Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

No, not communism, nor socialism, but oligarchy...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    You are of course factual, in that there is no nation that does not have rich people, poor people. And all nations that use capitalism have a middle class. But depending upon the kind of capitalism being practiced, determines what percentage of the population is in the middle class. Nations with a larger middle class manage their capitalism, so that it prevents too much of the wealth and income from going to the top We have seen that here, in our own nation, play out. We have seen what sort of capitalism creates a larger middle class, bringing prosperity to the greatest numbers and we have now seen, what sort of capitalism does the reverse. This reality doesn't mean much to some people. And that of course is our current problem in this nation For if you want a larger middle, rather than smaller, the socialism word is played, accusing the pro middle class people of being socialists.

    Capitalism itself has poverty built into it, when it is practiced. And you cannot escape that. It comes from the mathematical certainty, that given the advance of machines, and other technology, ALL of a workforce is not needed in order to provide what is consumed. Those that are not needed, eventually will end up in poverty, for lack of a job. So, capitalism when used to supply goods and services, in order for it to not be challenged by real deal socialism, HAS to provide what it takes to live, for people not needed to supply goods and services. This is the BIG PICTURE, that when one looks at it, allows WISDOM to arise in the human intellect.

    The argument you always present, about comparing our poor to the poor in Africa, does not stop social instability. It does not stop men like FDR, having to save capitalism, by policies that forced it into to providing a decent living for our people. So, you are using an argument that has zero relevance. For we do not live in Africa. We live in a society, that once had an economy that allowed the greatest number of people to thrive, by their own work. And we have now living in an economy that no longer is doing that. If you think, that this does not destabilize this nation, internally, you are not looking at the Big Picture. This nation is filled with towns that once were thriving, and now because of free trade is rotting, and the people suffering economically. They might not be like the poor in Africa, but to them, their positions may as well be the poor in Africa. The loss of hope in America reverberates through society. Again, another look at the Big Picture. I think it is time for you to WISE up. And stop defending the very thing that will make your great grandkids think that great grandpa was not a very wise man, at best, and piss on your grave, at worse. For they will be able to read your thoughts on this issue, long after you are gone, as my own, will be able to read mine.

    The only reason we don't have full employment today is illegal immigration and government handouts. Deport the illegals and do away with government handouts and people will have jobs and when they take these jobs, the wages will go up as the demand goes up.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #32
      OMD, you already complained about prices going up if Wal-Mart employees and others were not subsidized (with welfare) in their wages. Now you want to raid corporate farming operations, among other employers, and refuse the 11 million or so undocumented workers employment within the US.

      That, after ignoring my previous post, which notes the disconnect between price (rent) and wages among the working poor in this country. Let's take a peek at your non-socialist solution:
      -11 million deported. That temporarily drives down rents in some locations, but we don't know if that will last long. What the current market indicates -many who own rental properties don't follow a logical supply/demand rule- they will continue to charge more than the market will bear.
      -Employment opening up for 11 million people? If so, most likely in these fields: harvesting fruits & vegetables (temporary, itinerant work), domestic help (gardener, housekeeper), meat packing plant, construction & restaurant. With the exception of working in construction or meat packing plant, these jobs are generally low paying. Welfare would have to be cut further to force some portion of US citizens to accept the low wage and/or poor working conditions. A less expensive solution for corporate farms is to relocate as much of their operations to Mexico, to go where their labor is as well as bail out of the California central valley -which is running out of water.
      -The 11 million figure would cut underemployment down to about 5% (circa 1995?) if all those jobs actually existed now. They don't. Many of those 11 million are family members. Some of those 11 million jobs would simply disappear (farming, some meat packing moving to Mexico; domestic help demanding a too-high wage).
      -All the same, let's assume a generous figure of 6 million new jobs opening up after the deportation program is complete. Most of them will be low-wage jobs, most of those citizen-workers will continue to spend too much of their wage to pay housing rent (more than the maximum 30% recommended by economists). Unless it is made illegal, many working poor pay up to 300% interest on furniture rentals and payday loans in that "growth" industry. That leaves little to stimulate the economy, even we conjured up 6 million full-time jobs.

      That would also be much less than the 10 million jobs created since the Great Bush Recession of 2008/9, many of which are better paying than the meager job descriptions *mentioned above.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #33
        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        OMD, you already complained about prices going up if Wal-Mart employees and others were not subsidized (with welfare) in their wages. Now you want to raid corporate farming operations, among other employers, and refuse the 11 million or so undocumented workers employment within the US.

