The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I spoke about this in another thread but it really deserves it's own. Good ol liberalism at work. I swear life is trying to teach people a lesson but some of you refuse to ever admit being wrong until it kills you. Giving away free crap and forcing higher wages does not help. It actually hinders society ... especially the middle class. Can't lower interest rates any lower and free money and higher wages are only hurting so not sure what is the next move. This isn't good people.

'Biden's inflation crisis is here': Inflation jumps to 5% through April in the quickest rise since the Great Recession as Republicans blame soaring prices on massive Democrat stimulus programs

-Overall consumer prices rose 0.6% in May, totaling 5% over the prior 12 months
-It is the fastest rise in inflation since August 2008 during the Great Recession
-Core inflation, excluding food and energy, was up 3.8% in fastest increase since 1992
-Republicans blame freewheeling Fed monetary policy and Democrats' massive federal spending
-Shortages in labor and commodities, and surging consumer demand are also considered factors
-General Mills, Coca-Cola and Hormel all expect to raise prices as the cost of raw goods rises
-Chipotle is jacking up menu prices 4% to offset higher wages as it tries to attract workers

Inflation rose at a faster rate in May than any time since the Great Recession, as consumers face higher prices for everyday goods and services and Republicans blame President Joe Biden's free-spending policies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9672595/Inflation-jumps-5-April-quickest-rise-2008.html

Rent has gone up across the board too.  My brother's rent went from $1400/month to $2000 if he wants to renew.

It's a necessary side-effect.

You need stimulus to offset recession.  Stimulus can cause inflation.  It's a balancing act.

It rose higher since the great recession?  Yeah, no shit -- that was just a few years ago, and it was the result of trying to come out of the recession.  This is how these economic situations work.


Not stimulating the economy means people stop buying goods, you have massive job loss, everyone holds on to their money, which leads to depression.  You have to react to what's in front of you.

The longer the government artificially props up the economy, the worse it's going to be when it finally crashes. Not if, when.

True.  But as we have seen with things like the national debt, there doesn't seem to be an end game for the government kicking the can down the road.  The catch-22 to the government stopping artificially propping up the economy, reigning in the debt, etc is that politicians only want to get re-elected (be popular).  And the parent who forces a kid to eat their vegetables is never the popular parent. 

It's going to all crash and burn eventually. But then again the vast majority of crybabies born after GenX deserve what they got coming. By then I'll be dead and dead people don't care, LMAO

Nothing could be more accurate than your first sentence.  And piggybacking on your last sentence, I hope I'm dead by then too.  I'm working on setting up tax shelters for my kids so the government doesn't take my business and everything I have from them after I'm gone.

   How do you do this?

This is why I am not voting against my own interests when I vote for Trump

Inflation at 5%?!  This is catastrophic and probably unpreceden...

(https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-inflation-cpi.png?s=cpi+yoy&v=202106102315V20200908&d1=19960617)
(https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-inflation-cpi.png?s=cpi+yoy&v=202106102315V20200908&d1=19210706)

...never mind, go back to sleep.

The REAL crisis here is that the wrong people have too much money.  This is why you see complaints about "no one wants to work!" and now "inflation out of control!"

You've taken liberalism to new heights, pal.  Who exactly are these "wrong people" and why do you think they have too much money?   You want more money, go out and bust your ass for it like I did.

Sorry, I can see how my intent may have not come through clearly.

The point I was making is that conservatives are currently whining because poor people have Too Much Money right now.  Between the COVID stimulus and the (still meager) expanded unemployment benefits, poor people have a decided lack of suffering over the past year or so.  So now we are supposed to care about inflation for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union.

No one had a damn thing to say about inflation during the peak of the housing boom in 2006 (after two rounds of massive Bush tax cuts), but now This Is A Huge Problem and we need to take serious action to stop it immediately!  Or something.

OK.  Now I get where you're coming from.  The whining is not that they have too much money.  The whining comes from the fact that they are not earning it.  Conservatives have always been of the mentality that you work for your money and what you earn, you should be able to keep, hence the tax cuts.  Also, the fact that businesses aren't adequately staffed because no one wants to work.  Biden is cancelling the enhanced unemployment in September.  It should've been done already, IMO.


Private message me for details.

business could just pay workers more and they'll get an abundance of applicants

Bullshit.  We've upped starting pay for our business by $2 more an hour and can't get one interview.  It's an easy thing to say when you're not actually doing the hiring.

