A wealth question for the Sanders supporters

[BotanyBoy]

I fail to see how providing a minimum wage or standard of living is bad or a threat to freedom.

The fact that you insist on sending people with guns to force those things ought to clue you in.

If you gave any shit about freedom then you wouldn't be so supportive of a totalitarian god state controlling everything everyone does.

 

[Conager]

When you're comparing things you use "than".

And yes I would set their pay higher. Why? I've already explained it.

You're also making the assumption that capitalism always allocates resources in the best way possible and this simply isn't true. Rural America is a perfect example of this. You also seem to believe that only certain people deserve a living wage. Which is obviously racist but I don't need to explain that to you, what with your screen name and all.

The fact that billionaires don't really drive the economy and tend to inherit their wealth (like Trump) means that those "hard working deserving" people did the difficult work of being born into the right family.

I fail to see how providing a minimum wage or standard of living is bad or a threat to freedom. There's no moral, social, or mathematical argument that a billionaire can experience tyranny if they go from having $60 billion to $45 billion. It is literally not possible when they've gamed the system so much that they've managed to trick those with nothing (you, bot, arpy, etc.) that the richest 1% should keep all that wealth to themselves. That you can fall for such an argument where it's "right" for billionaires to have so much and most Americans to have so little is pathetic and sad. But then again you guys are pathetic, individuals so what should I except any different from you?

If you're going to be pendantic, it helps if you can actually read and comprehend compound sentences.

Then was 100% correct. It was an if/then sentence.

You cutting the sentence off shows either you were being a disingenuous prick, or you did not read the entire sentence.

Either way, feel free to apologize for being a pedantic prick.

 

[dan_c00000]

The fact that you insist on sending people with guns to force those things ought to clue you in.

When did I say anything about guns or force? I didn't. Sorry racist you got owned there. Nice try lying slick.

I don't know basic grammar so I used the word "prick" because I think I'm special.

Sadly he was comparing people who earn less with people who earn more. You use "than" try again.

Also, why are you not even bothering to address any of the arguments I've made? Simple, if you attempted to do that you'd have to admit that 1. you don't actually care about the people you claim to be defending and 2. you'd have to defend billionaires who hide their wealth, pollute communities, and generally could give two shits about people like.

In short you'd have to admit you got suckered by Trump.

 

[Conager]

When did I say anything about guns or force? I didn't. Sorry racist you got owned there. Nice try lying slick.



Sadly he was comparing people who earn less with people who earn more. You use "than" try again.

Also, why are you not even bothering to address any of the arguments I've made? Simple, if you attempted to do that you'd have to admit that 1. you don't actually care about the people you claim to be defending and 2. you'd have to defend billionaires who hide their wealth, pollute communities, and generally could give two shits about people like.

In short you'd have to admit you got suckered by Trump.

Fail again. He was not comparing he was telling you what will happen after you enact your plan.

"If you do X, then others will insist on X + Y."

Typical. Doubling down on stupid. Even when I point out your error you're incapable of going back and finding your mistake.

There is nothing grammatically <sic> wrong with calling a prick like you a prick.

 

[BotanyBoy]

When did I say anything about guns or force?

When you suggest those policies be put into law.

That's what a law is....a direct threat that people with guns will come fuck you up if you do not comply. From taking your stuff (fines) to effectively ending your life (prison) or literally taking you out (death penalties or resisting the police).

Minimum wage law = Direct threat from the government to apply force in order to get compliance.

If you resist all the way? They will eventually send people with guns to kill you.

If you don't think that fascist shit is all necessary, glad to see you on the liberal side of things where wages and other exchanges of goods and services are a matter of voluntary exchange between employers and employees, contractors etc. No government (people with guns) necessary.

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's what a law is....a direct threat that people with guns will come fuck you up if you do not comply.

^^^
Neatly distilling the toxic shitsludge personal ideology of our board WelfareBot into one single sentence.

Get pulled over for a broken taillight on your car? People with guns will come fuck you up. *derp*

Not sure if his disdain for laws is rooted in nihilism or anarchism.

