waitforufo

22 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There are better solutions to that than the current model, there's simply no reason for such an enormous  wealth gap

The  wealth gap is the natural intended product of  capitalism.  It is actually the essential component.  It creates the drive to create products or services at low prices so more people can afford to purchase them.  Productivity is maximized. Wages are determined the number of qualified workers in the labor pool and their labor output on the job.  Productive people get paid more because they do more  than the average person.  

Fairness isn't even a consideration, nor should it be.  Its an unplanned wild free for all controlled by what' called the invisible hand  No planning is even possible.   The system is designed to create winners and losers. 

So do we need regulation to  protect people from capitalism?  Absolutely.  A capitalist will do anything he can legally get away with.  Environmental, worker safety rules, etc., Im for them.  I just don't see  how the government can write a regulation requiring a private or publicly held company to be more fair with their wage distribution to close the wealth gap. It can' be done.

I often wonder how people like yourself imagine the lives of the evil rich.  Lets just pick one.  How about Jeff Bezos.  The richest man in the  world with an estimated wealth of over 100 billion.  Do you think he lives in some ever expanding mansion, with wings being added so he has a place his to store his ill gotten gains in shrink wrapped pallets of cash.  Do you imagine Jeff walking through all that cash laughing and saying "screw the little people?

I see Jeff as  kick ass capitalist.  He is providing awesome goods  and services to the economy.  His wealth is tied up in the company he created.  He employs lots of people, many of them at  high wages.  My nephews work for him in Seattle. The wages they are  making at about 30 I didn't make until I was 45.  I say good for Jeff and I wish the country had many more billionaire like him.

22 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You are saying economic prosperity as though it is a Universal term. In reality what is good for some isn't good for all.

Why does it need to be good for all?  what"s wrong with better for most?  I have been an engineer for 35 years.  I have designed an managed the creation of many fielded products..  Every circuit was reviewed to insure that every circuit was the cheapest just good enough design that would get the job done.  Yes,  MTBF was a design requirement.  We did that to have the lowest price in the market, with the intention of killing our competition.

In engineering a common phrase is "You can get 90% of what you want for 10% of the budget."  So why not help the 90 % and expect the the last 10% will receive secondary from the prosperity  created by the  policy that helped the 90%?  

19 hours ago, iNow said:

Your question confuses me, since I both can and do understand that.

I do, which is a very large part of the reason I keep voting for those who do things which actually improve the economy and well-being of me and my neighbors (as opposed to those who are all hat and no cowboy offering specious talking points that fail when implemented).

I think this is my favorite response to one of my posts you ever made.  You made my day.

Your first line you claim to be a reasonable person.  Then you contradict your self by saying conservatives are f*cking idiots so no compromise is possible.  

What an awesome reply.

The funny thing about all of this is that liberals have lost the american public and they don't even see it. people's paychecks just got bigger because of the tax cut.  People view all these investigation as nothing but vendetta by the losers.  A year of investigation and they got nothing on Trump.  Since Trump got elected two of my kids got better jobs and my son in law got promoted with a good raise.  Everyone with a 401k is now more optimistic about retirement.  By the way, so are their kids who feel their parents will have  the dignity of financial security an they will not have  the financial burden of parental support 

But you think Trump is a Nazi and are foolish enough to state it publicly (item 11 in the OP).  

You better hope Muller finds something substantial against Trump because if he doesn't expect a big backlash against those opposed to Trump,  

iNow, why is it that you can't understand that our goals can be the same, though our solutions are different?  I agree with almost all of what you have with the exception of parts of 9, 10 but ifacceptable risks aren't allowed you are just keeps people in poverty, and 11 is simpl delusional.  

Perhaps you should consider economic prosperity as a solution?

On 1/30/2018 at 9:07 AM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Split from here

Now, how about backing up your claims?

 

You must skip a lot of news stories in your local news papers and major broadcast media  Even my local paper, The Spokesman Review, covers them.  The FBI criminally leaking documents,  FBI agents loosing 5 months of texts between FBI agents who were found to be discussing a secret society that would be working against the president  Then we have McCabe abusing FISA for improper serveillance  of US citizens.  I could go on and on but why?  You stopped reading a long time ago.

But at least your media heros like Michael Wolff painting your side in honor by claiming that Nikki Hayley and Donald Trump are having an affair during the era of #me too. he best part of that was Hillary Clinton throwing weight behind the claim.  

Is there no limit to your depravity.  Have you no decency. Nothing but low lives.

If you would just drop your envy of the "rich" your life would be a lot happier.  Try practicing saying "well good for them" any time you hear that good fortune befalls anyone.  Do this regardless of their economic situation, their political persuasion, race, creed, orientation,  etc.  You will find it very freeing to be free of envy.

Of course the tax bill has things in it that you like.  Why would you think otherwise.  Donald Trump along with congress is trying to make the country a better place.  I'm sure it pains you to acknowledge that for Trump, but it's nice to see a start.

Why does it never occur to any of you that the branch of government under attack is the executive branch?  Yeah, I get that you don't like Trump but he is the President of the United States.  He has been under investigation for over a year and nothing on Trump has been uncovered.  Nothing of importance has even been leaked.  The only Russia collusion that has been found has been between the Democratic party, the Hillary campaign, or the Clinton charity.  Having the press as your political ally has burred those stories, but maybe this FISA report will change that.  If it is just BS it will only make Trump look bad, so what are you worried about?

Look, any thinking person knows what this is all about.  The goal of all these investigations is simply to stymie Trumps agenda.  As far as I can tell, the main problem Trump's opponents have with his agenda is that Trump believes that capitalism can cure our woes and that government action is always designed to hobble capitalism.  Also  Trump believes that entrepreneurs deserve the wealth they create and should be respected by our citizens, not demonize as the 1%.  

The core problem for Trump's opponents is that his policies might work. That would prove the fallacy of their approach to improving the lives of people.  To prevent that from happening Trump's opponents are working hard to make sure his presidency has no accomplishments regardless if they would benefit the country or the world.  The sad part about that is Trump's opponents could get a lot of what they want, things that would improve the country, if they would simply bargain with Trump.  They are so committed to the governmental path, based on less is better for everyone as long as government is in control to make sure their is 'fairness' that any demonstration that capitalism does more, helps more, and improves prosperity just can't be allowed to happen.

Your own topic title is "DOJ and FBI under attack."   So what is with the rant on racism?  I find this to be a common trend on this forum.  You are essentially saying that if you don't agree with me on the topic of this subject, then I'm a racist.  Since this is a family forum,  I'll reserve my response. 

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thanks for clarifying. This stance is way too extreme for me, especially given their motivation of giving those children a better life with greater opportunity and lower risk from crime and poverty.

Don't think I don't have empathy for these DACA children.  The law however must be followed.  

On 1/28/2018 at 8:07 AM, iNow said:

I understand and accept your broader argument as valid, but do have some doubt on this last point. It suggests the children are “guilty,” but I’m unconvinced of that.

If we MUST assign some sort of “guilt” here, then surely it rests with the DACA parent. Two and three year old children strike me as innocents in all of this. Your comment above suggests you disagree, but I’m not sure you do. 

Will you please clarify?

I have been blaming the DACA parents from the start.  What they did to there children was child abuse.  Those parents should be prosecuted for it.  

On 1/28/2018 at 9:49 AM, Ten oz said:

Why did you ask this question if you are just going to ignore the answer? Trump has present a proposal and you are avoiding discussing it. 

 

True, Trump's plan would make nearly 2 million of those here by illegal means citizens in exchange for a limit on future legal immigration and money for a wall. How do you feel about Trump's proposal?????

I''m generally happy with it as long as it includes other proposed immigrqation changes.  Nuclear chain migration only, no lottery,  all immigrants vetted, v-verify for employment.   Things like that.

On 1/27/2018 at 5:14 AM, Ten oz said:

I didn't, what is your point? You are the one ignoring the executive action and calling those protected by DACA illegal.

Well, there is a new executive, and he has a pen and phone too, and he is writing new executive actions now.  So with the stroke of a pen he can remove any reason to adjudicate pending future mitigation or action on illegal immigration.   Also Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals doesn't mean that they are not her illegally,  It just means we are deciding not to prosecute them at the moment.  The criminal cases against them are prima facie.  There is no doubt of their guilt.  

On 1/25/2018 at 8:13 AM, Ten oz said:

A bill becomes a law by being voted on and passed through the House and Senate then sign by the President. Currently that process it what happening. Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate with counsel from the President is working to determine what the law shall be with respects to DACA. What the law use to be years back was legally deferred by Presidential action. Whatever you currently believe the law currently is will be different once an immigration bill is sorted out. Your posts are redundant and ignore that there are legal ways to sort this matter out and those legal ways are what's currently being negotiated in Congress. 

 Congress changes laws all the time. Your real position is that you don't want immigrants in the U.S. . That is your prerogative. Feel free to explain why we shouldn't have immigrants. Just stop acting like the law is on your side as though laws are permanent natural structures. 

Well currently the law is on my side.  If one president can defer law, another can decide to enforce it.  That's the problem with executive action.  Funny you didn't have any problems with Obama's executive actions.   I have stated over and over again that the law can be changed.  Even the constitution can be changed.  Those of your political persuasion just don't wan't to play by the rules or put in the work.  

On 1/25/2018 at 8:30 AM, Ten oz said:

We don't know if it was legal he refuses to release his taxes and has publicly attacked Mueller's investigation for looking into his finances. 

Just because you didn't know it was legal to refuse, doesn't mean it wasn't.  Also this is a topic about immigration.  Please stay on topic.

1 hour ago, EdEarl said:

Our country exists because the people in 1776 were being abused by the law of the crown.

Laws are not necessarily ethical, and people who try to abuse people using the law should be stopped.

Your location says you are from Texas.  I assume you are a US citizen.  If you don't like the second amendment work to have it changed.  Yeah, I'll bitch about it if you succeed but I'll follow the law.  I don't pick and choose. 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Funny how that turned out... (cough, cough)...

Irony meters off, please gentlemen...

Working out as intended as far as I'm concerned.  

56 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, you're just making that up. A nice distraction attempt from the fact that you aren't answering my question, or providing the evidence I asked for.

You probably break some laws every day.  

Another man of straw.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Funny you list a bunch of infractions and minor misdemeanors to call me a hypocrite.  Illegal immigration is felony.  Maybe you don't know the difference.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-distinguishes-a-misdemeanor-from-a-felony.html

With regard to your questions, you are defending the commission of felonies and the abuse of children.  Perhaps we should get past that first.

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

A bill becomes a law by being voted on and passed through the House and Senate then sign by the President. Currently that process it what happening. Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate with counsel from the President is working to determine what the law shall be with respects to DACA. What the law use to be years back was legally deferred by Presidential action. Whatever you currently believe the law currently is will be different once an immigration bill is sorted out. Your posts are redundant and ignore that there are legal ways to sort this matter out and those legal ways are what's currently being negotiated in Congress. 

Was the law is the law your position on taxes? Our tax laws are our tax laws and must be enforced period? Were you angered when Trump said finding ways to not pay taxes makes him smart? Were you angry when Congress voted to change tax laws? WTF is the difference? Come down off your high horse. Congress changes laws all the time. Your real position is that you don't want immigrants in the U.S. . That is your prerogative. Feel free to explain why we shouldn't have immigrants. Just stop acting like the law is on your side as though laws are permanent natural structures. 

Negotiations mean give and take.  Trump wants to find a path forward with DACA, but he wants things in return so we don't end up in this situation again.  His list of requests is easy to find on the web.  Which of his request do you agree with?

