%
6. CenterPoint Energy -8.5%
7. Integrys Energy Group -8.2%
8. Atmos Energy -7.7%
9. Tenet Healthcare -6.0%
10. American Electric Power -5.8%
11. Ryder System -4.7%
12. Con-way -3.5%
13. Duke Energy -3.3%
14. Priceline.com -3.0%
15. FirstEnergy -3.0%
16. Apache -2.4%
17. Interpublic Group -2.1%
18. Verizon Communications -1.8%
19. NextEra Energy -1.6%
20. Consolidated Edison -.1%
21. CMS Energy -1.1%
22. Boeing -1.0%
23. Northeast Utilities -0.7%
24. Corning -0.3%
25. Paccar Rate -0.1%
26. MetroPCS Communications -0.1%
 
Raven1 said:
Find me an example in all of civilization's history where a nation permitted free trade and open borders and succeeded in perpetuity. Can you point to the years where America had virtually free immigration, and did that happen to coincide with settling America and more specifically the West, where there was virtually nobody living there (no disrespect, my native American friends)? The West has been settled as of to date. You see, you have to be a good student of history in order take all of these things into consideration, and then say yes, it was the best time America ever knew, and it was simply because of free immigration (since nobody, and especially America, has ever practiced free trade).
Click to expand...

The West has indeed been settled to some extent but the US remains underpopulated by comparison with other industrialized countries. Trade was certainly not legally free but because of enforcement inadequacy it was freer in practice than in theory. I have not claimed it was the best time America ever knew, but I claim economic growth is powered by immigration, not inhibited by it. Moreover, free trade, minimized regulation and low taxes are also growth promoters. Why the focus on growth? Because it's the only real cure for poverty.:peace
 
Henrin said:
You're missing the point. Government doesn't reign in corporations, but puts in place policies and regulations that pushes forward their interest and protects them from competition. The vast majority of the complaints people like yourself have are the result of government and the policies you support.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you doing circles for while sidestepping my questions? I'll repeat...

And so your answer is to what? Snap your fingers and corporatism will disappear? Get rid of government and really let corporatism take hold? Or just sit back and ridicule any efforts made by the people and those who are supposed to represent us to reign in corporatism? What's your answer? Don't just sit there and complain, give some answers, please.

Henrin said:
Big banks are also the result of government.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that, and what do you know of the history of banking that goes back millennia? And again, what do you propose? No government? Libertarians can be weird and not at all thought out all the way through their thoughts.
 
Raven1 said:
Find me an example in all of civilization's history where a nation permitted free trade and open borders and succeeded in perpetuity. Can you point to the years where America had virtually free immigration, and did that happen to coincide with settling America and more specifically the West, where there was virtually nobody living there (no disrespect, my native American friends)? The West has been settled as of to date. You see, you have to be a good student of history in order take all of these things into consideration, and then say yes, it was the best time America ever knew, and it was simply because of free immigration (since nobody, and especially America, has ever practiced free trade).
Click to expand...

You may find this of interest.:peace

[h=3]Immigration in the United States: New Economic, Social ...[/h]www.migrationpolicy.org/.../immigration-unite...Migration Policy Institute


Apr 16, 2013 - Although immigration has occurred throughout American history, .... longest period of sustained economic and job growth the United States had ...
 
Jack Hays said:
You may find this of interest.:peace

[h=3]Immigration in the United States: New Economic, Social ...[/h]www.migrationpolicy.org/.../immigration-unite...Migration Policy Institute


Apr 16, 2013 - Although immigration has occurred throughout American history, .... longest period of sustained economic and job growth the United States had ...
Click to expand...

Excellent article! :thumbs: I learned things that I had not known previously - primarily why the laws were changed at certain times, and what the rationale was for those changes, The spike in 2012 prior to the election seemed entirely due to political reasons, however, and not for any other logical purpose, and I found that very telling, because they entered illegally and are currently being put ahead of those trying to enter legally, and that is neither just nor fair in most people's opinion! :thumbdown: Our laws should apply to all equally!
 
polgara said:
Excellent article! :thumbs: I learned things that I had not known previously - primarily why the laws were changed at certain times, and what the rationale was for those changes, The spike in 2012 prior to the election seemed entirely due to political reasons, however, and not for any other logical purpose, and I found that very telling, because they entered illegally and are currently being put ahead of those trying to enter legally, and that is neither just nor fair in most people's opinion! :thumbdown: Our laws should apply to all equally!
Click to expand...

As usual, you have seen through to the heart of the matter.:peace
 
Henrin said:
Big banks are also the result of government.
Click to expand...

Well, so are small banks and medium banks. What's your point? I looked and there aren't any bankers on her list of big supporters.
 
JasperL said:
Well, so are small banks and medium banks. What's your point? I looked and there aren't any bankers on her list of big supporters.
Click to expand...

My point is that the federal reserve which Warren supports is the result of a reform movement by bankers in the late 19th and early 20th century. Why would they ever give her money when she freely pleases them out of shear ignorance? She rages against banks, but supports a system that exists to please them.
 
Last edited:
Respecthelect said:
Talk about defeating your own argument? Of course the competition undercut you. That's the whole point of competition - to provide the best product or service at the lowest cost.
Click to expand...

You ****ed up there in bold. The undercutting had nothing at all to do with quality. It had to do with paying Illegal immigrant carpenters $10 an hour while making equal profits.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats horse**** Tucker and if you were honest you would admit it. The vast majority of small businesses that employ low skilled workers arent getting rich at the expense of the low skilled workers.
Click to expand...

Very few small businesses would be greatly affected by a minimum wage hike. Most of the employers you are referring to (primarily restaurants and such) would be far more affected by a crackdown on employing illegal immigrants.
 
ludin said:
You mean the people that were your competitors that you couldn't compete against because you had to charge way more than they did in order to cover your expenses.
that means you had a bad business model.
Click to expand...

No, it means they employed illegal immigrants, while I didn't. Ironic ain't it?

they weren't being greedy.
Click to expand...

They were, but since you base your made up reality above on nothing more than **** you made up, reality ain't going to put a dent in it.

they were running a business.
Click to expand...

Illegally. :shrug:

the job of a businesses is to make money not hire people.
Click to expand...

then **** all that "job creator" nonsense come time for tax breaks, right?


they made money because they paid industry wages for that position and you chose to pay more.
Click to expand...

Actually, I paid slightly less than union scale, they paid illegal immigrants a pittance.

which raised your bottom line which means you couldn't compete on a per job basis.
Click to expand...

I competed fine, I just new that my target demographic was people interested in quality not bare bones ****ty construction that cost significantly less.

You see, my good business model was to promote the quality of my services, not the price. I was almost unmatched quality-wise in the market I was operating in. But due to unscrupulous bastards, I could not compete for the people who didn't give a **** about quality, so I had a more limited profitability than others, but I could sleep at night knowing I did nothing unscrupulous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom