I almost fell out of my chair laughing...

[bk94si]

Bah forget it,you will never understand what I mean,most americans wont.
If you want to understand do some research on Bakunin and his principles on anarchism and how it promotes equallity not only to working class people but to even more opressed peaseants and alike through the abolition of capitalism and the state

Name one place that anarchism has worked. Abolition of capitalism?

[smoked trout]

The humor is that Republicans will only 'allow' millions of peoples' wages to be improved if a few thousand wealthy people can keep their wealth. It's a priority thing that dispels any idea of "compassionate conservativism".

'Allow' in quotes, very good, as nobody is stopping employers from paying people more than the minimum wage, in fact some people actually make more than minimum wage. Now, another way of wording your sentence above, and perhaps more appropriate, would be "Dems would only allow estates to be untaxed if they can force employers to pay employees (without any skills) more."

You see, that 1 million dollar minimum on estate taxes is not a penalty for the 'rich', heck my estate would be worth more than that if I was to die today and I'm by no means rich. It's a money grab, a double taxation, performed by a looting govt. who's already taken their slice of my pie. And leaving a nice chunk of dough for my kids when I'm gone is an important part of my American Dream.

Is that the "American Dream"?

Been reading the Dem's 'American Dream' plan? Force employers to pay for retirement for all. Every single job in the country must pay into a retirement account What a crock. My American Dream is for me to be able to better myself and afford my own retirement. And I'm living it. I suggest you start working towards the same goals as there's a good lot of Americans who don't want dole out retirements for all, they want all to earn it.

[Poci]

Name one place that anarchism has worked. Abolition of capitalism?

OK here ya go.This is taken from the wikipedia entry on the Spanish revolution of 1936 which led to the spanish civil war the same year:

Along with the fight against fascism was a profound libertarian revolution throughout Spain.

Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy socialist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers. George Orwell describes a scene in Aragon during this time period, in his book, Homage to Catalonia:

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.
The anarchist held areas were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." In some places, money was entirely eliminated, to be replaced with vouchers. Under this system, goods were often up to a quarter of their previous cost.

Despite the critics clamoring for maximum efficiency, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy.


As you can see above it can and has worked,you just dont see that due to it being faded out after the Nationalists won the war and had all the communists and anarchist jailed or executed.Even the communists were fighting anarchists.
And years before all this shit back when Marx and Engles were writting the communist manifesto and they were part of the First International they kicked Bakunin out of it due to his criticizing of communism.
It can be best described in this qoute:
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick."

[bk94si]

Sorry, they replaced one bad system with another bad system. Spain has not exactly been the envy of the world. For the last 200 years it is the capitalist economies that have had the highest standard of living.

Class divisions disappear when everyone is poor. Not the answer I'm looking for.

[Orangutan]

'Allow' in quotes, very good, as nobody is stopping employers from paying people more than the minimum wage, in fact some people actually make more than minimum wage. Now, another way of wording your sentence above, and perhaps more appropriate, would be "Dems would only allow estates to be untaxed if they can force employers to pay employees (without any skills) more."

Indeed that would be more appropriate considering Republicans are in control of all three branches of government and Democrats play a bit role at best. Companies are free to pay more than minimum wage but they are restrained from paying less than it.

You see, that 1 million dollar minimum on estate taxes is not a penalty for the 'rich', heck my estate would be worth more than that if I was to die today and I'm by no means rich. It's a money grab, a double taxation, performed by a looting govt. who's already taken their slice of my pie. And leaving a nice chunk of dough for my kids when I'm gone is an important part of my American Dream.

It is double taxation, but how many people does it really affect? Why have the Republicans focused on it instead of focusing on the issue that affects drastically more people? Because the people who are affected by the estate tax have more money to contribute to campaigns.

Been reading the Dem's 'American Dream' plan? Force employers to pay for retirement for all. Every single job in the country must pay into a retirement account What a crock. My American Dream is for me to be able to better myself and afford my own retirement. And I'm living it. I suggest you start working towards the same goals as there's a good lot of Americans who don't want dole out retirements for all, they want all to earn it.

Been reading LB's playbook? Where did I say that employers had to pay for everyone's retirement? And how did my work ethic, abilities, and plan come into the argument here?

[notdrugged]

Jungleman makes a good point that government should stay out of business. Very true indeed. But as I said, if you want to do something with the minimum wage law, affect it by putting businesses on equal ground. Stop giving them incentives to balance the other evils such as minimum wage, high taxation, over-regulation, etc. They seem to think it's all about balancing the wrongs with other wrongs to make it right. They want to do something, they need to start at the bottom. Fair taxation for Americans, stop supporting monopolies with shitty management, stop over-regulating, and start expecting business and individuals alike to carve their own future on their own merits.

Just butt the hell out. If a business does poorly on their lack of proper management, then let it be. Let business who are smart enough to manage themselves step up to the plate. They have no business in business. Democracy is was not meant to be Corporate Republic, which is what we really are.

We all know why this will never happen though. Again, I say, it's the structure of the two-party government. It's just a fact that government is based on special interest here. The democrats and republicans both have loyalty and responsibility to the corporations who put them in power. Our Corporate Republic style government seems unable to regulate itself, so what makes it think it can regulate corporate America?

Bam! TLR congress in '08. Show us the ass and we'll put our foots in it.

[Poci]

Sorry, they replaced one bad system with another bad system. Spain has not exactly been the envy of the world. For the last 200 years it is the capitalist economies that have had the highest standard of living.

Class divisions disappear when everyone is poor. Not the answer I'm looking for.

lol capitalist economies highest standard of living?ROFLMFAO
Im curious whats your occupation and social class?

I dont know what your definition of poor is but mine is someone who cant even provide food for thier families,thats poverty my freind and in catalonia everyone had food
Not the answer your looking for?You said show me one place anarchism worked and I showed you it yet you still refuse to accept the facts
FYI fascism is the ultimate form of capitalism.Thats BAD mmmkayy not anarchism which is true FREEDOM.Ive said this in another post and Ill repeat myself,Thomas Jefferson the 3rd american president was an anarchist

And as for spain not being the envy of the world.LOL did I say it was?
Truth is the conflict was the PREQUEL to WW2 and was testing grounds for German and Soviet weapons.
And the conflict had volunteers from across the world INCLUDING THE USA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Brigade

[JungleMan]

Do you know what happens when businesses set their own rules? Sweat shops, child and slave labor, unsafe conditions with high death and injury rates, and crappy products. I don't think we need a return to 19th Century business practices simply to appease the minds of a few folks who can think of little but money and some false idea of a "free market".

Yes, because our economy and unemployment rate is so terrible right now without an artifically high minimum wage, and a position that argues against an artifically high minimum wage automatically advocates complete deregulation of all businesses. Not to mention that business policies applied in the 19th century will work exactly the same in the 21st century, since we have no mass media, communications, cars or Internet.

I can see Mugatu and Little Cleetus right now actually, and they say sweat shops are okay. Yep, that's what I advocate.

Of course, I'd expect no less from you than to make straw men out of what I say, but you're welcome to argue against proven economic theory if you want and tell me how the government setting wages is healthy for the economy. Since that would, you know, actually address the topic of my post...

[notdrugged]

Free market and deregulation isn't the same, IMO. There's plenty of common-sense deregulation that can be done, such as minimizing or abolishing the FAA. I mean, seriously, if people fly and they die, not gonna be too many people choosing that airline. Just as an example. Regulation of importation is a proven necessity for world economies, however. Exchange rate differences is what sends jobs overseas, which is a real problem. It just really is. It hurts everyone in the end. Studies have even shown that the quality of jobs in China have even hit rock bottom in many industries because of the lop-sided balances in competition.

[Orangutan]

Free market and deregulation isn't the same, IMO. There's plenty of common-sense deregulation that can be done, such as minimizing or abolishing the FAA. I mean, seriously, if people fly and they die, not gonna be too many people choosing that airline. Just as an example.

Well, I'd like to have an FAA that actually enforced things like safety recalls and modifications. Like the fact that we still have planes flying with the same problem that brought down TWA 800.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/14/twa.main/index.html

Yes, because our economy and unemployment rate is so terrible right now without an artifically high minimum wage,

And? The minimum wage isn't meant for the benefit of the economy, but the people who contribute to it at the lower end.

and a position that argues against an artifically high minimum wage automatically advocates complete deregulation of all businesses.

Aren't you the one advocating the "free market"? Saying that the government should stay out of business?

The government doesn't have its place in meddling with businesses and it shouldn't...

Not to mention that business policies applied in the 19th century will work exactly the same in the 21st century, since we have no mass media, communications, cars or Internet.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the thousands of sweatshops in existence in those countries who have cars, the internet, mass media, and a lack of government legislation and/or enforcement of labor laws.

I can see Mugatu and Little Cleetus right now actually, and they say sweat shops are okay. Yep, that's what I advocate.

Of course, I'd expect no less from you than to make straw men out of what I say, but you're welcome to argue against proven economic theory if you want and tell me how the government setting wages is healthy for the economy. Since that would, you know, actually address the topic of my post...

What is "proven economic theory"?

[smoked trout]

Been reading LB's playbook? Where did I say that employers had to pay for everyone's retirement? And how did my work ethic, abilities, and plan come into the argument here?

Nope, AR and LN, I prefer LN.
You mentioned the American Dream which is presented in the perverted document produced by the Dems and submitted as their plan for America. Nobody is talking about it though. They've rewritten the American Dream to incorporapte a high minimum wage and a retirement plan paid for by employers for all jobs. I figured your reference came from there. It's about the biggest economy killer I've seen yet. I haven't heard of one single Montana Democrat boasting about it, and it's further indication to me how the national dems are out of touch with most of America

Regardless, if your values are indeed to better yourself so that you have a secure future, why do you not insist that all Americans live under the same guidelines and repercussions? I sure do, and don't have too much pity for those who piss their lives and fortunes away and come crying when it's too late. If their only answer is to increase min wage they've already thrown in the towel.