        That, after ignoring my previous post, which notes the disconnect between price (rent) and wages among the working poor in this country. Let's take a peek at your non-socialist solution:
        -11 million deported. That temporarily drives down rents in some locations, but we don't know if that will last long. What the current market indicates -many who own rental properties don't follow a logical supply/demand rule- they will continue to charge more than the market will bear.
        -Employment opening up for 11 million people? If so, most likely in these fields: harvesting fruits & vegetables (temporary, itinerant work), domestic help (gardener, housekeeper), meat packing plant, construction & restaurant. With the exception of working in construction or meat packing plant, these jobs are generally low paying. Welfare would have to be cut further to force some portion of US citizens to accept the low wage and/or poor working conditions. A less expensive solution for corporate farms is to relocate as much of their operations to Mexico, to go where their labor is as well as bail out of the California central valley -which is running out of water.
        -The 11 million figure would cut underemployment down to about 5% (circa 1995?) if all those jobs actually existed now. They don't. Many of those 11 million are family members. Some of those 11 million jobs would simply disappear (farming, some meat packing moving to Mexico; domestic help demanding a too-high wage).
        -All the same, let's assume a generous figure of 6 million new jobs opening up after the deportation program is complete. Most of them will be low-wage jobs, most of those citizen-workers will continue to spend too much of their wage to pay housing rent (more than the maximum 30% recommended by economists). Unless it is made illegal, many working poor pay up to 300% interest on furniture rentals and payday loans in that "growth" industry. That leaves little to stimulate the economy, even we conjured up 6 million full-time jobs.

        That would also be much less than the 10 million jobs created since the Great Bush Recession of 2008/9, many of which are better paying than the meager job descriptions *mentioned above.

        First, I'm not complaining about prices going up if Walmart pays more or if products are made in this country. I am just stating a fact that that is what will happen. When it does, those on the lower end of the economic scale will still not be able to afford those things making what you describe as a "living wage." Rent prices will go to what the market will bear. If someone can't make enough on rent of a property to support his payment and upkeep, he will sell the property or give it back to the bank. Cut the welfare and a lot of unemployed people will go to work. They will do the jobs the illegals are doing now and the wages will go up with demand.

        I keep hearing this nonsense that there are some jobs Americans will just not do. When I lived in the DFW area, they said only illegal immigrants would put on shingles. Well, I moved to Missouri and my neighbor was having a new roof installed and I heard a radio on the job site playing C & W music. I went up there and there were a bunch of white guys on the roof putting down shingles. I figure they must have been Germans or Austrians because Americans won't do that form of work.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #34
          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


          The only reason we don't have full employment today is illegal immigration and government handouts. Deport the illegals and do away with government handouts and people will have jobs and when they take these jobs, the wages will go up as the demand goes up.
          Oldman, you, like other conservative neoliberals, are living in a delusion. We lost over 60 thousand factories to free trade, and it is still happening, the bleed is still going on. What are those people gonna do, for jobs,, when every job involves making what we consume in goods and services? For some reason you seem to think that you can ship jobs away that make what we consume, and by some magic, a service sector job will be created, to take the place of the manufacturing job. With all of these free trade deals, there has been a net loss of jobs. Walmart and McDs and other low paying service sector jobs in no way can take up the slack that deindustrializing has created.

          The next great move in offshoring is happening already and will pick up under TPP, white collar jobs. And once we started to allow the offshoring of manufacturing, that provides what we consume, then service sector jobs were offshored, those that could be. You seem to think you can gut a nation of millions of jobs, many were living wage jobs, and then somehow, magically replace those jobs which would have to involved, making what we consume in goods and services You are taking water out of a well, pulling down its level, while the feed to the well is iinsufficient to replace what is lost. And then you act like this is not what is going on

          The illegals are doing some jobs, that americans would not do, for the wages are not enough to live on. Farmwork, housekeeping, yard boys, nannies, Mexican cafes, which we could fill the way we used to, legally. But they have taken construction jobs, and meat packing jobs, an even an electronics manufacturer here in my own state that made guitar amps and such. Those are the jobs they have hurt us on, and depressed wages in those areas. And those are the illegals that hurt us.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #35
            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


            First, I'm not complaining about prices going up if Walmart pays more or if products are made in this country. I am just stating a fact that that is what will happen. When it does, those on the lower end of the economic scale will still not be able to afford those things making what you describe as a "living wage." Rent prices will go to what the market will bear. If someone can't make enough on rent of a property to support his payment and upkeep, he will sell the property or give it back to the bank. Cut the welfare and a lot of unemployed people will go to work. They will do the jobs the illegals are doing now and the wages will go up with demand.

