Solving the nations problems.

[F CHARLIE]

The key is to have most if not all income growth be realized by the lower and middle classes. For the last 30 years nearly all income growth has gone to the top 20%~ with the top 1% getting a large amount amount of that. Some 60% of income earners have a negative income growth against inflation during that time all the while productivity hss grown every year. What this means is that the average worker hasnt been reaping the benifit of their ever increasing effectiveness. This won't solve everything like I said but will dramatically ease many of the problems that exist.

[The 4th Harbringer]

The key is to have most if not all income growth be realized by the lower and middle classes. For the last 30 years nearly all income growth has gone to the top 20%~ with the top 1% getting a large amount amount of that. Some 60% of income earners have a negative income growth against inflation during that time all the while productivity hss grown every year. What this means is that the average worker hasnt been reaping the benifit of their ever increasing effectiveness. This won't solve everything like I said but will dramatically ease many of the problems that exist.

Then go make a business and pay your employees better, then. This isn't a place the government should intervene in. It's monstrous and meddles too much already.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

Going to take it to a bit of an extreme, but what do you think would happen if business was no longer profitable for the upper class (i.e. the CEOS/employers)? --They would stop running the business, they would stop employing workers, they would employ less workers, they would cut pay, they would do whatever they had to do to maintain their bottom dollar. Taking potential profit from the upper class ultimately results in a lack of profit to the lower and middle classes. 

[F CHARLIE]

Going to take it to a bit of an extreme, but what do you think would happen if business was no longer profitable for the upper class (i.e. the CEOS/employers)? --They would stop running the business, they would stop employing workers, they would employ less workers, they would cut pay, they would do whatever they had to do to maintain their bottom dollar. Taking potential profit from the upper class ultimately results in a lack of profit to the lower and middle classes.

 

Not true, before 1981 the upper bracket tax rate was around 70% and that was after a tax breack from 90% in the early 60's. CEO's/owners don't matter. They have no meaning to demand. There will be less big corperations and many smaller ones with many more CEOs/owners but with each having smaller income. It is simply a matter of extremly discouraging income above a certain amount. In reality it is better to have smaller, more easily managed, more flexible companies. Mega coorperations are often inefficient and abusive. Essentially its better to have 100 people making 1 million each than 1 person making 100 million. The upper class offer a lot less than you think. A comparison can be to say that those near the top work 400 times harder than average middle class person in order to justify their income. Not 400%, 400 times. That is impossible and can never be considered true no matter what they do. It has always been the case that the wealthy have vastly more power and over time will take more than their value.

[F CHARLIE]

Then go make a business and pay your employees better, then. This isn't a place the government should intervene in. It's monstrous and meddles too much already.

 

If you understand business you would realize that the government is the only one who can do this or do you like poisoned drinking water and you must not mind drug companies selling you useless medicine.

[The 4th Harbringer]

If you understand business you would realize that the government is the only one who can do this or do you like poisoned drinking water and you must not mind drug companies selling you useless medicine.

I'll be honest, your post isn't even worth responding to. Stop drinking the blue kool aid, for your own sake.

[F CHARLIE]

I'll be honest, your post isn't even worth responding to. Stop drinking the blue kool aid, for your own sake.

 

 

I don't, I do research, I used to be a Republican and facts along with history disprove their hardline ideology. 

[The 4th Harbringer]

I don't, I do research, I used to be a Republican and facts along with history disprove their hardline ideology.

Then how come you don't use any hard facts? Why don't you see from history the ineffectiveness and destructiveness of liberal tampering (see: The Great Depression, The Vietnam War, The US Involvement in World War I)? What is it that you don't like of their ideology, the fact that they don't think men should wear a wedding ring, an extremely minor social issue? Why do you think that people need to fit squarely within the polities of Democratic Neo-Conservatism or Republican Neo-Conservatism? Why do you assume that Republicans are the root of all evil when the Democrats have done just as much damage, if not substantially more, in recent years?

 

It sounds like you're pretending to know something that you don't. You're not special for stating some tired liberal catchphrases and playing robin hood, and defending it by vaguely stating that "history supports it."

[♠Derpeh♤]

Start by getting rid of your guns :3

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

Start by getting rid of your guns :3

Right, because the criminals all have legally purchased and registered guns. 

[F CHARLIE]

Then how come you don't use any hard facts? Why don't you see from history the ineffectiveness and destructiveness of liberal tampering (see: The Great Depression, The Vietnam War, The US Involvement in World War I)? What is it that you don't like of their ideology, the fact that they don't think men should wear a wedding ring, an extremely minor social issue? Why do you think that people need to fit squarely within the polities of Democratic Neo-Conservatism or Republican Neo-Conservatism? Why do you assume that Republicans are the root of all evil when the Democrats have done just as much damage, if not substantially more, in recent years?It sounds like you're pretending to know something that you don't. You're not special for stating some tired liberal catchphrases and playing robin hood, and defending it by vaguely stating that "history supports it."

