Total posts: 2,472
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
What is your 5k PR? I used to run track but now I don’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
There would have to be 320 million companies and billions of individual stores for everyone to be their own CEO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
People only can eat so much though. Who would be the employees?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Not enough food and drink. Why does everyone take Operation 15 as a joke? It´s not a joke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
There wouldn't be enough people to buy all that food though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
There wouldn't be enough demand to supply tend of millions of stop and shop places.
Created:
Posted in:
I honestly don't see how he was violating the Code of Conduct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
I'm playing Devil's advocate here. How would you respond to the fear of HIV spreading?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The reason why wages are currently about stagnant is because employees who work low wage jobs don´t consider finding better jobs that require only a high school diploma.Goes against this:They would pay more to prevent their employees from leaving the company.
Right now, many employees get paid less than a good wage. However, that can change if they find better jobs that only require a highschool degree. If employees did this in masses, then the employers would have to pay the employees more just to keep them working and to prevent them from leaving the company.
Meaning people should quit their job and get an education instead of threatening to quit only to get paid more.
They should quit their current job and get a better one that only requires a high school diploma to work.
False. A janitor is worth less so whatever education they get doesn't improve their pay instead would require them to find a better job. Meaning the janitor job will be vacant along with other low-skilled work.
The janitor job can be automated so places stay clean. The robots for it already exist, my grandmother has one and businesses can buy robots to automate the janitor. Meanwhile, the janitor would then have to find a better job that pays better, which would benefit hi due to his increased salary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The reason why wages are currently about stagnant is because employees who work low wage jobs don´t consider finding better jobs that require only a high school diploma. If they did in masses, then employers would have to pay their workers more or they would have to automate in order to maintain a workforce.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
They would pay more to prevent their employees from leaving the company. This applies until they automate.Corporations will just pay their workers more out nowhere from the the kindness of their hearts
As for your other quote, when has this idea been tested before?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This proposal requires NO FUNDING. It simply reallocates EXISTING MONEY.
$20,000 per kid will cost about $1.2 Trillion and the education system doesn´t spend that amount of money. What programs would you cut to raise this money?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I´m wanting the jobs that pay low wages to go towards automation so the poor people can find better jobs that don´t require a college degree. For example, a robot can be designed to be able to put burritos together. This would be up to Taco Bell to build so they can automate. If they can´t do that, they have to pay workers a higher wage to keep them working at Taco Bell verses somewhere else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Here's another idea (Fix-US+), end public education and instead, funnel all the money that we spend on k-12 education into individual "nest-egg" funds for the children.Let's say, $20,000.00 per year per kid per grade, that looks like about $260,000.00 on your 18th birthday.
Ending public education won't be enough money for your UBI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Even better, give everyone over the age of 8 a hedge fund to take care of.
They are 8 year olds. They should be in school.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
It’s either a sales tax on everything or a bigger income tax on your income for the most part. The sales tax isn’t meant to punish, its to generate revenue for the government to pay off our massive debt. Once the debt is paid off, then the national sales tax has to be only 8.2 percent to pay for everything that is needed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Your point here is if there are no minimum wage workers than there would be no more goods for people. However, costumers can get these products because the companies that have minimum wage and low wage workers can automate. No one goes broke since all the workers find better jobs that don’t require a college degree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
It doesn't tell us where these jobs are
I think the poor people can move to the jobs if they are not found within a local area.
The data from Georgetown that you cited indicates that most of the jobs created that don't require college degrees will be in skilled-services industries
The workers would have to learn a skill, but this is easier and cheaper than attending a 4 year college.
30 million jobs is a lot, but it won't cover every American without a college degree.
There are about 210 million American that don't have a bachelor's degree, but some people have an associates degree and no bachelors. 1 states that about 45% of the population has an associates degree. So the number of people that need jobs is about 176 million. There are 30 million jobs that don´t require a college degree that pay more than $55,000 per year; to make it even more specific, cite 3 stated that the amount of high paying jobs (median salary of $56,000 per year) that only required a high school degree, is about 13 million. How to merge these numbers so they are about the same is to let the people who want jobs that qualify in. What I mean by this is most companies don´t have caps for the number of workers in their company; they just expand their business if they do. You may be worried about wages falling or unemployment skyrocketing, but that just doesn't happen when you introduce people to better jobs. I have historical reasoning to back this up.
