Corruption can creep into any institution. Rather then blindly eliminating necessary institutions due to a flaw, lets try to solve the flaw. As far as money in politics, many individual are just as guilty of republicans of taking bribes, but it seems that it is the republican platform to increase the influence of money in politics, and i see that as treason. You need money to win elections, and i do not support any individual politician to unilaterally disarm, best intentions mean nothing if you dont win office, but i support the democratic agenda of minimizing as much as possible the influence of money in politics. Corruption in the regulatory system is a great argument for an audit, it is a terrible argument to simply give up on otherwise necessary laws. Done right regulations increase consumer confidence and are a boon to the economy.
I will try to find examples. I dont see how impoverished governments can carry out "huge oversight". They may have strong laws on the books, but no competent mechanism to enforce anything. Most searches for most liberitarian nations focus only on the 1st world, and the US with all its terrible regulations and high taxes, is near the top of most lists.
Europe and japan have much stronger regulatory controls and worker protections, they also have more reasonable employee/executive pay differences. how are they able to out compete us?
@bmdrocks Im talking about reality. Whether its liberitarian, conservative, republican, i am talking about the policies they actually pass in your name. If you feel they dont match up with your version of right wing, why vote for them? And perhaps this would be my opportunity to win you over if you disagree with what the right pass (i do too).
@christen im sure hillary clintons policies are similar to general left wing policies (relatively higher taxes, stronger regulations, more public investment, less/more transparent money in politics). However judging her policies that were never implemented will be speculation, i would prefer to look at the objective effects of previous policies.
@policesheep socialists for small business?!? Your gonna make the right wingers' heads explode!
Just to clarify, you are against almost allregulations? We established your against any construction site safety and food/drug quality and ingredient assurance? Which regulations do you support.
The point of regulations is not to promote the market, but to make sure the market functions safely and for our benefit. Although some regulations like intellectual and property rights do actively support the market, should we remove them as well?
Which markets are we not competitive in? Cause most 1st world countries have MORE regulations then we do, and as stated before, the only nations with anything close to a liberitarian economy are 3rd world nations, and often not by choice but because their governments lack the ability to enforce anything.
The difference between scientists and doctors is that one is applied science (applying known facts to variable situations). The other is theoretical science, where one seeks and uncovers the facts. Doctors know exactly how cancer or gingevitis works, but they have to figure out if you have it, and that involves detective work which is where their flaws come in.
Scientists do make mistakes, which is why a single study or a single scientist's word means nothing. Repeated tests and attempts to refute conclusions is what solidifies scientific fact beyond just opinion.
There have been many scientific assumptions that have been disproven over the years (abiogenesis, the aether) however, neither of those were scientifically proven and were just assumptions from tradition. No scientific theory that was established using the scientific method has ever been countered to my knowledge. When einstein expanded our theory of gravity he did not negate any of n3wtons work. The law of gravity as found my newton is still functional under all but the most extreme conditions
Einstein simply explained what gravity is, while newton described how strong it is. Nothing was negated. Only added.
So yes, individual scientists are fallible humans, however the scientific method is designed to circumvent their fallibility. Is it possible for a scientifically proven theory to be disproven, of course! but it hasnt happened yet, and possibly never will.
The burden of proof point is bit some tactic to score wins. It is a logical law that negative points cannot be proven. The question of which takes more faith may be a burden neutral question (unsure), but in your description you asked con to prove that god does not exist. That is logically impossible.
For example, (and i dont mean to compare god to these nonexistent things, just the act of proving them.) Please prove that leprechauns dont exist. Or unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters. Its impossible. You will have to literally and definitively make a list of all things that exist in existence to prove something does not exist
Thats preposterous. And thats why burden of proof is ALWAYS on the positive claim. On the person claiming existence. Noone can prove the impossible.
I don't think i see a single left right definition i agree with from either side. Let me know what you think of my definition.
1st. Left and right are relative and subjective. The left/right divide is very different in europe vs usa.
In general, the left is for change, and the right is for stability. The left promotes new, revolutionary ideas, the right promotes classical ideas. Both can be seen as positive or negative, and im using the least charged langauge possible for both. Im not trying to be controversial.
However, with that definition, religious fundamentalists, like middle eastern theocracies, are clearly not something new, and are very hard right. Promoting traditional views like classic family values, and adherence to traditions is right wing. Fascism is also very classically focused. Nationalism. Sectarianism. None of this is new.