 

1. Great Deppression was the result of one the worst financial crisis caused by rampant over speculation and a lack of regulation and/regulation enforcement. In fact most of the worst finacial crisises are due to speculation. The land crisis in 1800s, the great depression, the financial crisis of 2007. All of these were caused by market speculators and ruined the lives of many people. (Oops, forgot the S&L crisis)

 

2. The Vietnam War was not a liberal cause. Dont you remember the anti war liberals. The West was afraid of the Communist take over of the world. The korean war and the vietnam war are direct results of that. Fervant anti communism was stoked by Mcarthy, a conservative republican.

 

3. I don't know why you mentioned WWI. That has not been considered a blunder accept that we could have saved more lives if we had entered earlier and may have prevented WW2 if we would have been members of the League of Nations but there was too much oposition from people with Ron Paul's attitude towards such things.

 

 

You may not like to hear this but the Republican party would cease as you know it if not for the prolife stance they have. That is their strongest core of support.

[♠Derpeh♤]

Right, because the criminals all have legally purchased and registered guns.

 

Because it's totally hard for a criminal in merica to get their hands on a gun...

 

I live in australia and it's damn near impossible to get a gun unless it's for sport or something and even that is pretty darn restricted. Rarely ever do we heard about people getting shot through out the year then we see the news in america...

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

Because it's totally hard for a criminal in merica to get their hands on a gun...

The criminals have illegal guns. If you take away the right to own guns, then you're taking the guns away from the innocents. The criminals will still have their guns. Also, in some states in damn near impossible (i.e. New Jersey). 

 

States which allow you to carry a weapon have lower crime rates than those who don't (whether or not thats caused by being allowed to carry guns or not doesn't matter, BUT crime doesn't increase because of it--i.e. theres no downside to allowing guns). But i do believe it is the ability to carry that actually decreases crime rates---are you going to rob someone who potentially has a gun in his pocket (or when everyone around you has a gun in their pocket--you might be able to knock out the one guy and take his stuff, but everyone around him will stop you). 

[♠Derpeh♤]

The criminals have illegal guns. If you take away the right to own guns, then you're taking the guns away from the innocents. The criminals will still have their guns. Also, in some states in damn near impossible (i.e. New Jersey).

 

States which allow you to carry a weapon have lower crime rates than those who don't (whether or not thats caused by being allowed to carry guns or not doesn't matter, BUT crime doesn't increase because of it--i.e. theres no downside to allowing guns). But i do believe it is the ability to carry that actually decreases crime rates---are you going to rob someone who potentially has a gun in his pocket (or when everyone around you has a gun in their pocket--you might be able to knock out the one guy and take his stuff, but everyone around him will stop you).

 

I live in australia and it's damn near impossible to get a gun we rarely heard about people getting shot through out the year then we see the news in america.

I maybe biased as i dont live in america and have lives my entire lived in a county were our "armed robbery" mainly consists of a guy and a knife. Compared to where i live a person wouldnt be able to get their hands on a gun anywhere near that of america.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

And the population of Australia is 20 million vs America which is 320million.

 

Plus you also never hear about all the crimes stopped by someone owning a gun. Only shootings make news. If you go by the news then the only thing that happens in nyc is muggings, rapes, armed robbery, and traffic.

[F CHARLIE]

And the population of Australia is 20 million vs America which is 320million.

Plus you also never hear about all the crimes stopped by someone owning a gun. Only shootings make news. If you go by the news then the only thing that happens in nyc is muggings, rapes, armed robbery, and traffic.

 

If you are going to be shot it is most likely going to be your own gun. Also, accidental shootings as well as thieves using your gun against you. Thieves will also use your gun in future crimes after they stole it from you. Guns also leads to more succesfull suicides than other methods. Suicide survivors by far regret the attempt.

 

In reality, gun ownership is a purchase to give you a sense of relief from your fears in life. Most gun owners live in suburbia and will never be confronted with s danger requiring a gun. Nor will the gun be usefull to them as it is likely in a lock box for safety or not in a place that is handy. They have the gun to help alleve a psychological need for security unrelated to a personal attacker but instead the stresses of life.

[♠Derpeh♤]

And the population of Australia is 20 million vs America which is 320million.

