next »

[PompiPompi]

It's not about fucking compensation. There are plenty of lazy poor people, but there are many more people who work their fucking asses off from dawn to dusk but still have to rely on food stamps and struggle to pay the bills. Is that right? No it isn't. Liberals don't want to make everyone wealthy. Not everyone wants to be wealthy. In fact, most people just want enough money to live comfortably. Liberals want poor people who work their asses off to have at least a minimal standard of living above the poverty line.

Isn't that what minimum wage is for? It's quite different from the utopia Capntastic was talknig about.

[Nix]

It's not about fucking compensation. There are plenty of lazy poor people, but there are many more people who work their fucking asses off from dawn to dusk but still have to rely on food stamps and struggle to pay the bills. Is that right? No it isn't. Liberals don't want to make everyone wealthy. Not everyone wants to be wealthy. In fact, most people just want enough money to live comfortably. Liberals want poor people who work their asses off to have at least a minimal standard of living above the poverty line.

Isn't that what minimum wage is for? It's quite different from the utopia Capntastic was talknig about.

That is what minimum wage should be for. Right now a person working two jobs full-time at minimum wage will barely have enough to get by (it will be a constant struggle with bill juggling, no money to save in case of emergency, often no health insurance) with everything welfare has to offer. That's the fucking problem.

[Capntastic]

I didn't say people don't need a job, I said you can quit your job and not starve. Because, err, you might find another job? If you quit your job it's not like you can never work again.

Most women can afford to quit their job and find another job instead.

I'm not disputing what you said, but I'm disputing that it is simply not true.  You can't simply 'say things', making truth claims, and hope reality decides to back you up.  Especially when the a huge amount of people live hand to mouth.  Even if 99.9% of people could afford to quit their job whenever, that does not make it ethically correct.  So again, not only is your claim unfounded, it has nothing to do with the moral nature of the situation.

Now you're simply claiming 'liberals' (a broad enough term as to mean anyone you don't agree with) want to help everyone, and that's bad, or something.  Whatev'.  Since you keep cycling to different arguments (instead of providing evidence to support your previous claims, addressing how thoroughly everything you've brought up has been disproved, or admitting that you don't know what you're talking about and continuing to make broadly incorrect statements, I'm left with simply accepting your implicit concession on all of those points.  

To that end, you've yet to make any claims that haven't been proven false, and are simply continuing to do more of the same in an effort to merely say "they're bad we're good".

[JutsBeaumont]

Isn't that what minimum wage is for? It's quite different from the utopia Capntastic was talknig about.

Have you ever questioned that, if this is still happening, even with a minimum wage, that maybe the current minimum wage - for a multitude of reasons - isn't enough?

I would seriously consider putting a little more thought into your statements, Pompii; especially your laughable tirades against "liberals", which is, presuming of course that you are libertarian (which seems to be the case thus far?), is a decidedly un-libertarian thing to do. And by that I mean putting people into groups and just making blanket statements.

[googoogjoob]

I would seriously consider putting a little more thought into your statements, Pompii; especially your laughable tirades against "liberals", which is, presuming of course that you are libertarian (which seems to be the case thus far?), is a decidedly un-libertarian thing to do. And by that I mean putting people into groups and just making blanket statements.

american libertarians are just republicans who like to smoke pot

also
7:03 PM - googoogjoob: why isn't there a flash cartoon series starring ron paul as mr magoo
7:04 PM - googoogjoob: who keeps stumbling into saying horrible racist things
7:05 PM - [BIG] John Ѯzzingford: haha
7:05 PM - googoogjoob: like he wants his restaurant painted but he isn't confident the painters will remember the color
7:05 PM - googoogjoob: so he puts a huge sign up saying WHITE ONLY
7:05 PM - googoogjoob: then makes a wacky pratfall into a ghetto
7:06 PM - [BIG] John Ѯzzingford: perfect

[PompiPompi]

Well, what if the minimum wage was enough, but people would still go into debt\starve because they didn't plan their budget right eventhough they had enough money.
Are you going to have another layer of saftey net for them?

And what if the US, as of today, is incapable of setting a decent minimum wage without hurting it's economy recovery?
I mean, why wouldn't Obama increase the minimum wage? There must be a flip side to this?

[googoogjoob]

Well, what if the minimum wage was enough, but people would still go into debt\starve because they didn't plan their budget right eventhough they had enough money.
Are you going to have another layer of saftey net for them?

hahahahahahahahahahahah

hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

earning below the poverty level is enough you just have to budget it right!!!!!!!

[Capntastic]

Even if there is a minimum wage it completely ignores that different people have different needs.   What if you, due to a congenital defect, need to take an expensive stomach medicine or you die?  What if you need antipsychotic medication because your brain doesn't work as well as most people's, and without it you can't get a job?  Treating people fairly doesn't mean treating them the same. 

Likewise, how can you budget around a misfortune you have no way of foreseeing, like your husband dying in a terrible accident?  Even if it's not his fault, even if it's not your fault, your situation has been drastically worsened due to circumstances out of your ability to forecast. 

Why should a civilized society let that person starve or be kicked out of their home?

Not that I expect you to respond to this head on with an actual answer.  You've not done so at all when anyone's pointed out the flaws in your thinking.