You know that those costs of higher wages will be passed on to you and everyone else right. Just because you're willing to pay higher prices doesn't mean I'm willing to pay higher prices.

Then we can add in all the higher corporate taxes you guys want to implement. Those will be passed on to everyone too. You're not going to beat corporate America at their own game of making a profits.

I think we have to find ways to make the lowest earner at a company and the highest earner at a company closer together, in cases where those don't happen naturally.  That's kinda the bottom line.

Can't have a situation where the top of the pyramid are billionaires and the bottom are working below the poverty line.  So, there is a give and take to that process.

That service already exists. You bust your ass and get rewarded for it. If you do the bare minimum then you are paid like it. I have yet to meet a "good worker" who left a place where they weren't appreciated to a place where they could advance and then didn't.  

I used to deliver furniture for Badcock but left for a career where I could move up. If I was expecting to make a six figure salary, or anywhere close, because I wasn't motivated to do so then I deserve to be poor.  Plenty of uneducated people in the trades making great money because they bust their butts. I know of a whole concrete crew of old black guys who use symbols to sign their name because they can't read or write but are making top money because of their concrete work.  

I saw this morning that McDonald's is testing voice activated drive thru. Looks like they will be dropping more jobs than they already have.

I don't oppose a minimum wage hike to $10-11/hr and link it to inflation every 3-5 years. That seems to be what a lot companies have set the bar at recently. That hike would make the other companies immediately meet and keep that bar. That seems fair to me. $10 an hour is around $21K a year, that's a far cry from poverty level of $13K. 

Otherwise if someone doesn't like the wage they're making, do what you have to do to get a better paying job. It's not anyone else's fault that someone dropped out of high school, had a bunch of kids, or just unmotivated to better themselves.

Like I said, it's not going to come out of the companies pocket anyhow. Are you ok with retail consumers subsidizing higher wages and corporate tax increases?

As we've seen recently rich people and corporations pay little to no taxes. Time for a fair tax system where there are no outs but then we'd see much less donations.

You guys are speaking out of both sides of your face? Don't you even realize that ?



They did. People decided when they got shit-canned by fast food places or restaurants, that they'd look at other employment and they got better jobs.

So now shit companies are complaining there aren't enough people wanting to work for shit pay under shit conditions.

So which is it? The workers left for greener pastures like you tell them to do, and now it's a problem?

Or are you all believing the right wing "welfare queen" fantasy that all these employees magically just decided to not work at all because they're getting $300 more a week?

So now what happens when these unemployment benefits expire and McDonalds or chipotle suddenly don't get the raft of candidates? What's the excuse going to be then ? Maybe a push to do away with medicaid? How much do you want to punish poor people until they're no better than indentured servants to taco bell?

I'm ok with not incentivizing donations via tax breaks. I think taxes are taxes, charity is charity. If you want to donate, then do it, that's up to you. It shouldn't impact your taxes what-so-ever. I also think we should do away with non-profit tax exemptions. If you're a non-profit that's good for you, but income is income, you still use the public roads and infrastructure, so pay your fair share.

Do you know how rich people and corporations and politicians pay little to no taxes?

2 reasons

1. Corporations and politicians on both sides actually make the laws in their own interests. Realistically, I don't expect that to change in my lifetime.

2. Taxes are based on income. If you park a majority of your money in assets, normally they aren't taxed until they are sold. So even though your money is growing in the background, it's not taxed because it's not income.

Hell, since my parents died I fit that 2nd category. 95% of that is still sitting in retirement accounts and mutual funds, I don't feel rich. Most people I know living paycheck to paycheck have nicer shit and live better than me.

Are you proposing that we extend this supplemental unemployment stimulus money and pay people unemployment benefits to do nothing when there are suitable jobs out there?

Extended supplemental unemployment doesn't offend me. But I do support the idea of UBI. I think it's an idea that's worth exploring. Alaska has had it for years and I guess people still work there.

Does everyone get UBI equally? Also, where you going to get the money to give people free money?

And herein lies the problem with socialism.  Sooner or later, you will run out of other people's money.

Money is fake anyways.  Even the "money" in your bank account doesn't technically belong to you.  By depositing money you've loaned the bank that sum of money and they've promised to repay it to you when you withdraw it. But they can default on their obligations. Governments can and do print up more money out of thin air. Money is debt. In fact if a government had 0 debt in the context of fiat currency, it would have 0 money.

So lets talk about socialism. We live in a socialist country. We live in a socialist society.  I know you libertarian types want to just outright reject that notion and flag wave something or other. But look at how the world is and not how you think it should be.