 

Plus you also never hear about all the crimes stopped by someone owning a gun. Only shootings make news. If you go by the news then the only thing that happens in nyc is muggings, rapes, armed robbery, and traffic.

 

Regardless im more looking at the percentage wise, to me having guns creates more problem than it fixes. A gun somewhat being accessible to most  people or even stolen from people who own them has the potential to kill alot of people. Where as here it's like Lol what you're going to steal my knife? not to mention half the people here bloody learn at least one form of marital arts.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/do-people-get-shot-every-year-facebook-post-says/

 

Not sure if legit but

 

The first is data for deaths by guns, which is included in an annual report about deaths of all types during calendar year 2009. The numbers for gun deaths is broken down into several categories:

 

Suicide: 18,735 deaths

Homicide: 11,493 deaths

Unintentional: 554 deaths

Legal interventions: 333 deaths

Undetermined: 232 deaths

 

Total: 31,347 deaths

 

The second data set tracks non-fatal injuries by guns. According to the CDC, there were 73,505 non-fatal firearm injuries in 2010.

 

In reality, gun ownership is a purchase to give you a sense of relief from your fears in life. Most gun owners live in suburbia and will never be confronted with s danger requiring a gun. Nor will the gun be usefull to them as it is likely in a lock box for safety or not in a place that is handy. They have the gun to help alleve a psychological need for security unrelated to a personal attacker but instead the stresses of life.

^this

 

Because ive been living in a country where owning a gun is near impossible i really dont see the point in trying to own one unless i know the other person can easily get one then that might change my attitude.

[F CHARLIE]

Then how come you don't use any hard facts? Why don't you see from history the ineffectiveness and destructiveness of liberal tampering (see: The Great Depression, The Vietnam War, The US Involvement in World War I)? What is it that you don't like of their ideology, the fact that they don't think men should wear a wedding ring, an extremely minor social issue? Why do you think that people need to fit squarely within the polities of Democratic Neo-Conservatism or Republican Neo-Conservatism? Why do you assume that Republicans are the root of all evil when the Democrats have done just as much damage, if not substantially more, in recent years?It sounds like you're pretending to know something that you don't. You're not special for stating some tired liberal catchphrases and playing robin hood, and defending it by vaguely stating that "history supports it."

 

 

Btw, did you choose these because democrats were in office at the time of each event.

[The 4th Harbringer]

Btw, did you choose these because democrats were in office at the time of each event.

My friends on Skype told I'm wasting my time trying to discuss anything serious with Mr. Liberal Kool Aid again, but fuck that, you're just getting annoyingly stupid.

 

1. Great Deppression was the result of one the worst financial crisis caused by rampant over speculation and a lack of regulation and/regulation enforcement. In fact most of the worst finacial crisises are due to speculation. The land crisis in 1800s, the great depression, the financial crisis of 2007. All of these were caused by market speculators and ruined the lives of many people. (Oops, forgot the S&L crisis)

 

2. The Vietnam War was not a liberal cause. Dont you remember the anti war liberals. The West was afraid of the Communist take over of the world. The korean war and the vietnam war are direct results of that. Fervant anti communism was stoked by Mcarthy, a conservative republican.

 

3. I don't know why you mentioned WWI. That has not been considered a blunder accept that we could have saved more lives if we had entered earlier and may have prevented WW2 if we would have been members of the League of Nations but there was too much oposition from people with Ron Paul's attitude towards such things.

 

 

You may not like to hear this but the Republican party would cease as you know it if not for the prolife stance they have. That is their strongest core of support.

 

> #1

 

Not just overspeculation, but also the failure to reclaim loans from Europe from World War I.

 

It is widely accepted by various prolific economists that Franklin D. Roosevelt was solely responsible for the continuation of the Great Depression throughout the mid 30s. He was responsible for the Recession of 1937-1938, which plummeted the US back into complete disparity again.

 

 

It wasn't until World War II that the economy "recovered" (when in reality, things were just as bad, but the war production provided jobs, with solider going overseas and women/men/blacks working the factories.) In 1939-1940 unemployment started decreasing again, as a natural recovery from Roosevelt's depression. It was over-speculation that caused the Depression, and liberal policies that continued it.

 

> #2

 

It was not a liberal cause, but it was the liberals who supported its escalation in the first place, being too stupid to realize it was something they would regret. Lyndon B. Johnson had nearly 100% support for the passing of the Tonkin Resolution of 1964, that gave him supreme power over the armed forces in Vietnam. It was Richard Nixon who won over Hubert Humphrey in 1968 because his conservative politics and pledge to exit the war; Humphrey and the Liberals had no intent to leave what they started.