            I keep hearing this nonsense that there are some jobs Americans will just not do. When I lived in the DFW area, they said only illegal immigrants would put on shingles. Well, I moved to Missouri and my neighbor was having a new roof installed and I heard a radio on the job site playing C & W music. I went up there and there were a bunch of white guys on the roof putting down shingles. I figure they must have been Germans or Austrians because Americans won't do that form of work.
            The working poor would "...still not be able to afford those things making what you describe as a 'living wage'', you say? Things like food and shelter, IOW. What a cynical response. Food has been subsidized for a very long time and rents do not reflect what lower-end wages can support. There are very few socialist distortions of rent (other than about 10% that are subsidized rentals), so the distortion isn't caused by government. It is caused by owners who cannot make what they consider a decent profit renting to lower income people. People bought into the "urban prosperity" scam several decades ago, so the vast majority are dependent on urban employment. In short, they can't grow much of their own food, so they can't drop out of the job market without subsidies.

            Conservatives don't have a solution to this dilemma, OMD. There are few cases of essentials (food, shelter, health care, education) that can be provided to lower income people by for-profit organizations. Supermarkets? -Food is subsidized at the base (farm) level. Shelter? Also subsidized, along with health care. Education has been socialized for a very long time (thanks to communists like Grover Cleveland, ha-ha). Which might be why it works much better than countries with no public education system. They worked out most of the kinks (not to claim that many school districts haven't replaced them with lots of new kinks lately). Conservatives would have been able to shrink gov't. a very long time ago if they had chosen a unique solution to eliminating poverty. Instead, they insisted on the for-profit, private sector. That sector can make little profit on providing essentials to poor people, unless it is subsidized by gov't., which is unacceptable to modern-day conservatives. So that begs the question:
            -Why haven't conservatives looked for a unique solution, that does not involve gov't. subsidizing the for-profit sector?

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #36
              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              The working poor would "...still not be able to afford those things making what you describe as a 'living wage'', you say? Things like food and shelter, IOW. What a cynical response. Food has been subsidized for a very long time and rents do not reflect what lower-end wages can support. There are very few socialist distortions of rent (other than about 10% that are subsidized rentals), so the distortion isn't caused by government. It is caused by owners who cannot make what they consider a decent profit renting to lower income people. People bought into the "urban prosperity" scam several decades ago, so the vast majority are dependent on urban employment. In short, they can't grow much of their own food, so they can't drop out of the job market without subsidies.

              Conservatives don't have a solution to this dilemma, OMD. There are few cases of essentials (food, shelter, health care, education) that can be provided to lower income people by for-profit organizations. Supermarkets? -Food is subsidized at the base (farm) level. Shelter? Also subsidized, along with health care. Education has been socialized for a very long time (thanks to communists like Grover Cleveland, ha-ha). Which might be why it works much better than countries with no public education system. They worked out most of the kinks (not to claim that many school districts haven't replaced them with lots of new kinks lately). Conservatives would have been able to shrink gov't. a very long time ago if they had chosen a unique solution to eliminating poverty. Instead, they insisted on the for-profit, private sector. That sector can make little profit on providing essentials to poor people, unless it is subsidized by gov't., which is unacceptable to modern-day conservatives. So that begs the question:
              -Why haven't conservatives looked for a unique solution, that does not involve gov't. subsidizing the for-profit sector?

              I don't know where you live but the working poor here have food and shelter. They even have microwave ovens and flat screen TV's. This living wage that people keep harping about is to provide a lot of amenities that are not necessities and things that I never had while growing up. Our poor are wealthy compared to many countries. Those who bought into the urban prosperity can move to rural areas any time they want. If people cannot afford food and shelter, how in the world do the millions of illegal immigrants we have survive and thrive here?

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #37
                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                I don't know where you live but the working poor here have food and shelter. They even have microwave ovens and flat screen TV's. This living wage that people keep harping about is to provide a lot of amenities that are not necessities and things that I never had while growing up. Our poor are wealthy compared to many countries. Those who bought into the urban prosperity can move to rural areas any time they want. If people cannot afford food and shelter, how in the world do the millions of illegal immigrants we have survive and thrive here?
                The living wage people are talking about is just a move back, to where if you work you make enough to live on, so that I do not have to subsidize big business like walmart so they can have heirs who are all billionaires, as they spend money on telling their employees how to sign up for gov't welfare, paid by me and you.