When African Americans were freed, a concern was that if they were freed and allowed to work the same jobs as white people, that they would take jobs away from white people. This did not happen. When women were allowed to work the same jobs as men, a concern was that women would take the jobs away from men. Did the unemployment rate rise to 50% or so when women were introduced into the workforce? No. Businesses find a way to expand when a new freshman workforce is introduced. The implementation of the policy that I call ¨The Switch¨ as an alternative to the minimum wage would introduce a huge wave of poor people to better jobs that companies would be able to fill as history has confirmed.
Coupled with state-level sales taxes, the sales price of taxed products could increase by 22%.
People already pay sales tax on a state basis, so sales tax would not rise by 22%, just 15% unless your state decided to get rid of the income tax too.
Lower income people only making 20k a year who spend most of their money on necessities such as food, medicine, and shelter would disproportionately be affected by this tax.
The tax at this level only exists until we can pay off the US debt. After that, the sales tax falls to 8.2%. This may sound like it still hurts the poor, but the poor already pay a 10% tax on their income. Assuming they do spend all of their money on necessities, they end up not having to pay an income tax and instead have to pay a smaller sales tax(2).
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I would much rather remove categories that people barely use and have them fit under an umbrella called recreation. This would be Art, Cars, Fashion, Games, Movies, Music, Sports, TV.
To a smaller extent, I agree.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Pretty much.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Do you think it should become a reality?
Created:
I think there should be. There are so many debates I´ve noticed recently that compare 2 different countries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
If only a few people are becoming wealthy while others become destitute, that is a legitimate concern.
It is a concern. However, under my plan, the poor would not become destitute. They merely have to find a better job that doesn't require a college degree. My sheet shows some jobs they can take. The University of Georgetown confirmed that there are up to 30 million jobs that don´t require a college degree and pay over $55,000 per year. Reduce that standard to $35,000 per year, and the number of jobs will skyrocket from this already high amount.
Instead, low-income people spend more money on housing, energy, and other basic needs that are barely met.
Given that the rich spend more on investments, and these would also be taxed at 15% the profit collected, this kindof makes it even. I think it generates much more revenue than a 15% standard income tax because some of the rich don´t pay income tax due to loopholes. If the rich don´t pay income tax, then why should the poor? A 15% sales tax is much harder to avoid for those that don´t want to pay any tax.
"Impoverished adults live seven to eight years less than those who have incomes four or more times the federal poverty level, which is $11,770 for a one-person household" (2).
They wouldn't be impoverished if they found a better job that doesn't require a college degree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Not saying that money comes out of thin air, but wealth does get created. For example, if you have 5 cents worth of raw materials, you can create a $500 IPhone. $499.95 gets created in value and no one loses money in the process. If you hire someone and it costs $100 to hire them, they makeThis is because your plan of taxing the rich less than the poor does not magically create money from thin air.
your parents would have to buy you a 2016 Fusion for your next birthday rather than a 2020 mustang. Unthinkable I know, but such are the horrors of a broken economy.
I have never received either of these things and I can live with it. I´m not some billionaire's son. Your stereotyping and you should have better conduct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
Where were you originally from? What country?I can say I am Indian because I lived there for a while
Created:
Posted in:
How is wealth inequality a bad thing? If one person has $1 Million and another has $1, there is less inequality than if one person has $1 Billion and another has $1. Yet the latter situation is better because the GDP per capita is better. If a poor person doesn't like their job due to lack of salary, they could find a better job that doesn't require a college degree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ASTAP changed to operation 15. Now, it´s just a 15% sales tax on everything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Lets say your an immigrant from Mexico. You come to the US and settle in Texas. Lets say that Texas becomes hispanophone majority and Mexico gets their government non-corrupted, they get their s*** together and Mexico becomes a good place to live. Texas might want to join Mexico at this point because mexico is no longer a terrible country. Odds of Mexico becoming stable in 40 years: I don´t know. It's definitely possible though and measures need to be in place so if they do become stable, that the US won´t lose territory to them.