As long as the way Trump found not to pay taxes were legal I have no problem with it.  I and everyone else does the same thing. 

I celebrated when the tax laws were changed.   The more of my money I earn that the government lets me keep the happier I am.  Who isn't.  

I like immigrants.  I think we should have legal liberal immigration laws  that admits plenty of hispanics.   I belong to both motorcycle and car clubs that have significant Hispanic membership.  We go on rides, work on each other's machines.  We even belong to the same church.  But according to you, because I want immigrants to enter the US legally in your book I'm a racist.  

Immigration is not a race issue.  That is a straw man argument.

On 1/23/2018 at 8:26 AM, swansont said:

What crimes? You, as per usual, have not included anything to support your assertions.

Is there a price paid? These parents pay taxes. What evidence do you have that there is any price being paid by the citizens?

Evidence?

 

Perhaps you haven't noticed but the US has immigration laws.  It appears that you don't like these laws and don't believe that these laws should be enforced.  It seems that you believe that any person who steps foot in the US should automatically be a  citizen with all rights afforded a US citizen included voting.  I'm sure you feel that if a person bought a candy bar at convenience store he paid taxes so all that person need is to keep the receipt so now that person is a citizen    Perhaps you should read the 14th amendment.  Why bother however? You will just ignore the parts you don't like.  Maybe you should read Article VI of the constitution.  Yeah, I know you feel like you should be able to pick and choose only the things you like from that document as well.  

The predicament the Dreamers are in are the direct result of the criminal actions of their parents.  Explain to me how that is not true. That is child abuse.  It's no different than taking you child with you to rob a bank.  

Picking and choosing which law to enforce will lead to nothing but trouble.    How would you like it If I was the one doing the picking and choosing?  I on the other hand am a law abiding citizen who follows all the laws.  Even the ones I don't like.  Why not you?  

On 1/23/2018 at 8:58 AM, CharonY said:

This, however, is common issue with certain opponents of all immigration (as seen above, either accidentally or by choice the distinction is now US citizens vs foreigners, regardless of legal status). They see economics as a zero-sum game where money is either directed to citizens or to immigrants. What is neglected is the overall net change on the economy which could, in fact increase income that then could be directed to help the impoverished. It is also telling if the same persons also happen to oppose social programs to help the impoverished or redistribution of income when the discussion is not about immigrants.

This is just BS.  Again we have laws.  Those laws need to be enforced.  Change them if you can but until you do they should be enforced.

On 1/23/2018 at 9:59 AM, rangerx said:

Quashing DACA and deporting dreamers is just exactly that.

It's typical how conservatives eschew something by doing it themselves.

I can hardly wait until Mexico starts sending your expats back. It's astounding how many American sleazeballs are hiding in plain sight down there.

I'm sure your private prison industry will enjoy that... at your expense.

Sleazeballs who break the law and hide out in Mexico should be returned to the US should be returned to the US for prosecution and punishment.  Their victims deserve justice. Why would any good person want anything less? 

On 1/23/2018 at 11:44 AM, rangerx said:

Not to mention the impending humanitarian crisis.

Deporting the oppressed back to their oppressors.

The American dream is a fucking joke.

First, the Dreamers are not Americans.  Second the US is not the welfare provider for the world.  This humanitarian crisis was caused by States not enforcing Federal law and the parents of Dreamers who brought their children here illegally.  What part of that don't you get?

10 hours ago, Sensei said:

Having to flee from country where is regular war, civil war or martial law (e.g. Poland in 1981), to rescue life, rescue against being arrested, rescue against being tortured, you're calling "crime of parents"..

You must have unbelievable a lot of nerve (and stupidity), to say something like that..

 

So following our laws is stupid?  Not a life path I would recommend.  

So now on to recent news.

Trump says he wants to admit Dreamers and provide a path for them to become citizens.  Trump just was substantial immigration reform so we don't get into this situation again. In politics there is bargaining.  What are you willing to give Trump to get what you want on DACA?