The Military
    - is funded by all (taxes)
    - provides services to all citizens equally regardless of income with 0 cost at the point of service
    - Is under centralized control of the federal government
    - provides affordable housing and food to its workers
    - provides tuition assistance and free college to current and former workers
    - provides universal healthcare for life to the workers

Police departments and Fire departments are funded by all, cost 0 at the point of service, and provide a service for all citizens. Governments from federal to state and local provide for roads and bridges, highways and dams with tax payer money. For the benefit of all.  Government provides tax payer money for basic research that is then appropriated at no cost by private drug companies who then turn around and charge an arm and a leg.

So just take a minute, think it over and accept it as reality. The USA is a socialist country. When you've reconciled the reality you live in, we can talk about degrees to which you want society to function.

I'm comfortable with government using efficiencies of scale and providing universal health care.

I'm comfortable with exploring a system of UBI. What that would look like or if it even makes sense, I can't answer. Alaska has a system that seems successful. Canada's been experimenting with UBI regionally and it's different than Alaska's system and it seems ok.

I'm comfortable with government helping the poor. Utah decided to end it's homeless problem by giving every homeless person a home. And in the process saved millions of dollars. Sure there was probably some abuse here, but I'm ok with a few people taking advantage of the system if the end result is that 90+% of people helped are legitimate cases where the help mattered.

So "how do we pay for all this", to be blunt, what do you care? We'll find a way. We'll tax what needs to be taxed, and even then like in the case of universal health care, we'll still come ahead when compared to the expensive system we have now.  Start from the point of what you want government to do and what they can do well, and then figure out how to pay for it.

I was quite fond of Margaret Thatcher too. 

Sounds like your business should try offering more than an extra $2/hr.

When the economy is bad and businesses "have to" lay people off, it's a business decision.
When prices increase - as they have for all of our lives - it's a business decision.
But when people aren't lining up to apply for low wage jobs (and everyone who is complaining is offering low wage jobs), suddenly it's a national outrage.

And it's not hard to find success stories of companies who have decided that maybe offering more money ISN'T the end of the world:

The owners (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/10/worker-shortage-raising-wages/) of Klavon’s Ice Cream Parlor had hit a wall.

For months, the 98-year-old confectionary in Pittsburgh couldn’t find applicants for the open positions it needed to fill ahead of warmer weather and, hopefully, sunnier times for the business after a rough year.

The job posting for scoopers — $7.25 an hour plus tips — did not produce a single application between January and March.

So owner Jacob Hanchar decided to more than double the starting wage to $15 an hour, plus tips, “just to see what would happen.”

The shop was suddenly flooded with applications. More than 1,000 piled in over the course of a week.

“It was like a dam broke,” Hanchar said. Media coverage that followed his decision soon pushed other candidates his way.

From the same article:

For Patrick Whalen, co-owner of the 5th Street Group, comprising five restaurants in Charleston and Charlotte, the breaking point came in late March. The restaurants were getting busier as more people started venturing out to eat. But applicants for the dozens of positions the company was trying to hire for were scarce. Understaffed and busy, the company was starting to get shredded with negative reviews online.

After one of his managers told him that a line cook needed to borrow money to get groceries, Whalen was moved to reconsider wages at the company.

“It was just one of those moments where you just kind of stop and you say, ‘Is there a real problem in our industry?’” he said. “We always kind of knew it was there, but we didn’t really know what to do with it.”

The company raised the starting wage for all of its staff to $15 an hour, up from $12 to $13. And it created a “tip the kitchen” program, adding a second line to table checks for gratuity for the back-of-the-house staff, which the restaurant matches up to $500 per night. That move has increased wages for non-tipped employees such as line cooks and dishwashers to an average of $23.80 an hour, Whalen said.

Applicants began pouring in nearly overnight, Whalen said. A manager at one of his restaurants, Tempest, told him that 10 people walked in to drop off résumés over the course of one week after the policy change, compared with just 15 people over the four previous months.

Within three weeks, the restaurant group went from about 50 to 60 percent staffed to nearly fully staffed.

“There is no one in Charleston or Charlotte that can compete with what my guys are making,” Whalen said.

Aaron Dearing, a sous chef at Whalen’s 5Church Charlotte, said the tipping initiative had raised his pay by about $1,000 a month — the biggest raise he has received in 20 years in the industry.

“It puts everybody in a better position in their home life, so they come to work a lot happier,” he said.

