The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

You're not understanding me. "I", or the mental entity that is considered to be "me" could have been born to any female on the planet, (or been aborted by one). I was just lucky to have been born into middle of the road circumstances.

That is entirely blind luck. I know, this is hard to accept, because it utterly destroys the illusion that we control our own destiny, which most humans hold dear.

No, you are looking at a tree and thinking it's a forest. Everything you have said is true, IF you are looking at a tree, but we don't live in a tree anymore. Where we are born is beyond our control, what SOCIETY we grow up in however, is not.
People don't immigrate to the USA because of a tree, they immigrate for the society, where all are created equal and all have a chance at the American Dream. If that is not true anymore, then own it.

Are you forgetting that the super rich just leave the jurisdiction, as we are seeing in NY?

Amazon again?
They left because they would have to deal with unions.
How dare the working class act like a corporation!!

The libs don't abandon their pipe dreams, though, so the taxes are levied upon those with lower incomes. Also, businesses don't just pay taxes, they pass them to the consumer of their products in the form of higher prices.

And, if you used your brain, you would realise that by paying better wages to the working stiff, you create an alternate tax path to the wealthy, and make millions of peoples lives better. If you make 20% more, you can afford a 5% increase in the cost of living, and leave 15% for whatever you want to do. Save for kids, save for retirement, have a holiday, whatever.

You just don't get it. when the govt. levies taxes, it is the working man that ends up paying them, one way or another.

No, you don't get it. you have been fed a LIE your whole life, and you just accept it. Businesses work out how to defray the cost, of course they do, just like you do at tax time, but the piper still comes. The lie you have been fed is, companies DESERVE a tax break, a return on investment, but their avenue is not the government, it's wall street.

[Chaka-Z0]

But that's the big trick of the left these days, isn't it, expanding the definition of terms that describe unacceptable behavior to include whatever they want, such as expanding the term "bullying" to include kids calling each other names in social media. You can't possibly bully someone who is not physically in the same place you are; we haven't yet figured out how to transmit a punch in the mouth over a wire.

Remember at school, little Timmy that peed his pants? It was the story of the day, maybe of the week, hell maybe they'll call him Timmy peeing pants for a year. Apply that to today with social media, literally hundreds if not a thousand kids would know what Timmy did, and laugh at his face and comment on his social network to troll him, literally ruining his life for the better part of his childhood.

While I agree the society in the most part has gone soft, and kids should stand up to bullies who harass them, this is honestly one of the most insensitive post I've seen you write on this board. Go tell exactly those words to the face of the parents of all the young children, teenagers and adults who took their lives due to cyber-bullying on social medias.

Maybe you should think twice before writing stupid stuff like that man.

[Annoyed]

No, you are looking at a tree and thinking it's a forest. Everything you have said is true, IF you are looking at a tree, but we don't live in a tree anymore. Where we are born is beyond our control, what SOCIETY we grow up in however, is not.
People don't immigrate to the USA because of a tree, they immigrate for the society, where all are created equal and all have a chance at the American Dream. If that is not true anymore, then own it.

But that's the thing. You can't just migrate to the US or any other country for that matter simply because you want to. And no amount of wanting to will change that. In order to migrate here legally, you have to apply for admittance, then apply for citizenship, there is a whole process involved. Or do you think the U.S. should just throw open the doors an allow everyone unfettered entry?
It is not reasonable to expect US taxpayers to support that. In fact, our immigration law seems to bear this out:

https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/public-charge

Q. What is a public charge and when does it apply?

A. For purposes of determining inadmissibility, “public charge” means an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.

A number of factors must be considered when making a determination that a person is likely to become a public charge.

Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to that of an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence (green card) is inadmissible if the individual, "at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge." Public charge does not apply in naturalization proceedings. If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status is not granted.

In plain English, if someone applying for entry has no means to support themselves, and would become dependent upon welfare or other taxpayer provided funds, they shouldn't be granted entry.

If you think otherwise, then perhaps you can lobby your own government, and have Australia throw out an open welcome mat & blank checkbook to anyone who migrates there,

Amazon again?
They left because they would have to deal with unions.
How dare the working class act like a corporation!!