                The working poor where I live are living two or three generations to a household, just to survive. This is a widespread trend, created by a deregulation of the banking cabal, and by changing our economy so that it no longer provides enough living wage jobs to americans.. It has created much greater disparity in income, and is structured so that even when we have GDP growth, the majority of that goes right to the top and is not distributed enough to those actually doing the work to make those profits in the first place.

                To say those folks in cities can move to rural areas anytime that want, is another one of your delusions. It is quite easy for you to just imagine that, think that thought, but quite different to pull off in the real world. So your solutions, as many right wing solutions turn out to be, unrealistic, but I guess when those guys have no real solutions, pulling a non solution out of the arse suffices. LOL.

                Many of our poor are sleeping under bridges, and in many parts of this nation, under bridges is the home for many people. And all over this nation, we have two or three generations living under the same roof, sleeping on floors, and all because our elites are so damned greedy that they are compelled to exploit even greater poverty around the world simply because they can pay cents on the dollar in labor, and get even richer. And this is what conservatives of your ilk, clearly support, although there are many cons who are finally coming to their senses, and are moving away from the way that you think on these issues. So, conservatives are starting to question your way and the way other cons think, because it has devastated working people, while only benefitting those idols you guys worship, the hell bound rich.

                You don't like Pope Francis, much do you? For reminding conservative Catholics that they are not supposed to demonize the poor.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                  The living wage people are talking about is just a move back, to where if you work you make enough to live on, so that I do not have to subsidize big business like walmart so they can have heirs who are all billionaires, as they spend money on telling their employees how to sign up for gov't welfare, paid by me and you.

                  The working poor where I live are living two or three generations to a household, just to survive. This is a widespread trend, created by a deregulation of the banking cabal, and by changing our economy so that it no longer provides enough living wage jobs to americans.. It has created much greater disparity in income, and is structured so that even when we have GDP growth, the majority of that goes right to the top and is not distributed enough to those actually doing the work to make those profits in the first place.

                  To say those folks in cities can move to rural areas anytime that want, is another one of your delusions. It is quite easy for you to just imagine that, think that thought, but quite different to pull off in the real world. So your solutions, as many right wing solutions turn out to be, unrealistic, but I guess when those guys have no real solutions, pulling a non solution out of the arse suffices. LOL.

                  Many of our poor are sleeping under bridges, and in many parts of this nation, under bridges is the home for many people. And all over this nation, we have two or three generations living under the same roof, sleeping on floors, and all because our elites are so damned greedy that they are compelled to exploit even greater poverty around the world simply because they can pay cents on the dollar in labor, and get even richer. And this is what conservatives of your ilk, clearly support, although there are many cons who are finally coming to their senses, and are moving away from the way that you think on these issues. So, conservatives are starting to question your way and the way other cons think, because it has devastated working people, while only benefitting those idols you guys worship, the hell bound rich.

                  You don't like Pope Francis, much do you? For reminding conservative Catholics that they are not supposed to demonize the poor.

                  Ridiculous:

                  The U.S. Census Bureau currently publishes median household income data from 1967 until present day.

                  Year No. of Households Nominal $ Inflation Adjusted $
                  2012 122,459,000 $48,874 $51,017
                  2011 121,084,000 $47,932 $51,100
                  2010 119,927,000 $47,222 $51,892
                  2009 117,538,000 $47,690 $53,285
                  2008 117,181,000 $48,172 $53,644
                  2007 116,783,000 $48,117 $55,627
                  2006 116,011,000 $46,164 $54,892
                  2005 114,384,000 $44,406 $54,486
                  2004 113,343,000 $42,466 $53,891
                  2003 112,000,000 $41,533 $54,079
                  2002 111,278,000 $40,649 $54,127
                  2001 109,297,000 $40,472 $54,766
                  2000 108,209,000 $40,199 $55,987
                  1999 106,434,000 $38,976 $56,080
                  1998 103,874,000 $37,197 $54,702
                  1997 102,528,000 $35,365 $52,784
                  1996 101,018,000 $33,877 $51,720
                  1995 99,627,000 $32,422 $50,978
                  1994 98,990,000 $30,547 $49,429
                  1993 97,107,000 $29,477 $48,884
                  1992 96,426,000 $28,736 $49,122
                  1991 95,669,000 $28,132 $49,529
                  1990 94,312,000 $27,792 $50,994
                  1989 93,347,000 $26,719 $51,681
                  1988 92,830,000 $25,083 $50,776
                  1987 91,124,000 $23,884 $50,389
                  1986 89,479,000 $22,742 $49,764
                  1985 88,458,000 $21,580 $48,063
                  1984 86,789,000 $20,429 $47,181
                  1983 85,407,000 $19,036 $45,760
                  1982 83,918,000 $18,571 $46,082
                  1981 83,527,000 $17,512 $46,205
                  1980 82,368,000 $16,166 $46,995
                  1979 80,776,000 $14,702 $48,520
                  1978 77,330,000 $13,234 $48,655
                  1977 76,030,000 $11,851 $46,842
                  1976 74,142,000 $11,032 $46,548
                  1975 72,867,000 $10,257 $45,788
                  1974 71,163,000 $9,686 $47,019
                  1973 69,859,000 $8,983 $48,557
                  1972 68,251,000 $8,282 $47,596
                  1971 66,676,000 $7,713 $45,641
                  1970 64,778,000 $7,466 $46,089
                  1969 63,401,000 $7,107 $46,449
                  1968 62,214,000 $6,494 $44,785
                  1967 60,813,000 $5,968 $42,934