---

People in this country are legitimately pissed at the idea of lower income workers having enough income to live a decent life.  This is why you see people fighting against increases to the minimum wage, while arguing that you're not supposed to be able to provide for your family working somewhere like McDonald's or Walmart... even though millions of Americans have to do so every year.  They talk all this trash about "Go find a real job if you want a decent income," and when workers try to do so, these same people complain that no one wants to work these crappy jobs for terrible wages.

If you actually ran a business you wouldn't be so clueless about this. 

if your business relies on underpaying staff so you can make a living, maybe re-think your business. Capitalism .. market pressures .. bla bla bla ayn rand .. bla .. free market .. blah.

Our business is thriving, we're essential.  It's a dirty job that no one wants to do.  We pay well, and it's all you can eat overtime.  The only requirement is having an active driver's license, you don't even need a high school education.  Our only other technician just got a 10k bonus in December.  None of that matters in this climate when people can collect a check for doing nothing.  Once again, you guys are completely ignorant on the subject, you're just parroting shit your read online which is equally clueless.

Hence why I switched parties

I'm not sure what your point is. If any business doesn't pay enough for people to want to work there. They will have to offer more in terms of wages and/or benefits to attract workers or simply go out of business. It's a problem that will fix itself naturally. If you pay people to do nothing, the problem won't ever get fixed.

Also, you still never answered these questions.

If your "thriving" business can't get a single person to interview for positions you're trying to fill, you and I have a very different definition of "thriving."  Perhaps you mean "profitable" or "lucrative," which are positions that are very much compatible with, um, low wage expenses.

Once again: if $300/week in temporary unemployment is so much money that you can't even get an interview - for "a dirty job that no one wants to do"! - maybe you should be paying more.

ok great .. we agree


Yes, everyone would get UBI equally.

You get the money the same way you get money in government. Taxes. Maybe a wealth tax, or a higher corporate income tax. Maybe a corporate tax based on the delta between CEO and lowest worker pay. I'm sure we can figure out a way to make it work.

And you know who pays for corporate income taxes?   People like you and me.  Corporations don't really pay taxes.  You try to up their taxes, they raise the prices of their goods and services to make up for it.

Artie, do YOU know who pays for low minimum wage jobs?  People like you and me.

Because when these businesses are allowed to pay poverty-level wages, their employees still qualify for federal assistance like section 8, food stamps, and healthcare subsidies, which come out of our pocket.  If these companies were forced to pay a decent wage (by raising the minimum wage), we wouldn't have to spend so much picking up their slack.

Corporations will always raise their prices as high as they think the market will allow, regardless of their tax burden (or lack thereof).  That's how capitalism works.

If we made corporations tax-exempt tomorrow, it would result in increased profits, not lower prices.  We know this because when Republicans have come into office and drastically lowered corporate taxes, prices don't go down... profits simply increase!

The free market is a race to see who can squeeze the most out of the most people.  If McDonalds opts to raise their prices 10% to cover increased worker pay, then i'll be "hypothetically" buying greasy crap burgers from burger king instead, or wendy's, or maybe i'll just stop buying greasy crap burgers all together.

Yes, and that is exactly the way it should work.  Although I don't 100% agree with your "squeeze the most out of the most people" comment, I can definitely see where it looks that way until you start to peel a lot deeper into the onion.  Adam Smith captured the concept of "the invisible hand" in what is considered the Bible of Capitalism, "Wealth of Nations" (the whole title is too long to bother typing, LOL) about 280 years ago.  And what you explained in your comment is a key concept in how the free market is supposed to work.  Although businesses can decide what they want to charge for their product, it is the market that ultimately makes that determination as they can "shop elsewhere" or not buy the product at all.  Of course that is a huge simplification and the actual moving parts of it all are a LOT more complicated than my example.  So although businesses most likely would love to "squeeze the most out of the most people" because the purpose of business is to maximize profits, the market ultimately determines just how much the people are willing to be squeezed.  Although not a perfect system, it does allow for some checks and balances.  Before anyone jumps all over this post, bear in mind that I said myself that my comments are a huge oversimplification.  But I'm sure nobody wants to see me go on for hours about the differences between Keynesian Economic Theory and the Friedman school of laissez faire economics.  :)

And for what it's worth I know it isn't that simple. And Adam Smith's work was too naive by a mile. The problem is that the free market is in no way free. Companies have too much power over government and laws and the free market for corporations must be countered by robust worker organization. That's the crux of the problem with specifically the American system. Companies only care about workers en masse realistically because that's how they work. But the average american psyche is wired with this idea of rugged individualism that the rest of the world doesn't really have.