 

[Conager]

^^^
Neatly distilling the toxic shitsludge personal ideology of our board WelfareBot into one single sentence.

Get pulled over for a broken taillight on your car? People with guns will come fuck you up. *derp*

Not sure if his disdain for laws is rooted in nihilism or anarchism.

Try refusing to identify yourself for a mere equipment failure infraction and a repair order.

Your confusion is probably because you understand neither nihilism nor anarchy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

^^^
Neatly distilling the toxic shitsludge personal ideology of our board WelfareBot into one single sentence.

Get pulled over for a broken taillight on your car? People with guns will come fuck you up. *derp*

Who pulls you over for the broken taillight to fine you Rob??

Durrrrr....a person with a taser, spray, beat stick, gun and a radio to call more people with guns, isn't it?? That's what's in that car with the flashing lights and sirens that you pulled over for isn't it Rob??


Now lets do a compliance/resistance evaluation at the point the people with guns have detained you for a minor infraction of the LAW.

First up, Compliance.

If you comply with the people with guns, you're subject to a minor property confiscation and it's all over.


What about passive resistance?

If you passively resist and don't pay your fine or fix your shit box, you eventually get a warrant out for your arrest and fines get real steep real fast after that.

Depending on jurisdictions, in most the country you'll eventually lose your licence, probably your car and eventually wind up doing some time.


Now the good stuff.


What happens if you actively resist the people with guns at ANY point in the law enforcement process Rob??


That's right......
https://media1.tenor.com/images/39ee86d5259d07be1b7d9e973d023458/tenor.gif?itemid=7477294

https://media1.giphy.com/media/Kf5YhUJHp362k/source.gif
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/978855856918786020/B44F56A7D611DEEA807EF97D647FADC20D2EA973/

Poor Rob, he really didn't think this through.....he never does.

Not sure if his disdain for laws is rooted in nihilism or anarchism.

I don't have disdain for laws, I'm just not delusional about what they are and what they mean.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Like most of the Lit progressives, you're a financial idiot.

STABLE wages are part of the way to keep inflation in check. When wages are stable, it is more difficult for prices to rise because consumers can't afford higher costs of living.

Tying wages to inflation merely allows inflation to rise unchecked because as inflation occurs, wages automatically rise. The numbers get bigger but that's all that happens.

"STABLE" wages in an inflationary environment is a disaster. Purchasing power gets eroded steadily every year, consumers purchase less, resulting in a deflationary spiral.

Claiming "tying wages to inflation merely allow inflation to rise unchecked" gets my vote for most inane non-BotanyBoy comment posted on the GB this month. You truly have no grasp of basic economics.

 

[Conager]

"STABLE" wages in an inflationary environment is a disaster. Purchasing power gets eroded steadily every year, consumers purchase less, resulting in a deflationary spiral.

Claiming "tying wages to inflation merely allow inflation to rise unchecked" gets my vote for most inane non-BotanyBoy comment posted on the GB this month. You truly have no grasp of basic economics.

^says the economic illiterate who insists that a healthy dose of inflation* is necessary for a healthy economy, disregarding the fact that devaluation of our currency was a lot harder for the Feds to do before Nixon did away with the gold standard and made owning gold illegal.

^also the guy that insisted that Obama's energy policy (which had the stated aim of making energy more expensive in order to discourage its use) was directly responsible for reducing the cost of gasoline.

Speaking of "having no grasp of basic economics."

*inflation, that Rob insists we "need" is not an actual thing. It is a term of art invented to shift blame for the erosion in the value of fiat currency to those evil, greedy merchants instead of on monetary policy where it properly belongs.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You truly have no grasp of basic economics.

Says the guy who demonstrates on a near daily basis he has no fucking clue what capitalism or socialism is.

 

[bigsly]

Bernie's already won considering the fact that debating/considering communism in the least is nothing but a total lost.