34 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Asking me a series of different questions doesn't answer the question I asked you. What price is paid by U.S. Citizens by enabling those protected by DACA to stay? 

Your questions: focusing on "crimes committed" is leapfrogging backyards. DACA is already policy put in place by a POTUS and numerous local govt have laws on the books offering a variety of protections. The debate is whether or not we should end a program, DACA. What "obligation" are you talking about? What are you purposing? You seem to be implying the individuals protected by DACA cost or burden U.S. citizens somehow but you aren't elaborating as to how. 

The price we are paying is that we are spending resources on foreigners that could be spent on improving the lives of impoverished US citizens, improving education for our children, etc.  Also illegal immigrants put lowering price pressure on wages further grinding people into poverty.  

What obligation am I talking about?  How about basic human altruism.  These children are citizens of other countries that are in a bind because of the criminal actions of their parents.  If roles were reversed and those children were US citizens in a bind, I would want my government to help.  Not just financial help, but border enforcement help.  Quite frankly I would be embarrassed that my country was exporting is social problems to other countries.      

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What price are we (U.S. Citizens) paying by letting people raised and educated in the U.S. stay in the U.S.?

 

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Because we were all children once and not one of us chose where we were born or who our parents are. 

You two have an interesting sense of justice.  Crimes where committed.  Those crimes include child abuse by the parents of DACA children when they included them in their crimes. Somehow you don't have a problem with that.  Next, are these children not citizens of other countries?  Are the people from those countries less empathetic to the plight of their children citizens than other human beings would be? Those countries have no obligation at all?

Why not a discussion on the shared human responsibility of all involved?

20 hours ago, iNow said:

Indeed, and that's just it. The support for things like DACA, CHIP, and improved legal immigration is through the roof. It keeps getting stymied by those who have vested interests or personal biases, those who want fewer immigrants and more white people.

You just have to make this about race, but their is no need to.  I often read on this forum that the US doesn't need to be the world's police force, but somehow we are supposed to be the world's welfare office.  Why?  Why should US citizens pay the price of the crimes committed by the parents of DACA children?  Why doesn't Mexico accept the responsibility for it's child citizens?

20 hours ago, iNow said:

We can do both in parallel...

Well when you believe you can't run out of other people's money everything can be done in parallel.  So when does utopia begin?  

On 1/20/2018 at 6:51 PM, iNow said:

Just because these people you know and love aren’t actively lynching people doesn’t mean what they’re saying, doing, and supporting isn’t racist. 

We can, should, and must be better. 

Agreed.  Is it really that hard to do a gut check on opinions and attitudes?  Sometimes you find out you are not such a fine person after all.  That causes personal growth.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:12 PM, iNow said:

We’re arriving rapidly to a point in our society wherein if you’re not actively pushing back against racist alignments then you’re complicit in letting it grow and strengthen. 

Agreed here  as well, but after that gut check one might conclude that there is nothing immoral with their position.   We are talking about illegal immigration here.  We live in a nation of laws. That is how our society functions. Picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which ones not to is a dangerous path.

Why should we pick and choose?  Last time I checked we have a representative government that can write new law any time it wants.  It can even change the constitution.  The only question is why can't congress make a deal?  Who likes illegal immigration and wants it to continue?  By the way I don't think that is just Democrats.

I have no problem with legal immigration.  In fact I think legal immigration should be increased particularly from Mexico.  I know and am friends with lots of US citizens originally from Mexico or second generation.  I believe they assimilate much faster than other cultures. My favorite part is that they like fast cars and motorcycles. 

