Random Arguments & Strawmen #15

Did someone say... NINE PAGES?

Because I thought I heard someone say NINE PAGES.

Who are you... the not so slender man?

Lies! I had nothing to do with it!

Let me charge my inner Alanis for the irony of this statement.
Cause you are constantly being rude and disrespectful with everyone who disagrees with you. Constantly trying to ridicule and appeal to an unwarranted ab auctoritate fallacy(because you have a great oratory ability, but the content tends to be not as high on quality). Not to mention your constant modality of lumping everyone on the other side into a stereotype to make yourself the winner.

Sometimes I wonder, but are you perchance Berlusconi?

I thought the attempted "tone policing" was cute.

Unwitting accomplice, go!

I will ignore the strawman that you built and continue from this point that actually adds to our discussion.

Truth is you don't. You don't think that someone working 40 hours deserves to be paid enough to live, eat and sleep in shelter. In the minimum wage discussion you mentioned how a burger flipper isn't working hard enough to live, which is stupid.


Fact is you also assume that people on Welfare don't work, which is absolutely wrong. Here is a study that for the most part proves that otherwise: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-high-public-cost-of-low-wages/

People receiving medicaid and EITC are more likely to be working than not working, their wages simply aren't high enough or the cost of living is to expensive.


Furthermore you just automatically assume that a "livable welfare" is full-blown socialism? You also assume that minimum wage is full-blown socialism? The ideas may be "socialistic" but their design and purpose is to live and thrive in a capitalistic society.

What is the point of the "American Dream" if some Families can't even find a foot to stand on? Why is providing the homeless shelter, food and water a bad thing? Do you really think they are just going to be like "Yeah, I'm ok with sleeping in this crappy shelter and eating subpar food". No they want to get a job, they want to be in the condition that they can be. Furthermore you need to consider how substantial such a thing would be for the mental health of our country.

Fact of the matter is, all of what you are saying is nothing more than propaganda and lies that are spread by the republicans to push their narrative. The Democrats do the same crap, so you don't have to worry about pointing that out - I know. Republicans benefit from these people being unable to participate in society, as it ensures that they will get voted in office and make decisions that benefit the pockets of the rich. These people aren't lazy and they won't just be losers if they receive some standard of living from government assistance.

You can't be against minimum wage laws, against welfare and against free education and still say you care for the goodwill of man.

The flirting between them continues..

One word I'm really tired of reading this year is the word narrative.

Don't we already tax investment returns though? Or am I wrong on that.

Well its either we continue to ignore its existence or acknowledge it. The more people that acknowledge how each party is pushing their own narrative, the better off we will be politically.

I'd flirt with you too but you just stormed out last time we tried to have a discussion!

Walls of text do not a discussion make.


The point of the Amercian isn't to quit high school, get married, have a bunch of kids and THEN look for a job that pays a decent wage. >.>

You get the decent job first!

'Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine.'

They do, they also make debates. Your attention span is just so small that it wouldn't be a discussion with you.




It is like people lose their jobs or something.

Strawman? You were the one who wanted to institute a living welfare system. A system that rewards those who choose to do nothing.

Incorrect. I believe that a person should be paid accordingly to economic principles. Such as: 1) Level of skill involved, 2) Availability of job, 3) Rarity of profession, 4) Effort involved in obtaining said skills, 5) The drive to create a situation that betters oneself and others around them, and 6) Riskiness of both profession and employment.

A burger flipper is 1) a no skill job, 2) that is available almost everywhere, 3) that involves people gathering together in a community, 4) which requires no skill prior or during employment, 5) that generally doesn't care about the betterment of society, and 6) is a relatively safe job, as long as you cook the food accordingly to instructions.

In other words, they are easily replaceable, anyone can do it as long as they understand coherent instructions, and can be found anywhere where there's a community around them.

You cannot expect these people who put very little effort into their lives by making a career out of flipping burgers their entire lives. It should only be 1) a stepping stone for a better life (like high school or part-time college type jobs), or 2) a supplemental job for a family (aka one spouse who is the main breadwinner, while the other spouse works at a burger joint to gain a little bit more value in the family).

You shouldn't be able to support your family only on minimum wage. Otherwise, everyone would be working minimum wage jobs and nobody would work in higher-skilled or higher-wage jobs. There would be no incentive to do so.

Let me say this as clearly as I can:

I NEVER SAID THAT AT ALL. That is a myth that proponents of minimum wage state that the opponents say. AKA you are putting words in my mouth.

Now who's strawmanning again?

...do you even know what EITC is? Or how easy it is to defraud the federal government? You do know that EITC tax fraud was about $15.6 billion in 2013. That's the latest report issued by the Treasury department.

