3.5 Million Homeless - Uncontrolled Capitalism at its Finest

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Isurrender73

Seeing all that money generated Post Reagan deregulations, then how, pray tell did the revenues to the federal gov't soar, I can't recall the percentile, but it was massive, If the big guys didn't pay that increase, as you assert, then it must have been the 'little guy'...

If it was the little guy, then that Democrat spin "trickle down economics" actually occurred....

Yes, in the very short term, but long term we the people were screwed by deregulation and trade agreements that increased profits for the 1%.

If the one percent had a wage cap, from all available sorces of income, none of this would happen. Deregulation would no longer produce such wealth, so none would be seeking it.

And I don't think 18 trillion in debt suggests we are headed in the right direction.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sigh, I will teach kids....


A balance in government or a capitalistic economy etc. is not a leveling of the scales....


IT IS A FLUID MOTION!!

The scales will tip back and forth, it is the normal way of things..

NO I DO SEE an unbalance. Their is no such thing as a median balance, if we existed in one, then their would be no gains, no successes stagnation etc..

originally posted by: Bicent76
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sigh, I will teach kids....


A balance in government is not a leveling of the scales....


IT IS A FLUID MOTION!!

The scales will tip back and forth, it is the normal way of things..

NO I DO SEE an unbalance. Their is no such thing as a median balance, if we existed in one, then their would be no gains, no successes stagnation etc..

What kids are you teaching? LOL ... give me a break.

I'm talking about specific economic realities. You're talking about ... your own personal wonderland.

There is no such thing as a "median balance"?

Do you understand what the word median means? How about the word balance?

LOL ... before you try to teach anyone anything, you might get out a dictionary and make sure you know what you're talking about.

But, thanks for answering my question.

You don't see anything wrong or unbalanced with an economy that is creating 3.5 million homeless people.

Carry on!

originally posted by: ketsuko

You can't force a business to hire. They do not exist to be jobs programs.

If the 2 choices are hire more people or pay more taxes, business owners will hire more people and do less work, or simply create a better work environment.

In my last job I watched a corporate takeover. In my Job alone there was over 500 people supporting our task.

In the end that number was down to 125, not because of technology improvements. No 75% of tbe jobs were cut and the remaining 25% had to do 4 times the work.

If shareholders were capped at $250,000 in profits, their would still be 500 people in those positions. Because there would be no incentive to decrease labor usage.

I watched everything from the inside. I do have a really good understanding of what happened. I also watched entire divisions eliminated because labor in India was so much cheaper.

a reply to: Gryphon66

you were not looking for an answer then... You missed the point, completely,

thanks for the insult also.. Sound like a kid as well..


It is not my fault if you do not get it..

a reply to: Isurrender73

Here's the problem I see with you logic. That "1%" aren't "wage earners" per say. They are share holders, not employees.

The irony I see is that shifting 'control' from the profit orientated individuals and moving it the political merely changes the motivations, not the result.

We go from 'money' to 'political expediency', to wit, voting blocks, crony capitalism 'repayments' crony union pay-offs via insane contract benefits, on and on.

It changes who runs this mess without any change to greed, corruption, power grabbing.

Tweaking the system, I can see. perhaps import tariffs from nations overly benefitting from cheap labor, etc..

Wage control? Not much different than price control in the Nixon era...ways around it were found almost immediately.

It's a non-starter in my books.

a reply to: Bicent76

There are 3.5 million people who are part of the government who are not being supported by it.

We are not supposed to have authoritarian leaders bought and paid for by the Elitist.

WE are supposed to be the government, and it is OUR responsibility to help the other 3.5 million members of OUR government find homes.

a reply to: Isurrender73

If you give them two choices, and they don't like those choices, they can also simply leave and move to another country that doesn't give them those choices leaving everyone out of work.

Or they can go out of business.

Or they can find the window to go out of which simply means they find the loophole the lawmakers never thought of.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Isurrender73

If you give them two choices, and they don't like those choices, they can also simply leave and move to another country that doesn't give them those choices leaving everyone out of work.

Or they can go out of business.

Or they can find the window to go out of which simply means they find the loophole the lawmakers never thought of.

If they leave someone else will take their place, that is how supply and demand works.

I don't care if they leave. I will personally escort all the Elitist to their desired departing airport.

It is possible to eliminate loopholes. Simply stop letting Elitist write our laws.

You are making something simple sound so complicated.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

All are reasons why big government does not work.

All big governments in history have failed.

a reply to: nwtrucker

We don't have to allow loopholes.

And my idea of a wage cap, considers all forms of wealth generation a wage. Shareholders will be capped at $250,000 just like everyone else.

NO LOOPHOLES and a flat tax, it is not as complicated as some of you are imagining.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

All are reasons why big government does not work.

All big governments in history have failed.

Show the non-government that has succeeded?

originally posted by: Bicent76
a reply to: Gryphon66

you were not looking for an answer then... You missed the point, completely,

thanks for the insult also.. Sound like a kid as well..


It is not my fault if you do not get it..

I just THANKED you for your answer. What more do you want?

If you're insulted by anything I said, you may want to distance yourself from the internet.

I don't agree with your vague position and point out simple mistakes in your reasoning and that makes me a "kid" eh?

How very adult of you! LOL

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Isurrender73

Tweaking the system, I can see. perhaps import tariffs from nations overly benefitting from cheap labor, etc..

I'm interested in this line of reasoning. Can you expand on this? (And would you see such tariffs as undue government interference in the markets?)

Double post

a reply to: Isurrender73

I agree in the services provided like what exists now, homeless shelters, jobs etc resource centers etc.

I do not think it is the governments job to give them homes.. ETC.. Some people are never going to be able to live in a home or own one etc..

People need to learn to help themselves..

This crazy talk about the federal government, effecting local and state government policies has come to an end with me..

This thread is a little to all over the place for me, I have already been insulted from someone who did not understand what I wrote, and I am being used as a catalyst for people's needs on this thread to perpetuate some misunderstanding on how capitalism works...

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

All are reasons why big government does not work.

All big governments in history have failed.

Show the non-government that has succeeded?

Well it looks like the big international corporations are working.

Working for who is debatable.

And it seems the real small "states" controlled by the British are working. Cayman Islands, British Virgin islands, Guernsey, Isle of Man, etc. etc. to name a few.

a reply to: Bicent76

Truly, honestly, I do apologize for pointing out that you misused the words median and balance.

I didn't mean that as an attack on you ... I was merely engaging in the conversation.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

All are reasons why big government does not work.

All big governments in history have failed.

Show the non-government that has succeeded?

Well it looks like the big international corporations are working.

Working for who is debatable.

And it seems the real small "states" controlled by the British are working. Cayman Islands, British Virgin islands, Guernsey, Isle of Man, etc. etc. to name a few.

Would those small states work if they were not a part of a bigger nation? Do you think?

Also, do you have an example of a state that has been successful that did not have a government?

a reply to: Bicent76

You either make over $250,000 or you deserve to be on an island of 1 until you realize that you can't become wealthy without the rest of us.

I apologize if that sounds rude, I'm not sure how else to get you to understand that you NEED society to become wealthy, and to EXPLOIT it destroys the same society that you NEEDED in the first place.