I'll conclude with a little tale from my career.  As part of my career, I worked as a wireless base station design engineer.  When we released new product designs, the design engineers were temporarily reassigned as installation troubleshooting and deployed to the field to get the network deployed and functioning quickly.  It turns out that a lot of major freeways, highways, and arterials run through very impoverished neighborhoods.  These roads have high wireless traffic so they need more base station equipment installed along them  In fact base stations are frequently installed on the roofs US housing project buildings.  I have been in many of these buildings.  They are not a fun place to visit.  These are multi-story buildings. Never did I find a functioning elevator.  All equipment had to be carried up the stairwells.  Those stairwells were primarily used as latrines, drug shooting galleries and surprisingly as playgrounds for small children.  Some were in diapers.  Needle tipped syringes were everywhere.  While I can't be certain,  I believe every person I saw in those US government projects were US citizens.

Why are we not focused on helping those US citizens?  People our own nation ground into poverty.  Charity begins at home in my book.

On 1/13/2018 at 1:05 PM, iNow said:

Perhaps a decade from now, I’ll do the same. That said, it may also take me a full decade to complete a single project. Lol. 

I’ve got an air compressor, but no brad nailer. I may consider looking into that one of these days. 

I'm not suggesting you abandon the craftsman approach.  You will learn a lot of good skills and build some nice things.  At the same time however, take on some less challenging projects.  Something like a work bench made out of plywood and 2X4s for your garage.  

With regard to the brad nailer, you need to make Harbor Freight tools your best friend.  Yeah, a lot of people bad mouth there tools.  Yeah, occasionally you will buy something there that truly is junk.  That said, I have a garage full of there tools that all work great.  I think you can get a brad nailer / staple gun there for $9.99, and if you go to there on line add get a coupon for a free LED flashlight or some other thing. 

On 1/13/2018 at 7:29 PM, iNow said:

Should I attempt a farmhouse style table for the dining room, or just buy one?

You want to build a dining room table and you have never built a work bench for your garage?  You will be surprised what you will learn about table building making a work bench.  Also, you will have a kick ass work bench to do other cool projects

On 1/13/2018 at 8:43 PM, zapatos said:

IMO, in order to build a table that you will be happy with you first must have patience, attention to detail, and recognition of when those attributes are slipping (due to fatigue, being in a hurry, etc.), so that you can step away before you screw something up. If you do each individual step to the best of your ability, your overall project will be the best you are capable of with your current experience, and will generally be something you are happy with.

Assuming the above is true the next thing you need is a plan. Not just the look and dimensions of the table, but an idea of how you are going to accomplish cuts, glue up, joinery, finishing, etc. That will come from either a plan you are following, someone to guide you, or your own knowledge.

If you've got the two items above covered, go for it! It really doesn't matter if you've done the techniques before because if you have the right approach (paragraph 1) and know what you have to accomplish (paragraph 2) then you will be successful. May not be perfect, but it will at least be good enough, and no one will likely notice any imperfections except for you. The average person will not look that closely.

When I build things I often do a lot of the tasks twice. Once for practice or to see how it will go, and once for real. I'll cut a rabbet on a piece of scrap before I do it for real. I'll dry assemble before actual glue-up to make sure I have enough clamps and time to get it glued before things start drying. I'll sand/stain/apply polyurethane on a sample to see how it looks. That way when I do it on the piece I'm making it comes out the way I want it to.

When you get down to it, all you are really doing is cutting wood into smaller pieces, then putting the pieces together in the shape you are after. Since you are still fairly new to this game, you may want to consider making it out of, say, pine rather than something like oak. Much cheaper and easier to work.

I vote you make it.

 

 

 

Sage advice.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s actually rather encouraging seeing that you can do something like that just with pine

The hardest part to build for any formal table is going to be the top.  If you have to glue up your own boards you will also likely have to plane the top as well.  You may be able to find a supplier of glued and planed 4X8 foot sheets.  Here is my local supplier.

http://www.bargainhuntcabinets.com/?page_id=821

I do woodworking all the time.  Most I would have to admit are utility items for my shop and garage.  Storage shelves, work benches, lab benches.  Occasionally furniture items like coat racks, reading lamps, or end tables.  There was a time when I went the no modern fastener route, but I gave that up about a decade ago.  You can complete an entire project on a Saturday with modern fasteners.  Mostly I'm talking about dry wall screws caped with dowel plugs.  Of all the tools I have purchased that have made me a productive wood worker I would say my air compressor, and brad nailer make just about every project possible.  The trick with a brad nailer is that you can tack your project together while also gluing the parts.  You will be surprised what you can build.  