 

> #3

 

> Saved more lives

 

That's just moronic. We caused further strife by entering a war we had no reason to enter. We began loaning sums of money and resources to France/England/Russia rather than Germany/Ottomans and locked ourselves in; Wilson and his liberal followers maintained that there needed to be "peace" in Europe. He introduced the League of Nations, knowing ahead of time that America had become isolationist throughout the war effort. He knew it wouldn't pass much in advance, and as a result, it didn't pass when he brought it to congress. Germany became downtrodden, when they should have won the war or ended in stalement. As a result, Europe's economy went down the shitter, as could only be expected, and we began loaning large amounts of credit to Europe that they could never really pay back. We became tied to them, and didn't get our investments back. They crashed further, we crashed, and credit went down the shitter too. Mix that with over-speculation, and you have a depression.

 

WWI involvement WAS a blunder by a liberal president and congress; the Great Depression WAS partially caused by that blunder and never recovered as fast as it could have BECAUSE of failed liberal policy; and Vietnam WAS another case of liberal tampering.

[Vegan T-Rex]

Because it's totally hard for a criminal in merica to get their hands on a gun...

 

I live in australia and it's damn near impossible to get a gun unless it's for sport or something and even that is pretty darn restricted. Rarely ever do we heard about people getting shot through out the year then we see the news in america...

T.Abbott

are you ok? 

[F CHARLIE]

My friends on Skype told I'm wasting my time trying to discuss anything serious with Mr. Liberal Kool Aid again, but fuck that, you're just getting annoyingly stupid.

 

 

 

> #1

 

Not just overspeculation, but also the failure to reclaim loans from Europe from World War I.  -  Will touch this in three

 

It is widely accepted by various prolific economists that Franklin D. Roosevelt was solely responsible for the continuation of the Great Depression throughout the mid 30s. He was responsible for the Recession of 1937-1938, which plummeted the US back into complete disparity again.

 

** False - "A contributing factor to the Recession of 1937 was a tightening of monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve doubled reserve requirements between August 1936 and May 1937^[20] leading to a contraction in the money supply."

 

** As you may know the President has no say over what the Federal Reserve does.  The policy of doubling reserve requirements was a wise one, tho temporarily damaging to the economy.  One of the early components to the Great Depression was the run on the banks which destroyed money supply.  As we were using the gold standard we could not temporarily increase money with out dramatically increasing interest rates which in turn would also damage investing.

> #2

 

It was not a liberal cause, but it was the liberals who supported its escalation in the first place, being too stupid to realize it was something they would regret. Lyndon B. Johnson had nearly 100% support for the passing of the Tonkin Resolution of 1964, that gave him supreme power over the armed forces in Vietnam. It was Richard Nixon who won over Hubert Humphrey in 1968 because his conservative politics and pledge to exit the war; Humphrey and the Liberals had no intent to leave what they started.

 

** Remember, its hard to admit you made a mistake(Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney....Iraq), regardless, the war in Vietnam was not a Liberal idea.  Anti-communism was national policy.  Nixon has never really been considered conservative.

 

> #3

 

We caused further strife by entering a war we had no reason to enter. We began loaning sums of money and resources to France/England/Russia rather than Germany/Ottomans and locked ourselves in; Wilson and his liberal followers maintained that there needed to be "peace" in Europe. He introduced the League of Nations, knowing ahead of time that America had become isolationist throughout the war effort. He knew it wouldn't pass much in advance, and as a result, it didn't pass when he brought it to congress. Germany became downtrodden, when they should have won the war or ended in stalement. As a result, Europe's economy went down the shitter, as could only be expected, and we began loaning large amounts of credit to Europe that they could never really pay back. We became tied to them, and didn't get our investments back. They crashed further, we crashed, and credit went down the shitter too. Mix that with over-speculation, and you have a depression.

 

WWI involvement WAS a blunder by a liberal president and congress; the Great Depression WAS partially caused by that blunder and never recovered as fast as it could have BECAUSE of failed liberal policy; and Vietnam WAS another case of liberal tampering.  - This is all wrong

 

 

** Here is where you go off without thinking.  Since the founding of the country the US had been an export economy (at least up to the 1960s or so).  Who do you think we sold to?   Ding ding ding your right, Europe.  Right up to the point where we decided to enter the war we were selling mainly weapons to each side.  We needed a vibrant and strong economy in Europe in order to keep ourselves going.  Now, how long would that last before there was no viable market left in Europe?  Not sure but we probably entered just in time to keep that from happening.  There was also the Zimmerman thing and the sinking of the Lusitania with Americans on board.  Those helped us decide which side to go in with.