Actually, no. As a result of the fed. tax reform of 2017, taxpayers in NY and other high tax hellholes are having to bear the brunt of their obscenely high STATE LEVEL taxes, which up until now were able to be deducted from their federal returns. This lessened the impact of those high state taxes. Faced with the full brunt of those high taxes, many upper income people have chosen to move the hell out of NY and similar states. This is what NY and other states are howling about, the loss of all the tax revenue collected from those folks. This is not the fault of the federal govt, it is the fault of those individual states because of their high spending and therefore high taxation levels.

We've had that discussion; the only solution is for NY and the others to slash their spending and therefore their taxes. Then, people won't want to move out.

But this illustrates my point very effectively. If the state or federal government attempts to levy taxes at unreasonable levels, the targets of those taxes, such as the Kindergartner's 70% proposal will simply move the hell out of whatever jurisdiction is levying the tax. They can easily afford to do so. But the lower classes can't afford to do so. So guess who ends up holding the bag?

And, if you used your brain, you would realise that by paying better wages to the working stiff, you create an alternate tax path to the wealthy, and make millions of peoples lives better. If you make 20% more, you can afford a 5% increase in the cost of living, and leave 15% for whatever you want to do. Save for kids, save for retirement, have a holiday, whatever.

And how do you propose to do that? Remember, your targets can simply move.

No, you don't get it. you have been fed a LIE your whole life, and you just accept it. Businesses work out how to defray the cost, of course they do, just like you do at tax time, but the piper still comes. The lie you have been fed is, companies DESERVE a tax break, a return on investment, but their avenue is not the government, it's wall street.

No, I'm afraid it is you who does not get it. Suppose the Kindergartner gets her way. (she's not gonna, but that's another discussion) Taxes on XYZ corp are raised, and it's CEO/Directors and such are targeted with 70% taxes. What are they going to do? Take it out of profits or their own pockets? Umm.. Not only no, but hell no. The world doesn't work that way.

The CEO and such will demand that the company raise their wages to cover these increases, and since they run the company, guess how that's going to play out?
So, the company has to raise the price of their product to cover that.

This is in addition to the price increase the company has already had to pass to the consumer to cover the increased taxation of the company itself.

No matter how you do it, the tax is passed to the consumer of the product, and he ends up paying it.

No matter how you try to target a tax, it is the little guy who can't sidestep it, demand wage increases to cover it, or pass it on down the line. He ends up paying.

[Chaka-Z0]

What are they going to do? Take it out of profits or their own pockets? Umm.. Not only no, but hell no. The world doesn't work that way.

What do you think companies are taxed on? They are taxed on profits (or dividends for Corps) buddy. As for the owner, most of them having the status of employee in their companies, they will pay taxes on the monies received as a salary like any standard employee would.

Which is why most companies will reduce this to the bare minimum, in order to pay peanuts to Uncle Sam.

[SoulReaver]

Taxes on XYZ corp are raised, and it's CEO/Directors and such are targeted with 70% taxes. What are they going to do? Take it out of profits or their own pockets? Umm.. Not only no, but hell no. The world doesn't work that way.

legislate to make them take it out of their profits

The CEO and such will demand that the company raise their wages to cover these increases, and since they run the company, guess how that's going to play out?
So, the company has to raise the price of their product to cover that.

legislate to make that illegal

This is in addition to the price increase the company has already had to pass to the consumer

make it illegal for them to do so

No matter how you do it, the tax is passed to the consumer of the product, and he ends up paying it.

so to sum it up make it illegal to pass the cost to the consumer or the regular employee

this sithole country already heavily regulates the lives of the commonfolk
since that won't be improving anytime soon how about also regulating the big businesses for a change? let your laws benefit the People for a change

[Annoyed]

legislate to make them take it out of their profits

make it illegal for them to do so

legislate to make that illegal

so to sum it up make it illegal to pass the cost to the consumer or the regular employee

this sithole country already heavily regulates the lives of the commonfolk
since that won't be improving anytime soon how about also regulating the big businesses for a change? let your laws benefit the People for a change

You're gonna earn the seat next to the Kindergartner if you keep that up.