When I was a younger man I went the craftsman route. I get the zen thing.  When I gave up on that I got a lot more accomplished.  Also I built a lot more things. That taught me  a lot about how to build things that looked good and were sound structures.  

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Can you provide an example of one that has sustained, however powerful they were?

Do you imagine capitalism isn't guilty of causing human wreckage? In fact, I think you'll find the answers to your questions in the people/governments of those that capitalism destroyed in your country.

The point is neither system produce results, in terms of sustainability, maybe an amalgamation (the middle ground) is the way to go if you want your children (descendants) to enjoy what you have.

This is a science forum. Science is supported by by data.  I asked for data from history that supports you government ideal. i'm not surprised that you can't do it.  In the mean time capitalism is supplying innovation, surplus and prosperity wherever it is implemented. 

Your ideal intentionally holds people back because some win more than others.  What gives you, or the government the right to limit the success of others?

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You're so close to understanding our position, I hope you'll bear with me and really think about this next argument. Please.

You speak of "a capitalist economy". That's automatically rigged, by definition, in favor of those who are good at making money. That's only a portion of the population. When we blend some socialist solutions in with the capitalist ones, we highlight and support those who are good at other things we need, besides making money. We can even talk about reasons why we might let our government own resources, and add some communism into the mix, which will favor even more skills and professions.

Our current brand of capitalism is too heavily rigged to wealth. The top 500 wealthiest people in the world made over $1T more in 2017 than they did just one year ago, while so many hard-working Americans struggle as what little support they have is shifted away from them. We've made some very elegant arguments that a smarter mix of economic formulae is needed. Do you disagree?

Thanks for reading this far, if you did.

First, i get a little tired of the smarmy comments like your last one.  Disagreement is not an indication of reading ability, comprehension or understanding a counter argument .   I just think you are wrong.

This blue marble has been spinning in the universe for some time now.  Many governments have existed in the history of mankind. Maybe you could give me an example of even one that met or came even close to your ideal.  Then perhaps compare that to the benefits provided by the history of capitalism.  Also,perhaps you should be a bit more honest about the human wreckage caused through history by those promoting your path. 

As I said to iNow, I believe your goals are good and genuine, but there results of your path will always have poor results. Don't you think results matter?

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Part of realizing that optimization includes hard work, self sacrifice, and struggle, but another part includes ensuring the system isn’t rigged, that rules are written fairly and enforced equally, and that those who work hard can climb the income ladder even if not born into wealth; that the system must be structured in such a way that winning the lottery of birth isn’t the only way to achieve great things... 

Above is the nut of our differences. A capitalist economy is far too spontaneous for your comfort.  There is no stopping the fact that some will succeed more than others in a capitalist economy. Your goal to ensure the system isn't rigged, that rules are written and enforced equally just sets the rigging bias on those you prefer.  They also slow economic growth.  Prosperity requires economic growth.  Why slow it down?  

22 hours ago, iNow said:

A better question is who pays FOR these cuts that they neither needed nor requested. A few facts are helpful here to understand context. 

The headline corporate tax rate was 35%. With loopholes and accounting gimmicks, actual corporate taxes paid was closer to a 20% rate. 

Corporations were only asking for a cut to their headline tax rate from 35% to 29%, but we gave them an even bigger cut and made the headline rate 21%. We did so without closing any of the existing loopholes. In fact, most analyses show that the number of loopholes has actually increased with this bill. 

That means corporate taxes have a new effective rate closer to 10%. 

Now, the core argument is that corporations will suddenly go gangbusters and hire a bunch of people and give all employees a huge raise now that they have all this extra cash available. However, corporations are already sitting on record cash reserves, they’re overloaded with cash yet wages continue to stay flat and hiring remains muted.