 

[Conager]

In his Obama energy policy was responsible for lower gas prices thread, he hid for about a month until luk! (of all people) tried to throw him a lifeline. Luk chimed in that the reason that the prices for gas had dropped was because of increased demand from a recovering economy.

Rob lunged for that lifeline, as if that made sense.

 

[toeskr]

He forrow me everywhere.
*nods*

Hey you fucking racist. Did you run this by butters before you posted? Yeah, I didn't think so but she will give you a pass again.

It's difficult to change your ways at your advanced age but once a racist always a racist.

It's well understood that BotanyBoy owns your ass at every turn but this getting embarrassing even for you.

*nods*

 

[SpeareChucker]

Like most of the Lit progressives, you're a financial idiot.

STABLE wages are part of the way to keep inflation in check. When wages are stable, it is more difficult for prices to rise because consumers can't afford higher costs of living.

Tying wages to inflation merely allows inflation to rise unchecked because as inflation occurs, wages automatically rise. The numbers get bigger but that's all that happens.

No truer words were ever uttered.
He has no idea as to the effect of government interference in the markets,
and money is a market unto itself. He prefers Socialist control of the money supply...

 

[SpeareChucker]

When you're comparing things you use "than".

And yes I would set their pay higher. Why? I've already explained it.

You're also making the assumption that capitalism always allocates resources in the best way possible and this simply isn't true. Rural America is a perfect example of this. You also seem to believe that only certain people deserve a living wage. Which is obviously racist but I don't need to explain that to you, what with your screen name and all.

The fact that billionaires don't really drive the economy and tend to inherit their wealth (like Trump) means that those "hard working deserving" people did the difficult work of being born into the right family.

I fail to see how providing a minimum wage or standard of living is bad or a threat to freedom. There's no moral, social, or mathematical argument that a billionaire can experience tyranny if they go from having $60 billion to $45 billion. It is literally not possible when they've gamed the system so much that they've managed to trick those with nothing (you, bot, arpy, etc.) that the richest 1% should keep all that wealth to themselves. That you can fall for such an argument where it's "right" for billionaires to have so much and most Americans to have so little is pathetic and sad. But then again you guys are pathetic, individuals so what should I except any different from you?

This is the second thread in which you display your lack of reading and comprehension skills. I used the correct word, twice. You have insisted upon the wrong word twice. Heck, I haven't even perused all of the threads. We might even be heading for thrice...

 

[SpeareChucker]

Fail again. He was not comparing he was telling you what will happen after you enact your plan.

"If you do X, then others will insist on X + Y."

Typical. Doubling down on stupid. Even when I point out your error you're incapable of going back and finding your mistake.

There is nothing grammatically <sic> wrong with calling a prick like you a prick.

The pussy aspires to be a prick.
I must have made a point earlier that stung him
for him to be following and dogging me the way he has
long after I logged off...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Says the guy who demonstrates on a near daily basis he has no fucking clue what capitalism or socialism is.

Gook morning to you, Mooch!

Speaking of "no fucking clue", did Dixon Carter Lee adequately explain the difference between "patriotism" and "nationalism" to you, and how they're not synonymous?

Or are you still confused?

You seem to have been struggling with those two terms for a couple of days now.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, after all you're a self-described "liberal" who loudly voices support for concentration camps.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Gook morning to you, Mooch!

Starting off with overt racism and hatred for veterans.

Somebody is sore and looking for more I see

Speaking of "no fucking clue", did Dixon Carter Lee adequately explain the difference between "patriotism" and "nationalism" to you, and how they're not synonymous?

Or are you still confused?

Believe Dixon Carter Lee, who was proven wrong about what patriotism and nationalism are (he was the one who tried conflating the two) .....or Encyclopedia Britannica.

God that's just such a hard choice in who to trust, hysterical socialist on the internet, or one of the worlds most reputable academic references. Clearly Rob backs the hysterical socialist online....let's take ANOTHER look at what the reputable academic references say.

Patriotism, feeling of attachment and commitment to a country, nation, or political community.

Nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism

Patriotism (love of country) and nationalism (loyalty to one’s nation) are often taken to be synonymous, yet patriotism has its origins some 2,000 years prior to the rise of nationalism in the 19th century.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/patriotism-sociology

^ you ought to read about the links between patriotism and nationalism before you further embarrass yourself.

You seem to have been struggling with those two terms for a couple of days now.

Not at all and you have NOTHING to support that except hysterical lefties screeching "NATIONALISM!!!" autistically at anyone who doesn't HATE the USA as much as you, DCL and the other open borders neo-Maoist "progressives".

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, after all you're a self-described "liberal" who loudly voices support for concentration camps.

Has to lie to come up with things about me that are illiberal...LOL

You just undermine your own position by doing that, never supported concentration camps Rob.

Try again OpenBordersDownSouth.

 

[dan_c00000]

I've noticed that none of Lit's brilliant right wing minds have even attempted to answer the question asked or bothered to address any of my points.

I've seen a lot of strawman arguments, racist dogwhistle, and massive self owns by bot, conager, and such but no actual arguments other than: poors bad, rich good.

 

[Conager]

Until you learn basic reading comprehension, what would be the point with attempting to engage with you, peDANt?

 

[puppett]

this is most likely an exercise in futility, and i will not check back to see responses.
Not arguing or trying to... just read it yourself.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/sanders-didnt-call-for-52-tax-on-29000-incomes/

bottom line is healthcare is expensive. its about 30% of my pay and i have to decide when to use it because this does not include copays which i can't afford.

i have 3 part time jobs, work about 60 hours a week and none of them help with healthcare. I would love to have a single 15$ hr job with health care.

Here's another wealth question Bernie fans might want to look at before voting, compliments of James Woods:

"Bernie Sanders said at the debate last night that he wants a minimum wage of $15 per hour.
$15 x 40hr week = $600
$600 x 52 weeks per yr = 31,200

Bernie Sanders wants free heath care for all and was asked how he would pay for it. His answer was to raise taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 per year.

52% of $31,200 = 16,224 in tax
$31,200 - $16224 = $14, 976 IS YOUR PAY
$14, 976 ÷ 52 weeks = $288 per week
$288 ÷ 40 hr week = $7.20 per hour."

Thanks Bernie, you dumb SOB.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I've noticed that none of Lit's brilliant right wing minds have even attempted to answer the question asked or bothered to address any of my points.

I've seen a lot of strawman arguments, racist dogwhistle, and massive self owns by bot, conager, and such but no actual arguments other than: poors bad, rich good.

Oh look....dan is talking to himself again LOL

 

[BotanyBoy]

I would love to have a single 15$ hr job with health care.

Why don't you aim a bit higher?

 

[HisArpy]

Why don't you aim a bit higher?

Some can't. It's no shame and I point no fingers because of it. We all do what we're capable of doing.

Where I DO point the finger of blame is Congress. THEY are supposed to be in charge and they consistently and continuously faceplant on this issue.

Healthcare can be fixed with a few sentences that don't require a major overhaul of our tax laws or economy.

1. Businesses which hire individuals to perform work on behalf of the business are required to offer healthcare insurance at the same group rates as their other employees whether the hired individuals are classified as independent contractors, non-full-time employees, or any other classification which attempts to distinguish between them and regular employees of the business.

2. Insurers are prohibited from raising existing group rates on the basis that these new insureds increase or change the risk pool of the insurer.

3. It is illegal under this section to not offer group rates to any person(s) covered in sentence 1 above, or for an insurer to deny coverage at the prior group rate because of the addition of any person covered in sentence 1 above to the insured group.


That's fairly simplistic and it obviously will be challenged in some manner by someone, but the idea is that if you're working for a business, the company has to offer you group insurance rates the same as their other employees. If they don't have regular employees with group rates, you don't get bupkis but you know you shouldn't be working for that cheapshit asshole anyway.

The second thing that needs to happen is that the government needs to STOP subsidizing the insurance industry completely. Get those fuckers off the government tit.