[PaleFox]

WHAT IF I GIVE A GUY FIVE DOLLARS TO LIVE ON AND HE SPENDS IT ON FOOD DOES HE ALSO GET A SAFETY NET WHEN THE MONEY ISN'T ENOUGH



this is the kind of selfish fuckery that i expect from rich wasps who inherited their money from the oppressed majority but even here in what i considered a nice forums i run into another randian shitehawk with no sense of perspective or empathy for anyone but himself and the invisible hand of adam fucking smith

fuck you pompipompi

go visit detroit or just go somewhere other than your goddamn suburban neighborhood starbucks and get some fucking perspective

[Capntastic]

Adam "Fucking" Smith was actually 100% for social safety nets because he knew in a purely capitalist system, people would inevitably fall through the cracks, and charity would not be enough.  This is the dude who invented capitalism, folks, saying that social safety nets are required to prevent the social contract from being pissed on.

He even went one further, saying that, by natural course of progress and culture, certain things that aren't 100% essential to life (he uses leather shoes and linen shirts as an example here) become cultural necessities nonetheless.  To this end, we have modern day people living in the United States that may have a television or refrigerator, but are still living in poverty.


Questions Pompi has ignored:

1.  Are you going to cite your claim that most people don't really need jobs with any sort of facts?

2.  You know that macroeconomics and microeconomics are two entirely different things, right?

3.  Why is competing on the global market important?  

4.  Do you think that even if America de-regulated everything and gave corporations 100% power they would be able to keep up with China that has literally a billion more people?

5.  If Ron Paul groped your ass and you didn't work for him, that is clearly his fault.  Why should it be different because you work for him?

6.  Why should a person who requires a job to live be at the mercy of someone not raping them; why does the raper get to make the choice to force someone to be molested or find a different job?

Not that I'm trying to drown Pompi in questions; I would've been content to discuss any of the above points with him in their own time to their conclusion, but since he kept abandoning his own arguments and cycling to the next one, these are merely the ones he's implicitly conceded on.

[Nix]

Well, what if the minimum wage was enough, but people would still go into debt\starve because they didn't plan their budget right eventhough they had enough money.
Are you going to have another layer of saftey net for them?

The answer is no. The reason we need a safety net right now is because the minimum wage is not a livable wage. If everyone is earning enough money to support themselves and then save for their own safety net, then we shouldn't have one supplied by the government. The existence of a safety net at all is indicative of a deeper problem with the status quo.

And what if the US, as of today, is incapable of setting a decent minimum wage without hurting it's economy recovery?
I mean, why wouldn't Obama increase the minimum wage? There must be a flip side to this?

It's a classic conservative argument against raising the minimum wage to say that a higher minimum wage will reduce the number of jobs available (employers won't be able to hire as many people at the higher wages). This claim isn't really true, but the combination of a stubborn congress and a soft president make it difficult to get that point across and put into law.

[PaleFox]

lets just abolish wages

employers will love the ability to just force people to work for them and it will create many new jobs and remove the need for a safety net at least according to pompipompi's logic


note: i dont mean owning people as in slavery (which actually cost more for the owner over time than minimum wage does) but merely forcing all people to work for no pay without providing for them

the free market will handle it i am sure

[Capntastic]

In the above scenario do you think that racist-owned corporations (which should be allowed in a libertarian society!) would still refuse to hire people of different ethnicity, or just give them the worst jobs and molest them more often?

[The Monster King]

"Hmm, I am going to put resources to prevent rape, on account of murder. That will get an improvement of 0.5% less violent crimes. I am going to put resources into A, which will make more people poor and more people starve to death, but it will improve the economy in the long run".

like what more private jails??
for the highest jailing country in the world USA doesnt have a particularly low crime rate, in fact for a non 3rd-world country its pretty high

lol, because people like to work hard if they get some sort of compensation. "No personal wealth" means they don't get a compensation.

uh
thats pretty much exactly the opposite of what most working people want
like its been repeatedly stated, a lot people dont care about being wealthy
they care about making enough money to not die and in general, not worry

have you ever looked at how crazy commission-based workers are

Why turn yourself into a monster just to compete with them in them?

i resent that

[Capntastic]

i resent that

Better to rule amongst monsters than serve in a Libertarian rape-based economy.

[googoogjoob]

i resent that

Better to rule amongst monsters than serve in a Libertarian rape-based economy.

at least it'd be HONEST RAPE-based

[Capntastic]

Look, I'm human being and I have the right to live free, up to and including creating situations where my industrial waste poisons the air and water people tend to come in contact with, my market manipulation prices people out of essential products-- or even just allowing me to suggest someone let me hot glue a Hatsune Miku wig on them and have my way with them, otherwise they might find themselves unemployed and dead in a gutter. But if you so much as consider taxing me, or using 'laws' to do violence to my beautiful boundless ego, I will scream and scream and scream and scream!

[PaleFox]

just get in line or be molested by the invisible hand


of freedom

[PompiPompi]

uh
thats pretty much exactly the opposite of what most working people want
like its been repeatedly stated, a lot people dont care about being wealthy
they care about making enough money to not die and in general, not worry

have you ever looked at how crazy commission-based workers are
There is no reason to excel, I will get the same as the guy who spent most of his time with his family and at the beach.

Why turn yourself into a monster just to compete with them in them?

i resent that

Well, that's the point. They want to work, but they don't want to WORK HARD.
If I can get the same by working and working hard, wouldn't I choose just to work instead of working hard?
There is no reason to excel, even if I try to constantly improve my skills, I iwll still get the same as the guy who just spent his time with his family and at the beach instead.

[PaleFox]

how is someone who is paid almost nothing going to support himself
why would all companies not pay almost nothing given the choice? it is COMPETITIVE that way


answer a fucking question for once you mingering little horsewanker