The other issues now are in regards to 'Must have a steady, consistent job'. The first issue is that because a lot of the jobs that Americans dont normally take also happen to be positions that have sporadic demand throughout the year. Farming seasons only last so long, construction jobs come in boom and bust cycles, etc. If those high intensity low wage positions are not considered 'steady and consistent', then the immigrant can be denied entry even though theyre willing to work an open job that Americans dont want to do but is a necessary job that needs to be done.
They need some job. If they want to be a construction worker for example, since they don´t operate year round, they would have to find a job when construction is off. Either that, or they live off of their savings, they can´t use welfare. No one should be on welfare.
The government cant even deliver mail without racking up billions in debt every year
My tax policy, that I call operation 15, can get rid of our debt in less than 15 years and it involves getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with a 15% sales tax. That´s a different topic.
Im gonna need you to clarify what your belief is here because those two sentences are fairly contradictory.
My stance is the government would decide what state the immigrant lives in, but the immigrant has a say in where they go. They would be spread proportionally across the U.S on the basis of existing population. For every 2 native born Americans, there would be 1 immigrant on a state by state basis. For example, some immigrants would want to move to California and some wouldn't care, as long as they end up in the US. The ones who don´t care would have a smaller shot at getting into California than the others. Some immigrants would be fleeing violence. These immigrants would be put in locations that most immigrants don´t want to go in the US, like refugees may be put in rural states. If they are going to California to find a better job, than they would be prioritized to go to California. Even though the immigrants would have to be roughly spread out, some immigrants would want to move to NY and some to CA. Although they would be spread out, it would be aimed for most to all of those wanting to go to NY to be able to go and so on. Sorry it´s hard to explain.
im pretty sure that 160 million people want to win the lottery as well, that doesnt mean its actually going to happen.
Immigrating to the US is more likely than winning the lottery. A main thing keeping people from coming to the US is the fact that we only let 1 million immigrants a year and the US has a practical ban on immigration compared to the 160 million who would move if they could.
It could also be abused to do the exact opposite of that and force immigrants to live in three or four states total. If Trump had the power to send all immigrants from Central America to California to put a massive financial strain on the state, and then tweet about how bad the state is run because of its liberal beliefs towards immigration, do you really think he would REFRAIN from doing that?Even if there are good intentions behind the rule, it could 100% be used irresponsibly and corruptly
I see. If there is a law called the melting pot act that requires immigrants to settle in the state the gov tells them to although the immigrant gets to move where they want unless that state has too many other immigrants in it, then the president would have a hard time justifying revoking it.
The 10th Amendment specifies that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved for the States instead.
If that´s the case, the melting pot act could be a way to give the federal government the power to send certain immigrants to certain states to keep the country together and to maintain integration.
But the thing is that Hispanics who live in the US have adapted their cultural traditions into Americanized versions of those traditions over time
Right now they have, but if we were to let every single person that wants to come to the US come and stay once they do the government some favors, then Hispanic immigration would skyrocket. This would lead to a bunch of people failing to assimilate and breaking away from the country once Hispanophone supermajorities are established in the states. It´s how we got the South West US. Mexico failed to assimilate the anglophone Texans and when the Texans got angry at Mexico, they formed their own independent country and joined the US. Since there would be tensions between liberal Hispanophone communities and states and the conservative anglophone states, it would break up the US.
the same as Japanese Americans, Italian Americans, German Americans, so on and so on.
The other groups did not have the numbers to break away and they quickly assiliminated due to their lack of numbers. The Hispanics are a culturally unified group, unlike the culturally divided Europeans and Asians that came here.
Cinco de mayo isin´t even about that. It was about defeating French forces.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
The text doc word for word says "Doesnt take jobs from people already here" which was the big issue I had since there are many positions and jobs that are labor-intensive with pretty poor pay that many Americans themselves wouldnt take....
Someone has to do the jobs Americans don´t want to do.
What usually happens is they immigrate and THEN look for what jobs are available for them to accept.
They would have needed a previous job in their home country and any absences in work would have to be justified. This rule exists to make sure that they can hold a job. I don´t want to unleash a bunch of people coming to the country and getting welfare, which although they don´t right now, they would if we legalized them all if they didn't have jobs. They would merely have to have a good track record of work and would show that if allowed in the country legally, then they wouldn't be on welfare. Consider the 2nd requirement modified.
But even if there aren't enough openings, what is the logic in not allowing immigrants with a solid skills-set from immigrating into the country?
