Don Lemon: White Guys Biggest Threat...

[carpedm9587]

I never said that. You are really good at creating straw men Carp.

You keep missing the places where I have said "this is the inevitable conclusion of your argument." You don't need to say it, Sparko - if there is no other explanation.

I am just going by what liberals say they want. They want to help the poor. Make sure that they aren't homeless and have food and healthcare. They want to eliminate the poor and give everyone a living wage, or even basic income. They think that it is unfair for the rich people to hoard all the money and should share it with those less fortunate.

And they have the means and opportunity to do just that in California. But they do not. The evidence is right there. They aren't doing it. The discrepancy between the haves and have-nots is probably worse in California than in any other part of the country. The housing market in LA and San Francisco is so outrageous that even a middle class family can't afford a simple 3 bedroom home. Just go looking for a 3 bedroom home under 2000 sq ft in San Francisco on realtor.com. The average price is over $1.5 million dollars. I can buy the same house in a midwest state for $150,000. https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...sqft-1250-2000

I am just saying for the liberals to fix their own home before coming after ours so to speak. Prove to the rest of the country that liberalism works.

I've responded to all of this already. It's not clear that repeating myself is going to change your response.

[carpedm9587]

I don't see how that follows. Personally, I think the government should strictly only be involved in public safety and infrastructure.

And I think "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" includes ALL of the underlined sections, including "promote the general Welfare." These are all right and proper roles for government.

As long as capitalism exists, there will never be a livable basic wage. you would have to resort to some form of socialism.

I disagree. You are assuming the models are inconsistent, but they are perfectly consistent when localized. After all, we pay for our highways using a socialistic model - but capitalism provides the actual workers and equipment and materials. We pay for our military using a socialistic model, but capitalism provides the equipment, and even fills some of the roles. Likewise, taxes can raise sufficient funds to create a livable basic wage (assuming the degree of automation I indicated), giving individuals an option of working or not working.

If you think about it, BTC, the alternative is ugly. We're already beginning to see it at work. Despite all of Trump's hype, the coal industry shed about 40K jobs from 2012 to mid 2016. Economist attribute this to three major factors: the low cost of a readily available alternative (natural gas), the rapid reduction in cost of renewables (solar, wind, etc.), and the introduction of increasing levels of automation in mining and processing. Trump can do nothing about the first. The second he can do something about by removing the incentives for renewables and the regulations that made coal more expensive to use (which he has been doing). He can do nothing about the third. We have seen an increase of a couple thousand jobs in two years in this industry, and it has essentially flattened since mid 2017.

As automation displaces more and more workers - what do you think is going to happen to the workforce? A time will come when most jobs currently done by a large group of humans will be done by automation and will only require a handful of "overseers." It's happening in mining. It's happening in manufacturing. It's even happening in service positions. So when there are not enough jobs for the growing human population, what do you suggest as an alternative?

I'm actually a flat tax proponent too, except I'm for a "consumption tax" which only taxes when an entity purchases something, whether a business or person. Give people more of their own hard-earned money, and they typically spend it AND reduce their debt. Win-win in my book.

My pleasure.

I'm not a fan of a consumption tax. My reason for not being in favor is that it hits the poor harder than the wealthy. By definition, the poor spend pretty much ALL their money just to survive, so it will all be taxed. The rich do not need to. They commonly stockpile money, often in huge amounts. So the percentage of their wealth they pay in taxes is proportionately smaller, and I think that's an unbalanced tax system.

[Sparko]

You keep missing the places where I have said "this is the inevitable conclusion of your argument." You don't need to say it, Sparko - if there is no other explanation.



I've responded to all of this already. It's not clear that repeating myself is going to change your response.