This is especially glaring in the health care industry. At the point of sale, it's treated as a free market (albeit with regulation). Unfortunately your life isn't the same as an optional commodity like a big mac. So they have literally a captive audience.  The best way to provide healthcare has be unequivocally proven to be by funding it at a national level and having universal health care. It costs less, it provides better outcomes, and it leaves very few behind. But insurance companies have too much influence in government and too much money to appeal to that unrealistically individual nature of Americans that makes sure they remain in place. The largest leeches the world has ever seen.

Very well thought out points you make there.  And of course Adam Smith's work was "naive by a mile", but you have to keep in mind that it was written in the 1780's (I think).  But it was groundbreaking for the time and laid the foundation for future economic theories.  Same principle as when Alexander Fleming "discovered" penicillin.  His work was rudimentary and archaic by modern standards.  But we wouldn't have modern antibiotics if the ground work had not been laid by Fleming.

You definitely won't get any argument out of me regarding your comments on insurance.  Insurance is the biggest scam in this country (well, arguably the second biggest scam after religion but I'm not going to open that can of worms in here, LOL).  My wife is an RN and spent most of her career working in hospitals but a couple years ago she took a job as a Medical Case Manager for a very large insurance company.  It has worked out very well for her personally, but she always says that she sold her soul to the devil for a little more money, working from home and not having the wear and tear on her body of running around the hospital 12-13 hours per day.  But she says that insurance is even more evil than most people realize. 

Adam Smith’s model has a few basic assumptions that are absolutely essential for capitalism to work fairly that have not been incorporated into our current system.  Chief among them is transparency and equality of information. Others include a prevention of monopolies or near monopolies and equal access to resources.

All of which are good points.  Why can't we choose any health insurance company in any state?   Why can't we choose which company we want for cable/internet?   

I mostly agree with you.  And the reason that those basic assumptions have not been incorporated is the same reason that no other economic system, political system, religion, etc. etc have ever been fully successfully implemented into any system.  Those in power in each of those systems all possess the same unfortunate and destructive trait.  Power corrupts.  And every system (theory) will always be doomed (to an extent) due to simple human greed and self serving tendencies.  That is why true capitalism, socialism, communism and every other "ism" will only exist in theory.  In any economic system, there will always be the haves and the have nots.  In every "equal society" there will be some who are "more equal" than others.  In every religion there will also be winners and losers.  Essentially, every good idea is susceptible to corruption by the inevitable ruin of the self serving nature of humans.  

Because health insurance companies don't want to offer different products that meet each individual state's laws.  In other words, there's nothing preventing an insurance company based in TN from offering a plan for customers in IL... they simply choose not to because that plan would have to comply with IL law (not TN law).

When people ask for health insurance to be able to be sold "across state lines," what they are asking for is the insurance regulations of the least restrictive state to be the law in all states (i.e. a race to the bottom).

Cable companies specifically choose not to compete with each other (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/comcast-says-its-too-expensive-to-compete-against-other-cable-companies/) because "it would be too expensive."

I am actually in favor of municipal or a county based high speed internet coop.

It's a good solution to the cable monopolies

It's not fantasy. Unemployment stats vs the huge number of places looking for workers prove it. Yesterday I saw a healthy guy with a homelessness sign in front of a McDonalds that has several signs hiring for $11 an hour. It's comical how obvious it is.

So you believe that this guy with the homeless sign:

1) is currently on unemployment
2) would be working without the extra $300/week from the feds

That... doesn't seem likely.  (And I don't know if you're qualified to determine someone's health status by briefly looking at them.)

In any case, we won't have to guess about this much longer.  FL is ending participation in the federal unemployment benefits at the end of next week, at which point all of these tedious low-paying jobs should have applicants out the door, right...?

So you're not arguing to raise minimum wage to $15?

So you're going to give everyone $2000 a month in UBI and then tax everyone $2000 a month to pay for it? Or you're going to take money from certain people that have it and give it to certain people who don't?

hahahaha ... Doesn't matter if you know that I'm qualified because it's my judgemet that helps me to mke decisions based on the information that I am aware of. Local sheriffs have stated NOT to give to anyone on the side of the road but to instead give to homeless and women's' shelters etc. They have shown pics of panhandlers they arrested with hundreds and sometimes thousands in their pockets. It's a racket either way. Local homeless hippie camps use one car to disperse people to beg for money and then swap out people throughout the day.