There would be enough openings for those who meet the requirements for most high skilled jobs. This is even the case for most low skilled jobs. If there weren't, these high skilled immigrants would not be able to get jobs because there are no openings and then either they or some American doctor would be out of a job and maybe having to pay off a huge debt from college bills. This resorts one of the doctors going on welfare due to lack of openings. Good thing there are no known maximums or caps for doctors and the only filters are qualifications.
I modified the 4th requirement. Want to check it out?
Not according to the document its not.... The only time 'citizenship' is even mentioned in your document is the rule after that where you demand that immigrants pay $50 to get their citizenship card
In the google document in post #1, I highlighted in 2 colors; green and blue. What´s in green is what´s required for greencard and citizenship. What´s in blue is just for citizenship. Greyperrot merely copied and pasted to make it look like it was the requirements for entry. In his forum post, the highlighting got removed accidentally.
Lol. How big of an issue is that exactly?
Bigger than you think if all 150 million immigrants come to the US. Since they would come from China, Nigeria, India, Bangladesh, Brazil and more, I don´t want ballots in Chinese, the Nigerian languages, Hindi (and all the minor languages in India), Bengali, Portuguese, and more. Plus, the English language is one unifying part of what it means to be a US citizen.
Voting booths also usually have a person or two to help with translation the ballot for those who request one so this is a non-issue completely.
This might be true. I haven´t seen anyone actually use this when I was at voting booths. I´m fine with it for any language that does not pose a threat to national sovereignty. The only language that does pose a future threat is Spanish, which in particular has a high chance of breaking away to form their own country if we make our borders this easy. I think the reason why so few Hispanics want to move to the US is because they feel rejected by Trump. With this policy, they would just come in. Learning English at least for them should be required in order to maintain national security.
Before the document said that if they didn't speak English fluency they would be required to learn it, be required to take classes to learn it, and that they would have to pay for those classes on top of it.
Now it´s implied that if you don´t know fluent English, you would have to learn it, whether you use classes or you try to do it on your own is up to the immigrant.
You also dont even address the point that immigrants can get by in society without knowing English fluently due to immigrant communities and having a family member be able to help with translations as well, so the rule even updated is still a bad one.
They can get by without knowing English in some situations. They can even get a green card without knowing English if they meet all the necessary requirements. They just can´t vote until they learn English, pay the fee, and move to a state that won´t make 1 area too immigrant in order to keep the country mixed, which would assiliminate the immigrants faster. The rule for them should exist until they assiliminate, maybe for 5 years and after that, the immigrant can move to whatever state they want.
In what world do people flee oppression and corruption in their own country to immigrate to the United States only to then be a part of a separatist movement to have that part America secede and become owned by the foreign country they just fled from?
Created:
-->
@ebuc
I´m surprised you were in boy scouts. If you were, you certainly don´t follow the Scout Law. Like if you agree so I can maybe get to 25.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
In order to fix smash and dash within society, first it has to be a crime. Then, effective birth control can be implemented to reduce the odds of it happening.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
My measure to prevent this is to ban smash and dash.Your should doesn't matter to what does happen unless of course you have measures to prevent this.
Like I said in a poorer household more often than not the wife/girlfriend would also have to work which would mean either the husband/husband gets lucky with a high wage (isn't likely) or they will be both financially worse for having a child because both of them are not working and of course the financial burden that is a child.
The husband can find a better job that doesn't require a college degree. It can be achieved and according to the University of Georgetown, there are 30 million jobs that pay $55000 or more per year in the US that don´t require a college degree. There are way more jobs avaliable that pay $30000 a year or more if they are fine with that amount of money. They just need to do research on high paying jobs that don´t require a college degree and pick a better job. Work smart, not inherently hard. The husband picks a job he likes, gets paid way more than working at McDonalds, they can afford the costs of pregnancy. Then they can set the kid up for adoption if they want.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Mainly because the time off work can result in worse outcomes for a poorer household. Since 6 months is a long time it is more than likely someone having financial problems having a baby would make it worse.