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #39
                    You do realise that graph is massively skewed by the top 1% who now have hugely more wealth than they did in previous generations. The middle class has been hollowed out and is much smaller than it was and the bottom 50% of the population have less disposable income.
                    If you want a proper debate have the entire range of statistick's that show how much the top 5% and top 1% have compared to everyone else as well.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                      You do realise that graph is massively skewed by the top 1% who now have hugely more wealth than they did in previous generations. The middle class has been hollowed out and is much smaller than it was and the bottom 50% of the population have less disposable income.
                      If you want a proper debate have the entire range of statistick's that show how much the top 5% and top 1% have compared to everyone else as well.
                      So what Peter, so what? Should we shoot them? Should we hate them? Or maybe, we should emulate them! (look it up, lol)

                      You people are just a bunch of envious cry babies; really. I agree we have to stop lobbyists from picking our pockets, but when someone stands up and says lets do it, the whole left wing, including Europe, makes fun of their candidacy.

                      People from Europe cry about a graph, while their whole continent is being invaded, lol. I am of the opinion, there are more progeny of Neville Chamberlain, than Winston Churchill for sure.

                      Here, let me help! You guys/gals in Europe kiss whatever derriere you want, and leave us Americans to are own devices. Never fear. When you lose the ability to control your own country through the vote, and your heads start getting chopped off from Sharia law, we will again come save you. It is just this time, we are going to REALLY charge ya!

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Imawhosure View Post

                        So what Peter, so what? Should we shoot them? Should we hate them? Or maybe, we should emulate them! (look it up, lol)

                        You people are just a bunch of envious cry babies; really. I agree we have to stop lobbyists from picking our pockets, but when someone stands up and says lets do it, the whole left wing, including Europe, makes fun of their candidacy.

                        People from Europe cry about a graph, while their whole continent is being invaded, lol. I am of the opinion, there are more progeny of Neville Chamberlain, than Winston Churchill for sure.

                        Here, let me help! You guys/gals in Europe kiss whatever derriere you want, and leave us Americans to are own devices. Never fear. When you lose the ability to control your own country through the vote, and your heads start getting chopped off from Sharia law, we will again come save you. It is just this time, we are going to REALLY charge ya!

                        I'm not envious at all I'm simply pointing out the rather simple fact that the rich have got massively richer while the middle and lower classes have seen wage drops and financial hardships that the rich just don't see.
                        The rich went through the recent crash and didn't bat an eye as they got even richer while everyone else was in fear of the sack as companies slashed jobs.

                        You can make all the piss poor jokes you like about the future of Europe which have nothing to do with this topic but you can't deny the super rich have been laughing all the way to the bank while the economy burned and yet you guys still defend them and want to give them even more as you have total belief in the power of trickle down economics.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                          You do realise that graph is massively skewed by the top 1% who now have hugely more wealth than they did in previous generations. The middle class has been hollowed out and is much smaller than it was and the bottom 50% of the population have less disposable income.
                          If you want a proper debate have the entire range of statistick's that show how much the top 5% and top 1% have compared to everyone else as well.
                          They do not care. They are social/economic darwinists, although many of them do not believe in biological evolution, but it appeals to them, in their desired dog eat dog world, of making a living.