I doubt that $300/week in extra unemployment has anything at all to do with the existence of panhandlers.  They existed before Biden and they will exist after.

And again, "He looked healthy to me" is not a particularly useful statement.  The fact that you didn't see a wheelchair or a prosthetic leg does not mean he is therefore in fine health.

Getting a part time job for $11 dollars per hour won't allow someone who is homeless to cease being homeless.

Ideally.

That's how the rest of this country works.  They take money from me and use it to pay some farming conglomerate NOT to plant crops, or use it to buy another armored carrier for the police department (not the military, but the "police").  This country is all about taking money from some people to give it to others... but when it's for unemployment benefits, or healthcare, suddenly we're supposed to be outraged about Socialism.

Equal parts true and depressing...

I got an unexpected check from the government today.  It was my money because I had overpaid my taxes.   I wish I could have the joy of getting somebody’s money for doing nothing.   

Most people don't want to pay more taxes. If you're going to give all the population $2000 a month, you're going to have to tax 75% of the population more than $2000 a month. Good luck with that. The The Declaration of Independence says life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not "we're going to take care of you". Plenty of full on socialist countries to pick from if that's your thing.

Indeed.  Just one more reason why I try to occupy my mind thinking about football and weightlifting rather than contemplating the world we live in. 

If you attended public school, you have already experienced this joy.
Same goes for if you have used a public library, or driven on an interstate highway.

The US is a full on socialist country. Eventually you'll realize that.

That's an absurd and ridiculous statement. The United States is a capitalist country, that's why we've developed into the the wealthiest, most powerful, and most influential country in the history of the world. We do employ a moderate amount of socialist programs to benefit society as a whole. However they have gotten out of hand. But to say "The US is a full on socialist country" is silly. It's like anything else in life, moderation is the key.

How do you think printing unlimited amounts of money affects the economy?

Explain the 2009 bank bail outs. Full on capitalist my ass.

You are both talking in absolutes which is the easiest mistake to make in any argument. The fact is the United States is totally neither so don't back and forth on a point where neither of you are correct.

This is obviously true: the United States of America is, and always has been, a country that is partially socialist and partially capitalist.

However, while this reality is reflected among the left - Elizabeth Warren, arguably the most liberal Democrat in DC, described herself as "a capitalist to my bones" - this is not at all reflected among the right.  Virtually all Republicans rail against socialism at every opportunity.

So the question of absolutes is itself one-sided: Democrats don't need to demonize capitalism to advance their agenda, but Republicans have to demonize socialism to advance theirs.

The reason the USA can get away with printing money, but some other countries can’t is the vast majority of our debt is in US dollars. 

If the obligations and debt is in foreign currency than printing money becomes a problem.   Everyone one of the countries that economy has collapsed is because of printing money to handle a debt monetized in a currency they didn’t control

I never said "full on" capitalist. I said we are a capitalist country with a moderate amount of socialism, which basically means we are a mixed economy. However, we lean heavily capitalist.we are #6 ranked capitalist country in the world (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/capitalist-countries) out of 152 countries with Venezuela ranking last. Therefore, we would be considered capitalist on the spectrum.

I think you're missing the point in relation to the title of the thread. The more money we print, the less it's worth. When you debase the money supply it take more of those less valuable dollars to buy the same amount of good and services. There will eventually be a tipping point.

Homeless is almost exclusively mental illness or drug addiction.  It isn't about unemployment at all or job opportunities.  

Socialism is nothing but a deranged fiction where everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.


Printing more money will cause inflation and printing a shitload of money causes hyperinflation.   That will destroy this economy.   Look below for examples of what happens when you print crazy amounts of money.

There is a large portion of people who choose to live the homeless lifestyle. For lack of a better term there is way more "hippie" homeless population today than there were 20 years ago who could be working instead of systematically begging for money. Don't get me wrong we have plenty of crazies and people on the run out there but there are also a lot taking advantage and choosing to being homeless.

So mental illness.   >:D

Seems to me that these people would continue this lifestyle regardless of whether there is an extra $300/week in unemployment benefits (if they even qualify for unemployment in the first place, which seems unlikely).

What do you have to back up that statement?

From everything I've read, other than "nomads" or people who are houseless, but not necessarily homeless (and aren't a significant percentage of the population), panhandler-types are essentially 100% drugs and alcohol addicts or mental illness sufferers.