 

If we had not entered the war our economy would have shattered as it was not capable of supplying demand for what we produced.  Again, I want to point out that Europe was the main buyer for our economy.  We needed them and were tied to them heavily.  We had to enter or we would have been crushed economically.  It was a global crisis that involved everyone else and then we came to the party.  Woodrow Wilson, and many others, knew this and tried to get our country to intervene earlier but the American people, at that time, were much more isolationist and didn't understand what was at stake.  In reality, how could they?  Most people still lived in rural countrysides that had little to with anything 5 miles outside their county.  If you think people don't understand whats going on in the world today, try to imagine being in the US then.  The news papers were all local and occasionally mentioned what happened elsewhere.

 

As for your garbage statement about reclaiming war loans.  Those loans were incredibly smart.  We gave them the money and they, in turn, bought a bunch of materials from us to rebuild their war torn countries (except Germany because UK and France wanted to shit on them which we didn't like but couldn't stop).  We didn't care if they repaid us because we got all the money back as soon as we gave it to them.  The same thing happened after WW2.  The loans went out and Europe had to buy tons of supplies from us.  Part of the boom following WW2 here was because of that.  Most people think we spent billions of dollars fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan when in reality, most (like over 90%) of that money came right back into our economy.  We spent money on military equipment (from ourselves), we paid troops, who spend the money mostly in our economy.  They don't buy much there, it gets saved and spent when they get home.

 

 

Now, stop listening to the likes of Ron Paul.  There is a reason no one cares for his opinions.  They would ruin us.  Also, I will not allow you to hijack my thread anymore.  Comment on the original idea.  None of what you talked about is true or relevant to my assertion.

[F CHARLIE]

 

 

 

 

The lower four fifths of income earners are actually loosing income against inflation.  The upper fifth is getting around 3.4 % annual income growth averaged for that group.  If you consider the GDP growth rate for much of that time period was around 4 -6 %, it seems reasonable to argue that almost all of the economic growth goes to the top 5% or so, leaving the rest of the country to loose income year over year.

 

That is unsustainable.  The strength of the lower 3/5ths income earners is the defining feature of a strong economy yet ours has been getting weaker for 30 years.

[F CHARLIE]

The largest single problem this country, any country, has is income growth in the low - middle classes. All problems can be fixed if that happens. If not than no other fixes will work.

[The 4th Harbringer]

Now, stop listening to the likes of Ron Paul.  There is a reason no one cares for his opinions.  They would ruin us.  Also, I will not allow you to hijack my thread anymore.  Comment on the original idea.  None of what you talked about is true or relevant to my assertion.

> Thinking that taking part in war of any form is a smart idea or economically beneficial

 

> Now, stop listening to the likes of Ron Paul

> Implying I do, he's a dipshit but some of his ideas are coincidentally pretty good

 

> They would ruin us.

 

Y'know, the current policies that the government is running with aren't really doing us much good. Explain how it could get even slightly worse?

 

> Also, I will not allow you to hijack my thread anymore.  Comment on the original idea.

 

I did, and all you did was spew liberal bullshit. You come in and say "BURN THE RIIIIICH" and piss your blue cool aid piss all over your posts without even coming up with a plausible way to fix what you see as problems.

 

> None of what you talked about is true or relevant to my assertion.

 

Because it's an assertion a liberal college student at some shitty university would say.

 

The largest single problem this country, any country, has is income growth in yhe low - middle classes. All problems can be fixed if that happens. If not than no other fixes will work.

Read your post again and notice how it doesn't even give a way to fix this problem.

 

Your thread has no purpose as it currently stands, so it's probably for better or worse that I "hijacked" it.

 

Carry on, your points are somewhat well researched but they have an extremely liberal spin, and the point you made about the war loans is completely wrong. If you'd like to discuss it further, make another topic then, since you seem to want this one to stay "on topic".

 

With that I will fall back from this topic.

[Pyrocide]

Well that escalated quickly.

 

My thoughts:

 

Flat 15% tax. Get rid of IRS and income tax. This way everyone pays taxes and there are no loop holes for any person, rich or poor to weasel out of.

Mandatory bi monthly drug screens for welfare - or cut it entirely

100% Insurance coverage (non-VA) for all current and previous military personnel (excluding the dishonorable/imprisoned)\

Debt ceiling DEcrease

Cut foreign aid to 10-20% of current expenditures and funnel that money into the US where it should be going

Pull out of middle east entirely - let them burn themselves down

Social medicine would work if done right, Osamacare is not done right.

Approval for lethal protection of the border and illegal aliens crossing.

Stop our "police the world" ideology

Congressmen/women are no longer exempt from the laws they force on the US citizens

 

a few more minor ones, but that's about the gist of it..