I never said that people who uses Medicaid or file the EITC aren't working (again, strawmanning another argument), I'm saying that there is a huge waste of money being put out by (at least) EITC. Don't get me started on Medicare/Medicaid fraud.

Not exactly. "Livable welfare" is a huge step towards that direction, and is very dangerous for the exact same reasons socialism will fail as both a political and economical society.

No, I don't, nor did I ever stated as such (again, you are strawmanning this argument! That's 3 strawmans in a single post so far, what are you doing, building a strawman army?). Minimum wage is basically an enforced price floor that the government issues. When there's a regulation that issues price floors, things tend to not work as well as intended, and a lot of deficiencies in the market takes place. Things don't work as well, and if you continue to try to "fix" it by issuing more regulations on the price floor, it just exacerbates the problem even further. You don't try to fix a leak by turning on the water on full-blast...

A) What's preventing those families from bettering themselves? In your words only, please.
B) A lot of the homeless problem is done because we closed asylums, which lead to a lot of displaced mentally ill people with nowhere to go. There are other issues associated with homelessness, but don't assume that there's a silver bullet to solve this issue. It actually requires a lot of things to take place in order to see a drop of the homeless population, and increasing minimum wage rates will probably increase said homeless population.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Sure, and also by economists, lawyers, accountants, businessmen, politicians, and historical facts. But hey, if it goes against your thinking, it's got to be propaganda, right?

Wait. Are you saying that this is a Republican-only trait? Should I remind you that the welfare system propped by the democrats actually designed to trap people in poverty than it is to get them out of it? Remember, that's the very program you think that would keep people out of poverty.

I'm against raising the minimum wage because it's inefficient and does nothing to help people earn real wages. I'm against our current system of welfare because it traps people in poverty instead of helping them out of it. I'm certainly for free education, but not free colleges, because not everyone can earn a degree, and by forcing free universities, you are basically diluting the value of those of us who actually earned our degrees.

I for one would love to see more people in the professional class, as we have a huge deficiency of lawyers, doctors, accountants, businessmen, real managers, architects, scientists, teachers, administrators, and other professional careers. Instead, a lot of our college graduates are going into the IT field, art, and communications. Ever ask why those people cannot find a job in their field?

I think you mean something else, but I can't for the life of me understand what that is.

Unfortunately, the current system has a stupid amount of people in the 'loser' category. Y'know, 58.7% of all hourly and salary workers. And then there's the unemployed, making up 4.6% of the United States work age population.

And the 'winner' category is winning by obscene amounts.

Minimum averages $18.7k/year
Median averages $77.8k/year (4x minimum)
CEO averages $13.8m/year (177x median, 738x minimum)

Then you get ***like Wal-mart which overwhelmingly hires at minimum wage but the CEO makes double the average for CEOs.

10/10 system.

It's my patience that wears thin.


And they typically have no savings, thousands of dollars in credit card debt and no plan to deal with it. What's your point?

Why should I be taxed for the poor planning of others?

"reasons."

This is only true if companies can't deal with dropping their 60%-70% profit margin for products a bit and hike prices up to compensate. Y'know, being really *** idiotic.

ITT: Nodoby wants luxuries in life.

Who are they, and why do you think they are considered "losers"?

You forgot that labor participation rate is at an all-time low (since the Great Depression). What about those 37.8% of the population that isn't working?

That analysis is very skewed.

If you actually take all employees who classify themselves as CEOs, including those who don't get paid at all, you will find that the average is much lower, or around $200k/year.

Here's something to help you understand a little better (taken from the source above):





A lot of the CEO's pay up top is actually bonus or equity (sometimes mixed). But you wouldn't know that if you only look at part of the picture.

Then protest by never shop at Wal-Mart again. It's a simple as that.

Name a company that has a 60-70% profit margin. Please, go ahead. I would love to invest in such a company.

I promise you that I will look up those very companies, and prove to you that their profit margins are less than 25%. And their net income? IF they are lucky....3%.

Luxuries should not come in lieu of taking care of basic necessaries, or requiring the government to pay for those basic necessaries so you can get those luxuries.

If you need assistance, you better need it for food, not that 72" TV.

To expand:
90 million people in the 'loser' category.
2.1 million in the 'winner' category.

Everyone else is fluctuating between barely getting by and comfortable.

11/10 system.

cram them reasons sideways!

Wow...so, either you are "Suffering" in life, or "barely getting by"

I would hate to see you rate people's lives.

But I would like to see your basis in this analysis.

This is what the tax discussion looks like:

We tax dividends as income, but we don't tax the increase in an investment's value unless its sold. Then we call it capital gains.

But if an investment, be it stock in a company or a piece or art or a historic Ferrari, is inherited there is no tax on its increase in value. If the heir sells it the only capital gain is the increase in value from the time of inheritance.

Neither can I but I tried to explain anyway.