Short of following them and filming them I don't. If you come up here I can take to to homeless camps both in Orlando and around Lake Mary where people are living like this. Typically one or two cars among 50 r so people. I've seen their tent city and watched them bath in stormwater ponds. We have so much trash from them next to I-4 where they beg it's ridiculous. I swear I've seen more than one time a raggy arsed old Buick drop off one "homeless" couple and then pick up the other. Other people have seen it too so it isn't like it's just my ghost story. A quick google found this page with info on people who choose to be homeless.

https://www.shelteroutfitters.com/smartblog/5_the-reason-some-choose-to-be-homeless.html   

I agree. In fact I don't know how they would be collecting those benefits if they are.

Not to mention the fact that you have the transient families where you have a mom, dad (or sometimes a single parent) and five or six kids all living together in one tiny room in a motel where you pay by the month.  Those are one step above being homeless.

You'll continue to see that problem as long as government policies, handouts, and tax breaks incentivize being a single parent and having more children. I would venture to guess that in most cases that the "mom" in the hotel room has a few different baby daddies. The guy with her was just the next one in line.

^ I fundamentally disagree.

People have multiple kids with multiple parents and no money because of bad decisions, poor education, poverty cycles, ...shit like that.  It's not a decision they made because of government assistance.

But it's a reason why they are on government assistance.  And increasing the amount of government assistance encourages them to stay on it as opposed to going out and looking for work.   

They need to make government assistance uncomfortable, as in barely enough to get by, so that people stay on it for as short a time as possible.  It was meant for people to use for a short time after a bad situation so they could get back on their feet.

I understand where you're coming from, but I just don't think that lines up with reality.

That's what you wish would happen.  That's what I also wish would happen.  But not what actually does happen.  Nobody is on government assistance because of how comfortable it is.

The image you're painting of some cracked out mother with a bunch of kids with different dads who is too lazy to work -- that's just not what we're dealing with.  If you cut off assistance, kids go without food.  It's not like she's all of a sudden going to get her shit together.

And an even harder reality is that to solve that problem, you need to go back 10 years in that woman's life, offer her assistance then, birth control access and education, job training, etc.

It's probably too late to get her to turn around her life and become productive, but it's definitely too late if you're just cutting off the money.  And even if you wanted to do that, you're talking about free child care and things like that -- more government assistance.

As we've discussed before, the overwhelming majority of people receiving government assistance are:

1) children (or families with children)
2) the disabled
3) the elderly

So when we talk about those on government assistance needing to be made "more uncomfortable," let's be explicit: we are talking about children that need a harder life so they are properly motivated.  Or maybe we mean grandmothers, or the blind, or people in wheelchairs.  (Or blind grandmothers in wheelchairs!)

Guy at work busts his arse and makes good money but won't marry his girlfriend because the gov takes care of them. They just bought a house, well she did anyway, with a lot of help from the government. People will always find a way to abuse the system as long as there is a system.

Yes, we all know about the welfare queens driving their Cadillacs to go pick up free government lobsters.  St. Ronnie told this "story" many times.

Weird that if I tell a story about the pastor of a tax-exempt church who arrives in his private jet and has his personal driver take him to his 10,000 sqft mansion, no one thinks this is a reason to eliminate the tax exemption for churches.  Yet both of these are examples of abusing the system to take advantage of the taxpayer.

I have many more issues with this scenario than this guy's taxes but that's a whole different thread. It isn't the lack of taxes paying for that stuff.

I still believe that is one of the biggest fiscal mistakes this country has ever made....and if I could snap my fingers and change one thing about this country, I'd pause for a second whilst considering eliminating the two party system before it started, before ripping that evangelical honeypot out of their hands.

That's simply not the case. I personally know single females with multiple kids with different fathers. They draw most of the government subsidies and tax credits available. They're everywhere.

For example, I know one who lives in a shotgun house next to an abandoned house on each side. She's moved 6-7 times, had 5-6 jobs, and had 4-5 different POS cars, all in the past year. She just sold her piece of shit Pontiac G6 for $1800. Guess what she bought with her tax and stimulus money? A fucking 12 year old Mercedes Benz. I guess a fake image is more important than where you and your children live.

I feel so sorry for those kids, they deserve better that that. But at the end of the day, it's not the taxpayer's responsibility to fund her and her kids. People should be held accountable for their own stupid choices, not given free money.

Children should not be "held accountable" for the choices of their parents.  So we can either give their parents money to raise them, or we can have the state start confiscating kids if their parents are too poor (and/or sterilizing low-income parents).