[Orangutan]

Nope, AR and LN, I prefer LN.
You mentioned the American Dream which is presented in the perverted document produced by the Dems and submitted as their plan for America. Nobody is talking about it though. They've rewritten the American Dream to incorporapte a high minimum wage and a retirement plan paid for by employers for all jobs. I figured your reference came from there. It's about the biggest economy killer I've seen yet. I haven't heard of one single Montana Democrat boasting about it, and it's further indication to me how the national dems are out of touch with most of America

No, I was talking about the idea of a house in the suburbs, two cars, family pets, and two point five kids, having succeeded through hard work and determination. You know, pull yourself up by your own boot straps.

Regardless, if your values are indeed to better yourself so that you have a secure future, why do you not insist that all Americans live under the same guidelines and repercussions? I sure do, and don't have too much pity for those who piss their lives and fortunes away and come crying when it's too late. If their only answer is to increase min wage they've already thrown in the towel.

I do, but I also realise that there are many who are less fortunate than I am through no fault of their own. Those people who are to blame for their lot in life I pity, but not in the same way I pity those who are born or fall into poverty and a life of hardship by chance and circumstance. To use a cliche, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. It is the duty of us all, individual citizens and the citizenship as a whole (i.e. the government), to see to it that all are able to succeed and make for themselves and their progeny better lives.

[Dutchcedar]

To use a cliche, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. It is the duty of us all, individual citizens and the citizenship as a whole (i.e. the government), to see to it that all are able to succeed and make for themselves and their progeny better lives.

After reading the studies that show the effects of raising the minimum wage and the people it affects, you think its a dandy part of the solution? And after reading enough to understand death taxes in this country, you thinkthey are part of that solution too?

[myv65]

It is the duty of us all, individual citizens and the citizenship as a whole (i.e. the government), to see to it that all are able to succeed and make for themselves and their progeny better lives.

I've tossed out the question before, usually regarding education in America, but have never had anyone answer it. So I'm throwing it out to you specifically, given your statement that I quoted.

At what point do you draw the line and give up on someone? One week, one month, one year, one decade, never?

When I hear people touting a raise to the minimum wage I literally have come to see cruelty. I see it as, "Yeah, let's tease 'em with just a little more cash. Not enough to pursue a better education/life, but not so little as to starve. Just enough to keep them right where they are, forever." If it is a solution, it is one only for the conscience of those pushing it.

Then I look around at what I have seen in nearly 40 years of living. I've seen people who would work themselves to the bone for a pittance. I've seen people who do very little, but live quite well. I've seen people who would triumph over darn near anything. And I've seen people who simply never have, and never will give a crap about much of anything.

IMHO, it's individuals within this last group that often end up living a life of minimal sustenance. No amount of money spent trying to motivate/educate will matter. Whether they are like that because they grew up convinced they'd never amount to anything versus growing up "with it all" becomes immaterial. The end result is the same and the rest of us can not afford (and should not be forced to provide) the investment to turn them all around.

So where do you draw the line?

It must be something other than a one-size-fits-all answer such as a higher minimum wage. Perhaps I'm a tad over-pessimistic, but that strikes me as little more than a life sentence of menial labor.

What's fair? What's just?

The "American Dream" requires active pursuit. I'm all for handing out the tools of pursuit via free secondary education, higher education grants/scholarships/low-interest loans, etc. I am all against life-long subsidizing people who never take up the pursuit. I'm willing to put up for child care long enough for those who made mistakes while young if they're willing to get in the game. I'm not willing to pay indefinitely for those mistakes of youth made by others.

Where do you draw the line?

[otoc]

lol, and you guys talk about me.

back OT.

It's a shame our political system is designed to piggy back one bill on top of another. But that is the reality of politics.

I'm for both. Read that last line carefully before you blast me on that topic.

The issue with the tax structure of our country is much much more involved and the GOP is really gonna shoot themselves in the foot with a bill that is obviously tailored to suck up to the rich.

I feel that, on the part of taxes dealing with estates, previous taxes paid should be adjusted in some manner. But like it or not, most income that an individual gets outside of salary or business income is subject to taxes. A gift, winnings, a barter, what ever. To only make this type of income not subject to taxation is pandering to a class of our society. Remember, taxes are an individual thing, and are not prorated based on family contribution. The theory behind estate taxes was that a person got a windfall from either someone in their family or outside, and that this income in money and value would be subject to taxes just like any other income.

To think that the GOP who has watched poverty increase while under their watch would use this bill as a bartering chip is downright insensitive and crass.

While I feel minimum wage is a state issue, the federal government should set guidelines that take into account the poverty level.

I've said before that the impact to business will not be hardfelt and will be passed on to the customers.

And, as a side note, I'm surprised the supply side guys don't embrace this. More income to the poverty level will go back into the system as purchases and not savings (like it does with rich peoples). More taxes paid and more money into the economy.