You never had to respond to my statement. I made it a general "I wonder why" question and YOU took it upon yourself to try to answer it. Yet when I point out the facts, you start wiggling around and seem to be getting upset at me about it, to the point of creating strawmen to attack and doing your "I already responded to this" spiel when you clearly have not.

and YOU asked for the evidence and I provided it. How is anything I said the inevitable conclusion that my 'conjecture basically reduces to "poor/minority people are either stupid, naive, gullible, or addicted."?' I just pointed out what the liberals want and what they actually have and questioned why California doesn't fix it. Nothing in that implies anyone is stupid naive gullible or addicted. It's like you have my argument imagined in your head and you are arguing against that instead of what I am actually saying.

[carpedm9587]

You never had to respond to my statement. I made it a general "I wonder why" question and YOU took it upon yourself to try to answer it. Yet when I point out the facts, you start wiggling around and seem to be getting upset at me about it, to the point of creating strawmen to attack and doing your "I already responded to this" spiel when you clearly have not.

and YOU asked for the evidence and I provided it. How is anything I said the inevitable conclusion that my 'conjecture basically reduces to "poor/minority people are either stupid, naive, gullible, or addicted."?' I just pointed out what the liberals want and what they actually have and questioned why California doesn't fix it. Nothing in that implies anyone is stupid naive gullible or addicted. It's like you have my argument imagined in your head and you are arguing against that instead of what I am actually saying.

Again - this has already been answered.

[Bill the Cat]

And I think "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" includes ALL of the underlined sections, including "promote the general Welfare." These are all right and proper roles for government.

Promoting isn't providing though. Encouraging people to be healthy isn't the same as giving them taxpayer funded health insurance.

I disagree. You are assuming the models are inconsistent, but they are perfectly consistent when localized. After all, we pay for our highways using a socialistic model - but capitalism provides the actual workers and equipment and materials. We pay for our military using a socialistic model, but capitalism provides the equipment, and even fills some of the roles. Likewise, taxes can raise sufficient funds to create a livable basic wage (assuming the degree of automation I indicated), giving individuals an option of working or not working.

I still think that incentivizing laziness is the wrong way to govern.

If you think about it, BTC, the alternative is ugly. We're already beginning to see it at work. Despite all of Trump's hype, the coal industry shed about 40K jobs from 2012 to mid 2016. Economist attribute this to three major factors: the low cost of a readily available alternative (natural gas), the rapid reduction in cost of renewables (solar, wind, etc.), and the introduction of increasing levels of automation in mining and processing. Trump can do nothing about the first. The second he can do something about by removing the incentives for renewables and the regulations that made coal more expensive to use (which he has been doing). He can do nothing about the third. We have seen an increase of a couple thousand jobs in two years in this industry, and it has essentially flattened since mid 2017.

As automation displaces more and more workers - what do you think is going to happen to the workforce? A time will come when most jobs currently done by a large group of humans will be done by automation and will only require a handful of "overseers." It's happening in mining. It's happening in manufacturing. It's even happening in service positions. So when there are not enough jobs for the growing human population, what do you suggest as an alternative?

That's the rub, isn't it? When it becomes cheaper to automate, you put more people on the streets who will need an income. Which means less tax money coming in. Unless you convince those who actually MAKE the money to give it up more and more each passing year, you'll have to take it by force. And that RARELY ends well.

I'm not a fan of a consumption tax. My reason for not being in favor is that it hits the poor harder than the wealthy. By definition, the poor spend pretty much ALL their money just to survive, so it will all be taxed. The rich do not need to. They commonly stockpile money, often in huge amounts. So the percentage of their wealth they pay in taxes is proportionately smaller, and I think that's an unbalanced tax system.

But it's fair that the same amount of tax is paid for any purchase regardless of who buys it. That the rich have more isn't something you should punish with higher taxes. It would be like pulling up to a McDonalds and ordering a dollar menu item and having the cashier charge you and the guy next to you different amounts just because he is paying with a $20 and you are scraping pennies together. IMHO, fair taxation does not take into account the ability to pay.

[Sparko]

Again - this has already been answered.

I think I will start using this when responding to your posts and see how you like it.

[carpedm9587]

I think I will start using this when responding to your posts and see how you like it.

If I keep asking the same question and ignore your answers, you are perfectly free to do so. In fact, I encourage you to do so.