On the other hand, a centralized command economy is new. Therefore totalitarian communism (if that can even be called communism) is undoubtedly left. Both left and right have big gov options.
On the other hand they both also have small gov options. Anarchy is very new unless you go back to precivilization. Liberitarianism is a classic philosophy often sightning classic liberalism and enlightenment... which are both over 200 years old.
Hopefully this will be a neutral definition every can agree on
Everything has facts and speculations. The existence of the big bang, is a fact. Many details are not. Scientists are people with individual opinions, but science makes it clear what is fact, and what is speculation.
Im not sure what you are implying regarding the factualness of the big bang or climate change.
Personally i believe money in politics (including but not limited to lobbying) is the biggest issue we have. Get overrepresented special interests out of the way, and i believe political discourse will improve.
Despite any abuses of the regulatory system, it is still necessary. I know right wing media has turned regulation into a dirty word, but why do you think you feel safe walking past a construction site or have confidence consuming the food and medicine? Regulations. Companies exist to satisfy a demand. They are started by entrepreneurs who see an opportunity and seize it. They conform to our needs. The people do not need to conform to corporate needs. Thats complete backward thinking. We have to make sure the consumer is safe and has confidence in their purchases. We have to make sure the economy and our public resources are sustainable and their utilization is not hoarded or destroyed by self interested individuals, at our expense. Regulations ensure companies arent laundering money for gangs or supporting international terrorists. This anti regulation crusade is oversimplified stupidity.
Yes, bad regulations should be removed, on individual merit. Not cause someone thinks we have too many or too few. If each one has a good purpose, it doesnt matter how many we have. If one is bad, it still doesnt matter how many we have. We need the good ones and we should eliminate any bad ones. Like the hypothetical ones who referenced.
Can you name any federal regulations you feel are hurting more then helping?
Please dont jump to conclusions regarding my sources of information and dont dismiss my arguments until after ive made them and youve responded to them.
I already stated who im referring to, the mainstream american right and the republican party and the ideas on its platform. Including a range from corporate subsidizing and liberitarian talking points. Whether they are neo, classic, or mixed, what im talking about what is in reality, and the policies right wing representatives actually pass.
These bootleggers sound like they found a loophole in an otherwise good system. That definetely should be addressed, mostly via the left wing push to get money out of politics, and make sure any money left in is openly accounted for. It is the right that promotes the practice of lobbying that is the root of most government evil today. This loophole that needs closing does not change the massive benefit that is sensible regulation.
So shall we agree, lobbying bad, regulations still up for debate?
Im probably going to restart this debate since crossed clearly trolled me, would dare to contend?
Yitz, before you leave, i cant speak for others, but i didnt call you a troll or any attack. I just wanted to point out that you assume some things about the other side that are not true. That is not an attack on you or any of your beliefs.
Discussion is well worth it, its difficult to change anothers opinion, but you can tweek it alittle. If you wanted to prove me wrong on this, you dont need a 30k manifesto. None of my posts are that long. Just cite prominent liberals saying all conservatives are nazis or acknowledge that we dont all know everything 100%.
You and me just started talking. Dont leave now. Isnt it my side thats supposed to be shutting down conversation?
And you completely ignored my point that nobody on the left is saying the ridiculous statement that every right winger is a nazi. Its made up. And anyone pushing that is fake news propaganda. Are you therefore conceding this fact?
I accused right wing *sites* and *alt* conservatives of doing 1 (fearmongering) thing. Not *everything* wrong with america. That is quite the extreme interptetations there.
Do you have any intention of participating in this debate that you accepted just because "it was debate number 777"? Forfeit or back out. This was uncool.
I did understand. Based on outcome, a design by intelligence is a logical possibility. All im saying is that selection from a large pool of variability can equally result in a perfect outcome. Besides, its not like the design of pikachu is trully perfect, its just really really good.
I think its best to do this one at a time, starting from the top.
"Jews grow up in America thinking that everyone must be liberal, and if you're conservative, you're a Nazi."
The only place i see this connection is on right wing sites. This is fiction. The only people saying that are the alt conservatives who spread it. This is fearmongering, and part of what makes the right wing scary. This is not their only example of fear mongering.
As a liberitarian, how do you feel about my comparison of an equally regulated economy, vs hand picked competitive advantage deciding actual winners and losers?