These people are rich. The rich make the rules, and you can't stop that.

And, anyways, I don't think it's legal for the govt. to dictate how a company operates itself.

[aretood2]

What's wrong with trade schools? They're a viable option and cost a heck of a lot less than these 4-year colleges and universities usually packed full of Bernie-style left-wingers for professors.....unless you intend to imply that those who don't get educated at a college or university are somehow less intelligent than those who do....an implication that I can assure you would have more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

Not sure how you got that from anything I said.

Very true. Our society places very little financial value on skills learned outside of the college path. The marketing arm of the educational industry he pretty much molded society so that going to college and giving them oodles of money is simply buying your admittance ticket to middle class world.

No, that was a little something we call capitalism. This is how capitalism works. It's society that has place value, don't blame anything else. People simply place more monetary value on brain surgery versus unclogging a toilet because that's how the laws of supply and demand made it to be. It's a monetary assessment, not one of actual intrinsic value. Unless of course you are like a communist who wants everyone to have equal pay to be fair?

You're gonna earn the seat next to the Kindergartner if you keep that up.

These people are rich. The rich make the rules, and you can't stop that.

And, anyways, I don't think it's legal for the govt. to dictate how a company operates itself.

These arguments you make were also made over a hundred years ago when populists and progressives began demanding that government hold big corporations and the rich accountable via regulation. They ended up being successful then.

[SoulReaver]

You're gonna earn the seat next to the Kindergartner if you keep that up.

ain't no big fan of her either but better a seat next to her than a kennel in your King's garden no?

These people are rich. The rich make the rules, and you can't stop that.

round them up

you're already an authoritarian country with capital punishment so might as well put that to good use for a change :|

And, anyways, I don't think it's legal for the govt. to dictate how a company operates itself.

it's legal for the government to seize a citizen's money (civil assets forfeiture) and dictate how they behave (no alcohol even for adults etc.) but illegal to dictate how a corporation behaves?

more of a reason to change the laws

[Annoyed]

These people are rich. The rich make the rules, and you can't stop that.

you're already an authoritarian country with capital punishment so might as well put that to good use for a change :|

Guess what? It's not illegal to be successful in this country. In fact, being successful is part and parcel of what is commonly referred to as The American Dream.

Maybe you & The Kindergartner can put your desks next to each other on Valentine's day?

[Annoyed]

[COLOR="#000080"]No, that was a little something we call capitalism. This is how capitalism works. It's society that has place value, don't blame anything else. People simply place more monetary value on brain surgery versus unclogging a toilet because that's how the laws of supply and demand made it to be. It's a monetary assessment, not one of actual intrinsic value. Unless of course you are like a communist who wants everyone to have equal pay to be fair?

Oh, really? Then why do the majority of people end up working in fields that aren't what they went to school for?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...o-their-major/

Translation: They just don't need the gold-plated sheepskin they coughed up big bucks to get. All that matters is that they paid for their ticket.

[Annoyed]

Remember at school, little Timmy that peed his pants? It was the story of the day, maybe of the week, hell maybe they'll call him Timmy peeing pants for a year. Apply that to today with social media, literally hundreds if not a thousand kids would know what Timmy did, and laugh at his face and comment on his social network to troll him, literally ruining his life for the better part of his childhood.

While I agree the society in the most part has gone soft, and kids should stand up to bullies who harass them, this is honestly one of the most insensitive post I've seen you write on this board. Go tell exactly those words to the face of the parents of all the young children, teenagers and adults who took their lives due to cyber-bullying on social medias.

Maybe you should think twice before writing stupid stuff like that man.

But that is my point. "Bullying" used to be defined as the immediate threat of physical assault by the bully upon the victim. This is how bullies stole lunch money, for example, as well as numerous other forms of torture that bullies have inflicted upon their victims for decades.

But it it is impossible to present that threat of physical assault via social networking, there is no possible way, they aren't in the same place. The worst it could be called is "name calling". which is a different thing.

But that didn't have enough impact, so the term bullying was expanded to include name calling to give it a bigger impact.