                          Oldman's table doesn't really tell the more important part of this story. It's the old ploy, of figures do not lie, but liars can figure.


                          I never saw anyone living under bridges until the last 35 years, coincidentally happening after the conservatives came back into power and influence in 1981. I do not believe in coincidences.

                          Also what those figures the oldman posted do not say anything about, and which is very pertinent here, is that this is comparing household income. Back in 1967 what percentage of these homes had one person working, you know, the man, while the mother kept house? In 2012, how many in that household were working, both the wife and the husband? Do ya think there was a change between 1967 and 2012 in whether the wife worked? LOL.


                          Or does "household income" only means, the man's income? If not, then the 51 grand in 2012, adjusted for inflation, and with two people working, should have been 100 grand to reflect both people working, if wages were just stagnant, even with improved productivity of the workers, which of course, the top dogs kept for themselves.

                          And so adding an extra income to the household, didn't help out household income. Looks like we are going backwards, unless you are a rich elite. So they go forward, and working people go backward. There is something badly wrong with that picture, and historically, it leads to bloody revolutions, and fascism for some societies, and communism for others. This kind of capitalism, neoliberal capitalism, is a very dangerous thing. Which the conservatives are utterly oblivious to. Hard to understand, very hard to understand.

                          We need another FDR and fast. For it is well known he told the other oligarchs of that era, that they had to get off their pocket books, their fortunes, or there would be a revolution and capitalism might go away, so FDR saved capitalism. And here we are, at the same place again. And the conservatives of the GOP brought this neoliberal back, and look where we are today, because of that. In deep shit, once again.
                          Last edited by Blue Doggy; 10-10-2015, 05:27 PM.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                            They do not care. They are social/economic darwinists, although many of them do not believe in biological evolution, but it appeals to them, in their desired dog eat dog world, of making a living.

                            Oldman's table doesn't really tell the more important part of this story. It's the old ploy, of figures do not lie, but liars can figure.


                            I never saw anyone living under bridges until the last 35 years, coincidentally happening after the conservatives came back into power and influence in 1981. I do not believe in coincidences.

                            Also what those figures the oldman posted do not say anything about, and which is very pertinent here, is that this is comparing household income. Back in 1967 what percentage of these homes had one person working, you know, the man, while the mother kept house? In 2012, how many in that household were working, both the wife and the husband? Do ya think there was a change between 1967 and 2012 in whether the wife worked? LOL.


                            Or does "household income" only means, the man's income? If not, then the 51 grand in 2012, adjusted for inflation, and with two people working, should have been 100 grand to reflect both people working, if wages were just stagnant, even with improved productivity of the workers, which of course, the top dogs kept for themselves.

                            And so adding an extra income to the household, didn't help out household income. Looks like we are going backwards, unless you are a rich elite. So they go forward, and working people go backward. There is something badly wrong with that picture, and historically, it leads to bloody revolutions, and fascism for some societies, and communism for others. This kind of capitalism, neoliberal capitalism, is a very dangerous thing. Which the conservatives are utterly oblivious to. Hard to understand, very hard to understand.

                            We need another FDR and fast. For it is well known he told the other oligarchs of that era, that they had to get off their pocket books, their fortunes, or there would be a revolution and capitalism might go away, so FDR saved capitalism. And here we are, at the same place again. And the conservatives of the GOP brought this neoliberal back, and look where we are today, because of that. In deep shit, once again.
                            I think you're about 98 % right. But there's something that doesn't quite fit - something missing. I'm not sure exactly what it is.

                            Maybe it's just man-kinds corrupt nature in general - greed, lust .. all the rest. . I don't know ?

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                              You do realise that graph is massively skewed by the top 1% who now have hugely more wealth than they did in previous generations. The middle class has been hollowed out and is much smaller than it was and the bottom 50% of the population have less disposable income.
                              If you want a proper debate have the entire range of statistick's that show how much the top 5% and top 1% have compared to everyone else as well.

                              Do you understand the difference between median and average? Median means half of the households in the country make above the median and half below.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #45
                                Median income for individuals would be significant. For households, we would need the a number of people per household to compare. Median income per person within each household, for instance. Mentioned in BD's post. That's an improved effort all the same, OMD. Median income adjusted for inflation is a better measure than average, for number of people in poverty. An actual portion of the population in poverty measured over the last few decades would be a better way to see a trend, however.

                                OTOH, you failed to answer the other question. I'll re-phrase it:
                                -What would conservatives do, knowing that capitalism is generally not designed to handle issues causing poverty?

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X