I have less then zero respect for the majority of the republican party both for the reasons you stated (betraying all of their values if convenient), and their support for unrestrained money in our politics (treason). However liberitarians are the exception. I respect them. But i far from agree with them. They have a set and simple ideology, and they dont waiver for convenience routinely. However, theres a reason no first world utilizes liberitarianism. Outside of an oversimplified mom and pop economy, it does not work. Workers do not have the power to negotiate, and consumers don't have the ability to run chemical tests ensuring they arent eating lead in their milk or one of many historical free market tragedies. Just like communism will likely deteriorate into a dictatorship, liberitarianism will deteriorate into feudalism. Where a few nobles (executives) rule over impoverished masses. Capitalism loves competition. Capitalist players hate competition. The government is required to maintain competition and protect the public. I do not trust the government, but i can demand oversight over the government. I cannot do that with private companies.
Im afraid i am not the one mistaken. Your are simply defining a single point on the right wing spectrum, liberitarianism, as the one true conservative. And although you may or may not have your reasons, that is a classic no true Scotsman. What i am referring to is not a cherry picked spot on the spectrum, but the representation of the ed tie mainstream american right, the Republican party, and the policies the right actually implements (vs an equal criteria for left).
And while i understand your frustration with the percieved business stifling regulations, at least they are imposed equally amongst all players within an industry. It is republicans who are prone to handing out company specifc tax exemptions or other benefits competitors do not enjoy. Nothing is worse then crony capitalism where government actually picks the winners and losers.
I believe the disconnect between the 2 of views is one judges it in grounds of moral decency, while the other judges it on grounds of deeds and mitzvahs.
Every western religion, including judaism, has many modesty and sexuality laws. These are the laws promoted by the republican party and why yitz believes republicans are closer. However such laws are religious laws with reasoning like "god wouldnt like that". They should not be passed outside of a theocracy. Which thank god this nation is not.
However, judaism is also big on deeds and mitzvahs that have secular, human, reasonings behind them. They are also inline with judaism, passable in a modern secular society, and are promoted by the democratic party.
@yitz. You utilize alot of fallacies. For example your claim that homosexuality will lead to beastiality is a classic example of a slippery slope, and also an all or nothing fallscies. There is a clear distinction. Grown adults are capable of giving consent, while animals, children, and corpses are not. If 2 consenting adults want to do something in private, what is the crime? If the crime is only against god, then you are trying to create a theocracy. Jesus said being gay is bad. He didnt say associating with gays is bad. Its their choice. If the other party cant give consent, then we have a crime.
Many of your reasons against Democrats are terrifying... if they werent fiction or supported by distortions.
I think there is a difference between opinions of scientists, and conclusions of the scientific community. There is also a difference between believing *A* scientist, and believing in the peer review system and the scientific method. It is the latter 2 systems that make science trustworthy, not individual opinions.
And most importantly, i dont think the current trajectory is sustainable. If you have an alternative solution to an increasing bottom class falling out of our economy, and the macro effects of that, I would love to hear it.
I understand your concern, but you have not addressed the increase in spending, and new businesses, especially in the regions that need it most. The increased purchasing would offset some of the increased cost, while the increase in business will necessitate more jobs, not less, which will be a huge boost for the economy.
Furthermore not all costs will rise. Rents (a large part of our costs) derives most of its value from the value of the land, not labor involved with it. Thus rents wont go up that much. Healthcare as well does not involve as much low wage work as the restaurant industry, so it will not increase much either. The effect you are citing is not as universal as you may believe
Only a limited amount of services will go up in price, but far from all, and far from the most costly ones.
In conclusion (of this post)
1. Increased patronage will offset costs and limit job cuts.
2. Many costs will not increase, including rent which is 30-50% of many peoples income.
Min wage is not related to corporate subsidies, but government assistance like welfare and food stamps for those who are employed are a payroll subsidy. Full time workers should not be qualifying for government assistance.
Your conclusion is not always the case. When companies increase in profit, they dont always raise salaries, not if they have no need to. So when profits decrease, especially these companies with more money then small nations, they can absorb some loss.
But more importantly companies will see an increase in customers. Sure stores in beverly hills might not see an increase, but their customers can afford higher prices. We have many many areas with no businesses besides fast food, liquor stores, and bodegas. That is where minimum wage will have the most effect and the increase in income can turn into a boom of new businesses entering this previously forgotten area. The areas that most need the income boost, have the most unmet demand, and will see the largest increase in patronage. Their costs may not go up at all with the increase in sales covering the lower margins.
I think minimum wage can and should have a ripple effect lifting up near min wage wages up as well. However, a substantial part of our workforce is at minimum wage. Combined with rising costs, this substantial segment may soon be unable to effectively participate in the economy, and that will be a major blow to the economy. As income becomes increasingly concentrated, more and more people will fall into the paycheck to paycheck category.
One can view many of our entitlement programs as being a corporate payroll subsidy as many on government assistance are also employed. Without minimum wage/entitlement programs, many of these jobs would not be worth it. With a living wage, many entitlements can be cut, which could then allow for sensible tax cuts. Its time the taxpayer stop subsidizing these (highly profitable) corporations. Im all for small/new business exceptions/assistance.
Perhaps. I have not looked at voting, dont even know where that would be. Im new to the site and navigating it on mobile. (Totally wish this had an app). Personally tho, i put more value on arguments then votes. Mass layman appeal is secondary to logic and reasons.
Essentially arguing for a pure liberitarian approach of letting markets decide. I think its a great solution if you dont think too hard about it and use 1 sentence logic, but theres a reason no 1st world nation is liberitarian with this nation being amongst the most economically concervative of the bunch. I believe i made my case in one of the threads stating that demand drives the markets, not supply. If people cannot afford to spend, whats the point of opening a business? Cant make profit without costumers.
The "stat" is based on the recent forum posts and debates. Things like minimum wage and liberals being attacked with extremely basic misconceptions, and noone comes to counter them. It could just be an anecdotal short term effect, but thats the feeling i got so far.
Im not arguing against god. Im arguing for science. This (should) has nothing to do with politics. BTW, are you capable of thinking beyond your tribal mentality? Did you come to a debate site in order to agree with everyone? Weak.
Corruption can creep into any institution. Rather then blindly eliminating necessary institutions due to a flaw, lets try to solve the flaw. As far as money in politics, many individual are just as guilty of republicans of taking bribes, but it seems that it is the republican platform to increase the influence of money in politics, and i see that as treason. You need money to win elections, and i do not support any individual politician to unilaterally disarm, best intentions mean nothing if you dont win office, but i support the democratic agenda of minimizing as much as possible the influence of money in politics. Corruption in the regulatory system is a great argument for an audit, it is a terrible argument to simply give up on otherwise necessary laws. Done right regulations increase consumer confidence and are a boon to the economy.
I will try to find examples. I dont see how impoverished governments can carry out "huge oversight". They may have strong laws on the books, but no competent mechanism to enforce anything. Most searches for most liberitarian nations focus only on the 1st world, and the US with all its terrible regulations and high taxes, is near the top of most lists.
Europe and japan have much stronger regulatory controls and worker protections, they also have more reasonable employee/executive pay differences. how are they able to out compete us?
Please don't let this end with a tie.
@bmdrocks Im talking about reality. Whether its liberitarian, conservative, republican, i am talking about the policies they actually pass in your name. If you feel they dont match up with your version of right wing, why vote for them? And perhaps this would be my opportunity to win you over if you disagree with what the right pass (i do too).
@christen im sure hillary clintons policies are similar to general left wing policies (relatively higher taxes, stronger regulations, more public investment, less/more transparent money in politics). However judging her policies that were never implemented will be speculation, i would prefer to look at the objective effects of previous policies.
@policesheep socialists for small business?!? Your gonna make the right wingers' heads explode!
Just to clarify, you are against almost allregulations? We established your against any construction site safety and food/drug quality and ingredient assurance? Which regulations do you support.
The point of regulations is not to promote the market, but to make sure the market functions safely and for our benefit. Although some regulations like intellectual and property rights do actively support the market, should we remove them as well?
Which markets are we not competitive in? Cause most 1st world countries have MORE regulations then we do, and as stated before, the only nations with anything close to a liberitarian economy are 3rd world nations, and often not by choice but because their governments lack the ability to enforce anything.
The difference between scientists and doctors is that one is applied science (applying known facts to variable situations). The other is theoretical science, where one seeks and uncovers the facts. Doctors know exactly how cancer or gingevitis works, but they have to figure out if you have it, and that involves detective work which is where their flaws come in.
Scientists do make mistakes, which is why a single study or a single scientist's word means nothing. Repeated tests and attempts to refute conclusions is what solidifies scientific fact beyond just opinion.
There have been many scientific assumptions that have been disproven over the years (abiogenesis, the aether) however, neither of those were scientifically proven and were just assumptions from tradition. No scientific theory that was established using the scientific method has ever been countered to my knowledge. When einstein expanded our theory of gravity he did not negate any of n3wtons work. The law of gravity as found my newton is still functional under all but the most extreme conditions
Einstein simply explained what gravity is, while newton described how strong it is. Nothing was negated. Only added.
So yes, individual scientists are fallible humans, however the scientific method is designed to circumvent their fallibility. Is it possible for a scientifically proven theory to be disproven, of course! but it hasnt happened yet, and possibly never will.
This seems like a repeat pattern. How can you expect to open minds if yours is closed?
The burden of proof point is bit some tactic to score wins. It is a logical law that negative points cannot be proven. The question of which takes more faith may be a burden neutral question (unsure), but in your description you asked con to prove that god does not exist. That is logically impossible.
For example, (and i dont mean to compare god to these nonexistent things, just the act of proving them.) Please prove that leprechauns dont exist. Or unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters. Its impossible. You will have to literally and definitively make a list of all things that exist in existence to prove something does not exist
Thats preposterous. And thats why burden of proof is ALWAYS on the positive claim. On the person claiming existence. Noone can prove the impossible.
I don't think i see a single left right definition i agree with from either side. Let me know what you think of my definition.
1st. Left and right are relative and subjective. The left/right divide is very different in europe vs usa.
In general, the left is for change, and the right is for stability. The left promotes new, revolutionary ideas, the right promotes classical ideas. Both can be seen as positive or negative, and im using the least charged langauge possible for both. Im not trying to be controversial.
However, with that definition, religious fundamentalists, like middle eastern theocracies, are clearly not something new, and are very hard right. Promoting traditional views like classic family values, and adherence to traditions is right wing. Fascism is also very classically focused. Nationalism. Sectarianism. None of this is new.
On the other hand, a centralized command economy is new. Therefore totalitarian communism (if that can even be called communism) is undoubtedly left. Both left and right have big gov options.
On the other hand they both also have small gov options. Anarchy is very new unless you go back to precivilization. Liberitarianism is a classic philosophy often sightning classic liberalism and enlightenment... which are both over 200 years old.
Hopefully this will be a neutral definition every can agree on
Everything has facts and speculations. The existence of the big bang, is a fact. Many details are not. Scientists are people with individual opinions, but science makes it clear what is fact, and what is speculation.
Im not sure what you are implying regarding the factualness of the big bang or climate change.
Personally i believe money in politics (including but not limited to lobbying) is the biggest issue we have. Get overrepresented special interests out of the way, and i believe political discourse will improve.
Despite any abuses of the regulatory system, it is still necessary. I know right wing media has turned regulation into a dirty word, but why do you think you feel safe walking past a construction site or have confidence consuming the food and medicine? Regulations. Companies exist to satisfy a demand. They are started by entrepreneurs who see an opportunity and seize it. They conform to our needs. The people do not need to conform to corporate needs. Thats complete backward thinking. We have to make sure the consumer is safe and has confidence in their purchases. We have to make sure the economy and our public resources are sustainable and their utilization is not hoarded or destroyed by self interested individuals, at our expense. Regulations ensure companies arent laundering money for gangs or supporting international terrorists. This anti regulation crusade is oversimplified stupidity.
Yes, bad regulations should be removed, on individual merit. Not cause someone thinks we have too many or too few. If each one has a good purpose, it doesnt matter how many we have. If one is bad, it still doesnt matter how many we have. We need the good ones and we should eliminate any bad ones. Like the hypothetical ones who referenced.
Can you name any federal regulations you feel are hurting more then helping?
Absolutely, but also it can be seen as a general comparison of overall performance between the parties
However i must say, i dont see the merit in a minimum wafe relative to any factor aside from cost of living.
I would call it full automation, not take over. But yes, i agree
Please dont jump to conclusions regarding my sources of information and dont dismiss my arguments until after ive made them and youve responded to them.
I already stated who im referring to, the mainstream american right and the republican party and the ideas on its platform. Including a range from corporate subsidizing and liberitarian talking points. Whether they are neo, classic, or mixed, what im talking about what is in reality, and the policies right wing representatives actually pass.
These bootleggers sound like they found a loophole in an otherwise good system. That definetely should be addressed, mostly via the left wing push to get money out of politics, and make sure any money left in is openly accounted for. It is the right that promotes the practice of lobbying that is the root of most government evil today. This loophole that needs closing does not change the massive benefit that is sensible regulation.
So shall we agree, lobbying bad, regulations still up for debate?
Im probably going to restart this debate since crossed clearly trolled me, would dare to contend?
Yitz, before you leave, i cant speak for others, but i didnt call you a troll or any attack. I just wanted to point out that you assume some things about the other side that are not true. That is not an attack on you or any of your beliefs.
Discussion is well worth it, its difficult to change anothers opinion, but you can tweek it alittle. If you wanted to prove me wrong on this, you dont need a 30k manifesto. None of my posts are that long. Just cite prominent liberals saying all conservatives are nazis or acknowledge that we dont all know everything 100%.
You and me just started talking. Dont leave now. Isnt it my side thats supposed to be shutting down conversation?
And you completely ignored my point that nobody on the left is saying the ridiculous statement that every right winger is a nazi. Its made up. And anyone pushing that is fake news propaganda. Are you therefore conceding this fact?
I did not!
I accused right wing *sites* and *alt* conservatives of doing 1 (fearmongering) thing. Not *everything* wrong with america. That is quite the extreme interptetations there.
Do you have any intention of participating in this debate that you accepted just because "it was debate number 777"? Forfeit or back out. This was uncool.
Doesn't it seem that con was arguing for a minimum wage in general and not for a specifically flat minimum wage?
Does it make sense to anyone for rural west virginia and urban LA to have the same exact minimum wage despite many costs being vastly different?
I did understand. Based on outcome, a design by intelligence is a logical possibility. All im saying is that selection from a large pool of variability can equally result in a perfect outcome. Besides, its not like the design of pikachu is trully perfect, its just really really good.
I think its best to do this one at a time, starting from the top.
"Jews grow up in America thinking that everyone must be liberal, and if you're conservative, you're a Nazi."
The only place i see this connection is on right wing sites. This is fiction. The only people saying that are the alt conservatives who spread it. This is fearmongering, and part of what makes the right wing scary. This is not their only example of fear mongering.
Sorry, replied to you previously but forgot to mention you.
As a liberitarian, how do you feel about my comparison of an equally regulated economy, vs hand picked competitive advantage deciding actual winners and losers?
I have less then zero respect for the majority of the republican party both for the reasons you stated (betraying all of their values if convenient), and their support for unrestrained money in our politics (treason). However liberitarians are the exception. I respect them. But i far from agree with them. They have a set and simple ideology, and they dont waiver for convenience routinely. However, theres a reason no first world utilizes liberitarianism. Outside of an oversimplified mom and pop economy, it does not work. Workers do not have the power to negotiate, and consumers don't have the ability to run chemical tests ensuring they arent eating lead in their milk or one of many historical free market tragedies. Just like communism will likely deteriorate into a dictatorship, liberitarianism will deteriorate into feudalism. Where a few nobles (executives) rule over impoverished masses. Capitalism loves competition. Capitalist players hate competition. The government is required to maintain competition and protect the public. I do not trust the government, but i can demand oversight over the government. I cannot do that with private companies.
Im unsurprised to see the usual quality of conservative discourse.
Im afraid i am not the one mistaken. Your are simply defining a single point on the right wing spectrum, liberitarianism, as the one true conservative. And although you may or may not have your reasons, that is a classic no true Scotsman. What i am referring to is not a cherry picked spot on the spectrum, but the representation of the ed tie mainstream american right, the Republican party, and the policies the right actually implements (vs an equal criteria for left).
And while i understand your frustration with the percieved business stifling regulations, at least they are imposed equally amongst all players within an industry. It is republicans who are prone to handing out company specifc tax exemptions or other benefits competitors do not enjoy. Nothing is worse then crony capitalism where government actually picks the winners and losers.
Glad to be here!
I believe the disconnect between the 2 of views is one judges it in grounds of moral decency, while the other judges it on grounds of deeds and mitzvahs.
Every western religion, including judaism, has many modesty and sexuality laws. These are the laws promoted by the republican party and why yitz believes republicans are closer. However such laws are religious laws with reasoning like "god wouldnt like that". They should not be passed outside of a theocracy. Which thank god this nation is not.
However, judaism is also big on deeds and mitzvahs that have secular, human, reasonings behind them. They are also inline with judaism, passable in a modern secular society, and are promoted by the democratic party.
@yitz. You utilize alot of fallacies. For example your claim that homosexuality will lead to beastiality is a classic example of a slippery slope, and also an all or nothing fallscies. There is a clear distinction. Grown adults are capable of giving consent, while animals, children, and corpses are not. If 2 consenting adults want to do something in private, what is the crime? If the crime is only against god, then you are trying to create a theocracy. Jesus said being gay is bad. He didnt say associating with gays is bad. Its their choice. If the other party cant give consent, then we have a crime.
Many of your reasons against Democrats are terrifying... if they werent fiction or supported by distortions.
I think there is a difference between opinions of scientists, and conclusions of the scientific community. There is also a difference between believing *A* scientist, and believing in the peer review system and the scientific method. It is the latter 2 systems that make science trustworthy, not individual opinions.
And most importantly, i dont think the current trajectory is sustainable. If you have an alternative solution to an increasing bottom class falling out of our economy, and the macro effects of that, I would love to hear it.
I understand your concern, but you have not addressed the increase in spending, and new businesses, especially in the regions that need it most. The increased purchasing would offset some of the increased cost, while the increase in business will necessitate more jobs, not less, which will be a huge boost for the economy.
Furthermore not all costs will rise. Rents (a large part of our costs) derives most of its value from the value of the land, not labor involved with it. Thus rents wont go up that much. Healthcare as well does not involve as much low wage work as the restaurant industry, so it will not increase much either. The effect you are citing is not as universal as you may believe
Only a limited amount of services will go up in price, but far from all, and far from the most costly ones.
In conclusion (of this post)
1. Increased patronage will offset costs and limit job cuts.
2. Many costs will not increase, including rent which is 30-50% of many peoples income.
Min wage is not related to corporate subsidies, but government assistance like welfare and food stamps for those who are employed are a payroll subsidy. Full time workers should not be qualifying for government assistance.
Your conclusion is not always the case. When companies increase in profit, they dont always raise salaries, not if they have no need to. So when profits decrease, especially these companies with more money then small nations, they can absorb some loss.
But more importantly companies will see an increase in customers. Sure stores in beverly hills might not see an increase, but their customers can afford higher prices. We have many many areas with no businesses besides fast food, liquor stores, and bodegas. That is where minimum wage will have the most effect and the increase in income can turn into a boom of new businesses entering this previously forgotten area. The areas that most need the income boost, have the most unmet demand, and will see the largest increase in patronage. Their costs may not go up at all with the increase in sales covering the lower margins.
I think minimum wage can and should have a ripple effect lifting up near min wage wages up as well. However, a substantial part of our workforce is at minimum wage. Combined with rising costs, this substantial segment may soon be unable to effectively participate in the economy, and that will be a major blow to the economy. As income becomes increasingly concentrated, more and more people will fall into the paycheck to paycheck category.
One can view many of our entitlement programs as being a corporate payroll subsidy as many on government assistance are also employed. Without minimum wage/entitlement programs, many of these jobs would not be worth it. With a living wage, many entitlements can be cut, which could then allow for sensible tax cuts. Its time the taxpayer stop subsidizing these (highly profitable) corporations. Im all for small/new business exceptions/assistance.
Perhaps. I have not looked at voting, dont even know where that would be. Im new to the site and navigating it on mobile. (Totally wish this had an app). Personally tho, i put more value on arguments then votes. Mass layman appeal is secondary to logic and reasons.
*cant make profit without customers no matter how low your costs are.
Essentially arguing for a pure liberitarian approach of letting markets decide. I think its a great solution if you dont think too hard about it and use 1 sentence logic, but theres a reason no 1st world nation is liberitarian with this nation being amongst the most economically concervative of the bunch. I believe i made my case in one of the threads stating that demand drives the markets, not supply. If people cannot afford to spend, whats the point of opening a business? Cant make profit without costumers.
The "stat" is based on the recent forum posts and debates. Things like minimum wage and liberals being attacked with extremely basic misconceptions, and noone comes to counter them. It could just be an anecdotal short term effect, but thats the feeling i got so far.
As far as i can tell, most people on this site seem to be conservative theists. Which is great, debating with people who agree with me is boring.
Im not arguing against god. Im arguing for science. This (should) has nothing to do with politics. BTW, are you capable of thinking beyond your tribal mentality? Did you come to a debate site in order to agree with everyone? Weak.
Hello, this is my first debate. Any rules i should know about before i start?