This suggests a lack of cash isn’t the problem, and further tax cuts are unlikely to help. What’s likely to happen is this extra money will be used for stock buybacks to inflate their stock prices, coupled with bonuses to executives.

We also know that other countries will retaliate by adjusting their own corporate taxes and the benfit were hoping for here I the US will be diminished. It will become a race to the bottom, amd all of us individuals and workers here in the US and around the globe will unnecessarily suffer and lose opportunities.

If the goal was to help us workers and to assist the middle class, a better approach would’ve been to give the huge rate cut directly to us, not to the corporations with our fingers crossed... just hoping/wishing/praying that they’ll use it to pay workers more. The only reason they would is due to kindness and good natures, but those are uncommon in the cutthroat world of business where quarterly profit takes priority above all else. There are simply no provisions in the bill mandating that corporations use this money to increase wages or jobs so (while a tiny fraction might) most wont. 

Corprations asked for 29%. They got 21%. Why not just cut out the middle man and give that extra 8% directly to us? It’s because we’re being sold a lie, that’s why  

This was a giant giveaway to rich friends and donors, and next they’ll claim a desperate need to “fix the deficit and debt”...the same deficit they just completely exploded with the tax bill... by cutting our Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and investment in schools, roads, and related infrastructure that all of us at all income levels depend so heavily upon.

So, as I stated at the beginning of this post... A much better question than “who pays corporate taxes” is instead who pays FOR these cuts that corporations neither needed nor requested? The answer is you and me, brother. Sad. 

iNow, I have no doubt that you would like to see a prosperous economy which provides a path for all Americans to reach comfortable prosperity.  Your problem is that you can only see a government directed path. To achieve comfortable prosperity we need to grow the economy create jobs, and compete and win in world markets.  Sure capitalism is a free for all with winners and losers, but if the majority win, aren't things better for the nation? 

Here is what I have seen from the government path to economic growth.  Targeted tax cuts.   The problem with targeted tax cuts is that no one is placed in the bulls-eye of these tax cuts.  Also, so much government regulation that the cost to actually profit from investing is impossible.   Heaven forbid that that one more molecule of C02 be produced or that a hole be drilled or dug in the ground.  Somehow you are blind to the losers on the government path.  My guess is that since you believe you have good intentions those losers don't count.

Do you ever think of the people you are holding back?  Do you care? 

I know I point this out to you frequently, but reread your quoted text above and do an envy check.  

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

You need a citation to support this nonsense that come from someplace other that a pro Christian Theocracy extremists website. You are attempting to make this claim as a historical fact.

It is not relevant or even true. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Quote

The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, white leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers. The compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.^[2] An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

It is relevant because the intention was to reduce the political power of slave states. 

The anti-slavery faction felt they lost in the 3/5 compromise because they wanted slaves to count for zero.  Any counting of slaves gave slave holding states more power in the federal government.  If slaves had counted for zero, slavery could have easily been contained within the existing slave holding states and then later been abolished through legislation. The 3/5 compromise did in fact limit the power of slave holding states, just not enough. 

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Huh?

Something about the link I provided that you don't understand?

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Funny. Let me finish that for you. "I..." was crazy to think a party in the present could be responsible for the actions of a party from the past. 

Don't speak for me.  

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Article 1 of the US Constitution claims that slaves are 3/5 of a white person. Pretty sure that's the origin of white supremacy in the US, over a hundred years earlier. Truth matters to me.

The 3/5 of a white person rule was an anti-slavery position.  To count slaves as full persons would have given the south more political power by giving them a higher population.  Anti-slavery proponents didn't want slaves to be counted at all.  There argument was that if a slave is simply property like a horse why should they be counted?  Had they gotten there way, slavery would have likely ended sooner.  The 3/5 of a white person rule as a compromise that anti-slavery proponents felt they lost.  

https://americanvision.org/3918/the-original-constitution-and-the-three-fifths-myth/