I doubt any conservative supports giving that kind of power to a Democrat.

To raise them? You mean make them live in a dilapidated building and feed them McD's chicken nuggets every meal while mom goes clubbing  3-4 days a week in her new 12 year old Mercedes that "WE" paid for. Yeah, that makes sense 🤦🤦🤦

The fact is that those kids are being "held accountable" for her choices whether you give her money or not. She gets away with what she's being allowed to get away with. She isn't a random isolated case. Maybe you ain't been paying attention, there's batshit crazy single mothers everywhere who abuse the system with their mating habits. 

Unstated is the alternative: for the children to be homeless and starving.

So, um, yeah: that IS what I mean.

So at that point, take the kids and declare her a unfit mother.  And yes, pay for her to be surgically sterilized.

They wouldn't be homeless. Mom would be forced to go get a job

I believe someone was making the point earlier in this very thread that many adults on assistance would choose to be homeless rather than work.  So yeah, it is entirely possible that they would be homeless.  (note: homeless children exist today)

I think this is, at least, a more realistic approach:

Do you support the state confiscating the children of those who are too poor, followed by their immediate sterilization?

The people who would be most affected by this policy are... not who you might be intending.  The majority of people receiving government assistance in America are definitely not people of color, and they're probably not Democrats, either.

I wouldn't say that "no one" thinks that douchebag pastors using the tax exemption for churches as a way to fund their lavish lifestyle is a reason to eliminate the tax exemption for churches.  I wish they never had tax exemption in the first place.  Religion and insurance are the two biggest money scams in the world. 

PS, your "government lobsters" remark was funny.  I may have to steal that one from you.

Amen! 


Yeah, I'm stealing that bad boy as well. Perfect amount of smarminess.

Nope, those type people will work. But only when they have to.

I get where you're coming from with this statement, but I don't think you're disagreeing with me.  Essentially, you're not saying you think churches should have their tax exemption removed because there are megachurches with insanely wealthy pastors; rather, you don't think churches should ever have been given an exemption at all, regardless of their income.  (A position I would agree with.)

My point was about claims of "taking advantage of the system to cheat the taxpayer." I wouldn't necessarily level that charge at a church that uses the vast majority of its income to help the community (feeding the hungry, helping the poor with utility bills, etc), but I absolutely do indict megachurches for fleecing taxpayers.

Sorry, I re-read what I had typed and it wasn't very clear.  But yes, I don't think ANY churches should have tax exempt status.  And I'm glad you pointed out that some churches do good in the community in the manners that you listed.  Even though I'm an atheist, I have nothing against "believers" or churches in general.  For the most part, I try to be a live and let live kind of person.  But the tax free status just makes it way too easy to cheat the system.  Whether it is the megachurch pastor buying a private jet (to reach more of the masses to spread the Good Word no doubt, LOL) or the small town pastor who might fudge the books a little to buy the wife a nice little something or spend an extra week at Disney World on vacation.  Just too much temptation and too little oversight in that tax exempt status.  Churches say they are "in the business of saving souls".  Okay, so businesses should be taxed.  :)

I support a middle ground.  To the extent that a church is engaging in truely charitable endeavors such as operating a food bank or homeless shelter they should have those activities be tax exempt.  To the extent they are a social club, catering venue, political organizations, etc they should be taxed.

That makes sense.  This might be the first time you've ever convinced me to change my mind in order to agree with you on something.  LOL   

Churches are tough.

I think that most churches do honest community work.  There are some scammy mega-church-type situations, but they are the great minority.

However, the mission statement of a church isn't a charity: it's prosthelytizing, which I don't think the government should consider a charitable act.

A church is a business.  Bottom line.

So, when Publix does charity work, they write off that portion, but they still have to pay taxes for the other parts of their business.
My MAIN ISSUE is that it's hard to say what is charity and what isn't, when it comes to churches.  Like, if you're traveling to Ghana to give out bread to a village, if they're willing to listen to your stories about Jesus, is that charity?  I don't think so, that's marketing.

Kind of like sitting through a shitty and boring Timeshare sales pitch just so you can get the free set of golf clubs?  :)   Yeah, I did that once.  lol

So someone succeeded in pivoting from Biden's inflation to taxing evil churches. I don't give a shit, tax all the churches until they don't exist anymore. It still won't fix the problem of the government printing astronomical amounts of of money and debasing the currency. One thing is true, eventually the whole thing will crash and burn if you continue to spend more than you make. Math is fun, use math...