There is an old adage that applies in the schoolyard here. "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me"
If little Jane and little johnny can't deal with name calling, maybe they shouldn't participate in social media, cause it's been going on for decades. In the old days, the aggressors would write things on the desks or the bathroom walls, etc. It has been going on for a very long time, only the tool has changed.

[SoulReaver]

Guess what? It's not illegal to be successful in this country. In fact, being successful is part and parcel of what is commonly referred to as The American Dream.

Maybe you & The Kindergartner can put your desks next to each other on Valentine's day?

how about that! hellofa flip flop (from the false "anti elite" talk to "hail the elites!")

so inheriting dad's billions is success in your book?

[Annoyed]

how about that! hellofa flip flop (from the false "anti elite" talk to "hail the elites!")

so inheriting dad's billions is success in your book?

As long as he didn't steal them.
What exactly is wrong with a child inheriting from his parents? Or do you think the state should automatically get someone's assets when they die?

This sounds like jealousy, plain and simple.

[Chaka-Z0]

[COLOR="#000080"]These arguments you make were also made over a hundred years ago when populists and progressives began demanding that government hold big corporations and the rich accountable via regulation. They ended up being successful then.

Same issue than taxes, if you increase yours they will leave for another country that lowered theirs ((USA) i.e.: Dellaware). That is the conundrum with capitalism in an open market, you can't have major reforms without economic repercussions involved. All you can do is prevent illegalities / tax evasion via watchdogs, or regulate to a minimal extent as long as it doesn't tip the balance to the ''screw this country, let's go elsewhere'' side. If the regulations involve costs, they are usually swooped back to the customers via cost increase.

Recent textbook case

Spoiler:

MonSanto, I'm sure you all know this monopoly. A whistle-blower from our Provincial Govt recently disclosed confidential reports which proves beyond the shred of a doubt that Glyphosate, the main herbicide used in agriculture, actually doesn't improve the yield at all. Those reports also show that simple irrigation and oxygenation of the soil techniques are far superior than using those MonSanto seeds
Even worse, it was also disclosed that the board which supervises which products are to be recommended in agriculture is made of... 50% of Corps representatives which clearly have biaised interests, basically lobbyists in a position of authority.

But that is my point. "Bullying" used to be defined as the immediate threat of physical assault by the bully upon the victim. This is how bullies stole lunch money, for example, as well as numerous other forms of torture that bullies have inflicted upon their victims for decades.

No. That is YOUR definition, not THE definition. You know concepts evolve through the ages.

Definition
Bully:seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).

I'll say it again though, I do think the society has gone somewhat soft. Violence doesn't solve problems, but it is in certain circumstances necessary. First year of high school, this guy twice my size picks on me, but I quickly turned around and hit him in the stomach, guy was on the ground crying ''mooommaaaa''. Guess what, never been bullied after that. You think if I had asked nicely he would've stopped? Or, Cthulhu forbids, I had complained to my moms about him?

The difference nowadays is that cyber-bullying happens online, obviously, and unless the kid openly shares his account or is forced to with his parents, nobody knows but him. Then one day he has enough and kill himself.

[Gatefan1976]

Oh, really? Then why do the majority of people end up working in fields that aren't what they went to school for?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...o-their-major/

This has nothing, zero, zilch, nada to do with what Tood was talking about. EDUCATION gets the big paying jobs, it's that simple. The people you think should go to trade schools SHOULD because instead of becoming a drain, they become productive.
If you want a 9-5 job, become a tradie, live out the middle class dream. If you want more, get better education.

Translation: They just don't need the gold-plated sheepskin they coughed up big bucks to get. All that matters is that they paid for their ticket.

This is so woefully wrong as to be a joke.
YES, the "left" pushes higher education BECAUSE the people with the tenacity to stay with it get paid 3-5 times what you do, they want people to "be best". You just want to drag people down to your level.
There is nothing wrong with education based on ability, nor is there anything wrong with pointing out to people that they are not "college material" and would do better at a trade school.
If you can be a doctor, be a doctor.
If you can fix pipes, be a plumber.
Should the divide be so vast between the two jobs?
I don't know.
I don't think it should be, but as tood said, we value certain things more, and that's fine as long as the plumber, a trade certified skill can get paid enough to live without needing government support, I'm pretty cool with that.