The husband/boyfriend isn't pregnant, and since they shouldn't be allowed to commit smash and dash, they would be providing an income for the pregnant woman and the child in the event that the pregnant woman can´t work.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why are you pro choice? If you don’t want the kid, you can set the kid up for adoption.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Joe Walsh is pro life and against the death penalty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I´m saying that under my proposal, a constitutional amendment isin´t necessary because it only protects freedoms not infringed by law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
In the event that my proposed immigration policy would go into place, the 9th amendment would not apply because there would be a law against the unrestricted settling of immigrants. That only protects against freedoms not removed by law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
If they are low skilled immigrants, they can take jobs that americans won´t apply for.Immigrants come here and are willing to accept any job that will have them, which 95% of the time are low paying jobs that are very labor intensive that most Americans already don't want to do themselves
The additional demand that it cant be a job that would be 'taken from someone already here' adds to the stupidity of the whole plan since 'a job that could be taken from an American' can be defined to mean pretty much any job you want it to, for the 5% of high paying jobs that are staffed by high-skilled immigrants who could be doctors in their own countries but want to be doctors here in America instead, that rule completely shuts them out from entering the country because the higher-skill jobs are ones that could very conceivably go to Americans
Let's say that there is a need for doctors and 5 native born americans apply for it and 3 immigrants apply for it. The doctor´s office would take them all in, all 8 of them to help save patients lives. In this high skilled job, no one loses out on an opportunity. As long as there is enough openings, which there almost always is especially for high skilled jobs, the immigrants can select a job they like that they think they are qualified for.
but requiring that they renounce allegiance to their country of origin is straight stupid.
I based this off of existing US law. This requirement can be modified, but they should to be American first. If they were from China for example, fleeing communism, that´s honorable and all, but if that's the case, why would they honor China? They fled China because they hated China and respected America more.
For number 5 there are pockets throughout America where you can get by and be a good citizen while not having the best English. New York, Seattle, LA, San Diego, Miami, El Paso, Chicago, New Jersey
If you checked out the document, you would see that this is merely a requirement for citizenship. Under this plan, it would be legally possible to not know a word of English and still get a greencard for example. You can live in the country, you just can´t vote until you learn English and pay a processing fee for the citizenship card. I don´t want to have to provide dozens of translations for voting ballots and it prevents separatist movements.
1) Coursework arguably isn't the best way to teach immigrants English
The immigrant can select any method they want to learn it. They can learn it in a class. They can learn it due to exposure.
What the fuck is even the point with number 7?
The point of this is to help keep the US integrated and to prevent separatist movements.
Not only would it be needlessly bureaucratic to have the government spend a ton of tax dollars on deciding which state each and every immigrant should settle in
It would be cheap. The immigrant largely decides what state they settle in. Many immigrants won´t care what state they settle in. 160 million people want to come to the US. Because of this, for every 2 native born Americans that exist in the country, there would be 1 immigrant. This helps spread the effects of immigration more evenly across the country.
but Im pretty sure it's not even Constitutional for the government to say which state you have to live in
Where does the constitution say this?
If a Japanese immigrant wants to live in Wisconsin because they always dreamed of having a dairy farm and because they like cold winters, is the government going to reject that request and force them settle in Washington with many other Japanese Americans?
Since I would prefer it if the Japanese immigrant settled away from other Japanese immigrants to help integrate and assimilate the Japanese person quicker and to give rural America some immigrants, I would be fine with them owning a dairy farm in Wisconsin. The immigrant has a say in where they would go under my plan and this would be taken into account. If lets say they are moving for jobs, and their company has a place in NY and Missouri. The immigrant can go to Missouri and that solves it. The goal of this requirement is to maintain integration and unification so America isin´t divided on cultural grounds.
This power could also be easily exploited by a corrupt administration to also have immigrants only live in a handful of states just for political purposes.
The point of the rule is for immigrants to live in every state in significant numbers to maintain integration and to prevent one area from becoming so immigrant that it wants to break away from the non-immigrant rest of the country. My main concern is with the Hispanics. If we allow them to settle wherever they want, most would settle in urban areas and in the South West. If they become too hispanophone, they might want to break away from the US on cultural grounds. Many countries have experienced multiculturalism only for it to destroy their country, like Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
I'll address your claim when I have the time for it.
Created:
Posted in:
What is wrong with a poor person getting a better job that doesn’t require a college degree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
It's not like Peter was elected by the people to be the pope. Any men who did this would need Jesus as evidence. The Israelite people were originally non Christian until they saw Jesus.
Created: