bmdrocks21

And vouchers are the best option right now. They can use the voucher to choose the school their child goes to. If they are concerned about their child going to a school that doesn't accommodate their disabilities, they can still send them to the public school. 

Vouchers aren't a perfect free market system, but they are closer than just funding public schools. This way, there is more competition on the part of the public school to retain their funding.

So in other words...... you want people having as many children as possible so that they can make money? How about (and this just might be a CrAzY iDeA) but... you don't have kids if you cannot afford to have kids?!?

Well, here is how economics works with employment, rent control, etc. There is a supply and a demand line. If the rate forced by the government is higher than the equilibrium rate, then there will be unemployment (for rent control it is opposite). If it is below the equilibrium rate, then it will have no effect whatsoever.

Supply-side economics is the actual correct version of economics. Let's use wealth redistribution as an example. The government has two choices: it can take one million dollars from Bill Gates (Or any other millionaire/billionaire) or it can give two dollars to 500,000 poor people. Tell me, what is better for the economy: 500,000 people buying hamburgers for McDonalds or letting a rich entrepreneur create a new, innovative product that will improve our lives. He could also just wisely invest it in companies that can create jobs with that. Poor people spend their money frivolously. Wealth redistribution is generally a bad idea. Remember, rich investors are the reason that you can afford a cell phone, computer, microwave, or any other item that used to only be a luxury item.

You will have to show me proof that people would be paid one or two dollars and hour. Especially considering that companies like Amazon, Wal-Mart, etc often offer starting wages that are well over the limit. Heck, I am 19 years old and got $16/hour in my internship. Is that because we had a $7.25 minimum wage?

*Guess I am one of those supply-side freaks*

You do need everyone to have money. However, poor people might buy lavish deli meats, Air Jordan shoes, or other things that aren't good for our economy. I'd rather that money get spent investing in a tech company or something useful. Obviously you need consumers, but you'll have to prove that slave wages will occur, when I have proven that they aren't really the case. Most if not all jobs that pay the minimum are geared towards teenagers (who haven't worked before, and therefore their labor isn't worth much). If you don't want minimum wage, don't do minimum wage work. 

If employers only paid the minimum, then why would a company like Amazon put a company-wide minimum wage of $15 in place? They didn't have to. I can understand why restaurants want to pay the minimum: their average profit margin is 3-5%. So, either they will increase the price of goods substantially, which gets us at the same place, or they go out of business. 

You mentioned a lot of brazen claims without substantiation. 

However, you commit a large fallacy about how economics works. You mention a minimum wage stimulates the economy. Where does that money come from? Well, the company would have either invested it in creating more jobs, it would go in a bank, or it would be invested in other companies. In a bank, it is loaned out so people can buy houses, start businesses, etc. 

Also, all this does is hurt the poor. It makes it unprofitable to hire anyone who has no experience or education, which are generally poor people or teenagers who want job experience. Someone who has never held a job before likely cannot make a restaurant more than they need to be paid by law.

Companies also cut benefits, so there is that. Minimum wages are really stupid, my good sir.

Profit Margin Statistic

I am pretty pro free-market. However, I do not believe that it is perfect. There are some times I believe it fails us, I just draw that line at a different place than you. I think that 100% free market is a bad idea. I believe in protectionism, for instance. I don't believe shipping out jobs is worth the slightly cheaper crap from China.

You were my first debate win. Take it easy, my dude :)

And they wonder why businesses are choosing to automate everything....

Yeah, but I don't think that DC is really worth emulating to be fair. My point was that popular ideas aren't always the best ones. 

I understand that, but that doesn't make it a good idea. 

Hey man, that is capitalist propaganda. Competition = bad.

I am for lowering immigration quotas, if that helps. Also, of those people allowed in the country, there would be educational requirements. I don't intend on letting in too much unskilled labor, so undercutting wouldn't be too big of an issue.

But good point. I do support the national workforce. I just also recognize that a minimum wage causes a lot of inefficiencies. For instance, a $15 minimum wage would screw over restaurants royally. They have tiny profit margins as is.

Pretty open and shut case here, it seems. I agree, a minimum wage yields less jobs, less hours, and/or higher prices. If you need to provide for a family, don't work at McDonald's. If you work at McDonald's, don't start a family. Some people just can't get that.

I would also like to add that if you were to have a minimum wage, I could see supporting it at the state or city/county level. However, a national minimum wage is just incredibly stupid. Costs of living and available jobs differ WIDELY across the US, so a national minimum wage makes no sense. Any liberals out there disagree?

Honestly, I think I'll ignore him. I never see you on the debate side of the site. How are you, sir?

Yes, because English and English are two different languages....

I think that spam threads should be prohibited.

Debates with banned users should definitely not be permitted. They give super easy wins to some people who skyrocket in the leaderboards. This then undermines the leaderboard of any real meaning.(I'm looking at you RM)

"It's just English vocabulary not advanced vocabulary little one."

Your sentence structure is atrocious. Back to grammar school with you!  You are missing at least two commas.

You also forgot a question mark after "don't you know." You used a period. It was also a run-on sentence missing a verb.

I don't know how my big words could be considered "kind", either.

I could go on if you wanted. Obviously you have no right to an elitist attitude based on your grammar skills(or lack thereof). Goodbye, mouth-breather! 

1. Yes

2. Yes

3.Yes

4.Yes(I would prefer temporary ban reasons displayed as well)

I would wager that took you six hours on Merriam-Webster.com to write. Anyone can feign intimate knowledge of advanced vocabulary. Not everyone can create a coherent argument, as evinced by your comments in this thread and your lack of debate participation. If looking up big words makes you feel smart, go ahead. Just remember that it doesn't make you smart. :)

This is one definition of "nerd". It accurately described him: "a foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills" 

Ok, if you ever want to say something even remotely intelligent, let me know. Until then, later nerd!

Again, post your country so that we can compare and contrast. You could continue to prove that you're an ignorant coward, though. That works too.

Oh, you know It! Because the third world doesn't exist, I guess.

False.

Foreign aid hasn't worked in the past. The government is too corrupt. I don't think Greenland is, though.

Ah... I just checked your profile. Too scared to debate people, eh? Figures. Anyone with an IQ as staggeringly low as yours should avoid debates whenever possible. Don't want to humiliate yourself, now, do you?

You're not very good at trolling, my dude. Your refusal to mention the country you live in proves your insecurity in your ideas. This is obviously a result of your excessive ignorance of statistics. All you can do is insult America and our president, but there is no substance to anything you say. So, I put no stock in anything you say. 

How about this: you tell me what country you're from, and I explain how America is better. Don't worry, I'll use small words so you can comprehend my explanation.

You're too frightened to name your country because you know it is utter garbage led by a leftist imbecile. Scanadanavian countries are worse by nearly every metric. Enjoy your thought police, rape, and terrorism. :)

We have Trump as president because we want to solve our immigration issues. Don't want to end up like Europe with an influx of rape and terrorism. ^_^

Seems like we have an overly-aggressive inbred on our hands.

They are forcing countries to accept migrants. Sounds like forced migration to me

I'm referring to the crisis in Europe. The EU requires countries to accept a quota of migrants https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/world/europe/eu-migrants-hungary-slovakia.amp.html As we have seen in the UK and Sweden, they are probably never going back. So, more or less forced migration

Considering that we are much more free and economically powerful than either of these nations, I'd say we have very little to gain compared to them. Also, I don't want people I didn't elect from different countries dictating how I live my life. Consider the forced migration the EU initiated and the effects of that on Europe. 

However, bagged milk would be nice, so maybe....

As a side note, not a fan of IVF. They throw away or experiment on extra fertilized eggs. It also has lower success rates unless there are severe problems on the woman's part. So, if it raises rates of miscarriage, I'm generally against it, but I wouldn't make using it illegal if it is used to induce pregnancy

Or actually growing a child outside of a womb?

In terms of birth control, I think condoms are fine. I'm not a big fan of "the pill" because it messes with Women's hormones and can have pretty bad health effects. What do you mean by artificial womb? IVF?

Well, I believe in the inalienable rights. They are inherent. Not sure how much you read. Government's are set up to protect those rights. They don't always do it, obviously. I'm sure you would agree right to life is important. I'm sure we'd disagree on abortion, so let us use the example of adult on adult murder. If the government isn't stopping people from murdering each other, that doesn't mean that they don't have a right to life. It just means we aren't guarding that right to life. Hence my stance on abortion. I think it is murder, and we aren't stopping it.

It acknowledges them...except in cases of abortion, unjustified wars, and other such things

Essentially. I am saying that you and I have the right to life unless we do something to forfeit that right(ie attempt to murder someone-self defense). Whether or not the government or other citizens respect it, it is something that we do have a right to have

Ok, so you are arguing from a legal standpoint. You are arguing that the government gives the right to life at birth. Well, unfortunately, the government isn't the author of rights. It is put into place for the people, not the other way around. If you want to argue from the government perspective, try defending Nazis and Communists who didn't offer rights to Jews or Capitalists. It was perfectly legal, but I doubt you would admit they are justified. Correct? Rights exist, whether or not the government protects them or approves of them. The right to life exists for all humans, despite our government's laws and policies

I would like to get this straight because you seem to simultaneously hold two positions. If you are arguing for when it is no longer a potential person, your argument must be viability. It can't be being released from the womb. That has nothing to do for potential life. However, it is not a potential life as a fetus. It is a life. It may not survive pregnancy, but until it dies, it is alive in every sense of the word.

Being born has nothing to do with living. One second before and after birth, what significant physical changes does it go through that makes it alive vs not alive. To expand on that, do you think it is dead before it is born?

They are biologically human. They are not their mother-they have different, distinct DNA. So, under what pretense are you making this claim?

Ok, use semantics to cherry coat the truth: babies are being slaughtered

Well the IRA used guerilla tactics and bombs to make the British leave their country. The British occupied Ireland, gave them no representation, etc. I'm discussing the provisional IRA, which is the IRA only during The Troubles.

The Irish Republican Army was a paramilitary group that fought against the British invaders. Were their acts justified based on Britain's maltreatment of the Irish, or did they go too far?

I agree that he was hard on communism, but he was super naive. He thought we had a detente with the Russians and they proceeded to crush the revolts of their satellite state, Hungary. Near the end of his presidency, he halted bombing of Vietnam just to try to help Humphrey win. Seemed like he cared about his party more than foreign relations. Also, he is a major reason that our spending is out of control today. It is easy to create new spending programs like social security, but it is nearly impossible to take it away. He and FDR are to blame on this matter. Getting rid of radical talking points was to help his party. Richard Nixon ran on a platform to reduce wasteful government spending and won by a decent margin, showing that most Americans hated what the Great Society did to our country.

Lyndon B Johnson was the worst president in history. His war on poverty actually caused rates of poverty to stop declining, as it offered strong incentives to not work. The model cities program is part of what made Detroit the economic wasteland that it is today. His methods of escalation and botched foreign policy probably prolonged the Cold War and Vietnam War, which caused the death of thousands of American soldiers. His Great Society programs caused huge deficits and caused stagflation. Overall, terrible president.