- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
1) They aren't paying taxes because businesses aren't paying them high enough wages so they are able to pay taxes. If we raised the wages of these workers, they wouldn't have to be on the government teat.
2) They don't hate capitalism. And they aren't even socialist. What they are is jobless. And they can't get jobs worth their education. Why? Because corporations don't want to pay for that.
1) They aren't paying taxes because businesses aren't paying them high enough wages so they are able to pay taxes. If we raised the wages of these workers, they wouldn't have to be on the government teat.
2) They don't hate capitalism. And they aren't even socialist. What they are is jobless. And they can't get jobs worth their education. Why? Because corporations don't want to pay for that.
Labor is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. IOW, it's all about supply and demand. When there is a shortage of labor and an abundance of capital, wages will rise and vice-versa.
Competitor: "Why do you pay your workers salaries higher than all the other auto companies pay their workers?"
Henry Ford: "So they can afford to buy my cars."
2) They don't hate capitalism. And they aren't even socialist. What they are is jobless. And they can't get jobs worth their education. Why? Because corporations don't want to pay for that.
They should have picked more lucritive professions. It's their own fault for not researching their career endeavors. It's just like a business man that wants to start a new business. He must way the risks. Obviosuly, alot of the OWS'ers didn't way the risks They failed to ask themselves: "What if I can't land a job in this field? How will I pay off all those student loans?". If they didn't do that, then I don't have any sympathy for them. They rolled the dice and came up craps, tough ****, welcome to the real world.
The only problem with that is we now live in a global economy, and so there can be no shortage of labor.
Corporations whined that labor costs in the U.S. is too high, so they move their manufacturing to China. And if the earlier post was correct, labor costs in China are rising, and so corporations are moving to Vietnam.
And if corporations are going to continue to this race to the bottom with regards to all wages it will ultimately hurt these businesses themselves. If corporations aren't willing to pay the wages necessary to maintain a middle class then there won't be any people who can afford their products.
The only problem with that is we now live in a global economy, and so there can be no shortage of labor.
Corporations whined that labor costs in the U.S. is too high, so they move their manufacturing to China. And if the earlier post was correct, labor costs in China are rising, and so corporations are moving to Vietnam.
And if corporations are going to continue to this race to the bottom with regards to all wages it will ultimately hurt these businesses themselves. If corporations aren't willing to pay the wages necessary to maintain a middle class then there won't be any people who can afford their products.
So if it's their own fault they're unemployed, that means that all 9% of people unemployed are so by their own fault, and no one elses.
Which means it's not Obamas fault... :ssst:
the states WOULD have to raise taxes, but without the layers of federal bull****eacracy the federal tax burden would be significantly reduced and the resources would be much more directly managed and applied. It makes no sense to send 70 billion to the fed in taxes for the Dept of Ed for example, have them absorb 35 billion in operating costs, and then graciously return 35 billion back to the states. Medicare...medicade...we know they are being buried in fraud annually. Again...much easier to manage locally. I think if people saw their money and where it was actually going they would be more likely to vote and we would have much higher turnout at local elections than we do now (which is embarassingly low).
As with all things... moderation is needed. I like libraries, I like the post office, I like that those who have fallen on hard times can be given a chance to get back what they lost or improve themselves. I don't like when things are taken to the extreme and the arguments for 99 weeks of unemployment are used, or those who game the system are allowed to do so. Just as there needs to be some social assistance, there also needs to be some independence and a need to be more self sufficient to balance it all out.
If you folks in Canada want more socialism, then that's great, go for it. Most folks in the States don't want that and we are rejecting it.
The United States was founded in defiance and rebellion against a horrendous tyrant. Canada was founded in cowering and groveling before the same tyrant. Once in a while, we get an example, such as this one, that shows what difference this has made.
NI know.
Canada is Better :lol:
If 'WE' raised their wages... We. YOU. Go ahead...by all means...start a business and pay them your hearts content. OH...wait...you mean THEY. THEY should pay them more...right? Always THEY. ALWAYS someone elses responsibility to do what you think should be done.1) They aren't paying taxes because businesses aren't paying them high enough wages so they are able to pay taxes. If we raised the wages of these workers, they wouldn't have to be on the government teat.
2) They don't hate capitalism. And they aren't even socialist. What they are is jobless. And they can't get jobs worth their education. Why? Because corporations don't want to pay for that.
"We the people" is not "I the person."
The gist I get from your Constitution is that working together will result in the greater good of society. The gist that I get from many here at DP is every man should be out for themselves. To me, it's not a reflection on the principles started by your forefathers.
You are right. Working together will result in a great country. It's weird how the Founders put that in there and yet didn't implement socialist programs to "take care" of everyone. Hmm. Why didn't they?
Because they weren't needed in the same way back then that they are now, they weren't able to be provided the same way they are now, and it was fiscally difficult back then.
How do you know? Capitalist armies have always stopped us finding out, haven't they?And at the community level is the largest level it can exist at.
Yeah - actually - I imagine having come from the Soviet Union he'd know a lot about that kind of thing in his life.
A socialist community? I'm sure it was great. Try a socialist run country... there's a difference.
There weren't any poor people? No disabled people? Orphans? Elderly?
No rich people?
Jonestown was a socialist community.
Then I choose nothing.Yes, the difference between existence and non-existence. The capitalists do not allow socialist countries - it is a socialist world or nothing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?