Trump vineyard seeks Labor Department approval to hire foreign workers

[Lexicus]

you originally said "Unemployment is caused by insufficient spending in the economy, not by individual deficiencies." I was then following up by trying to clarify what you where meaning by "unemployment" in this case. After that was clear, I was responding to your original post by saying (To word it differently.) that unemployment, in this case, is not caused by insufficient spending in the economy as you suggest, but rather by lazy people living off well-fair.

"Lazy people living off well-fair" is largely a myth; you can only collect welfare benefits for a limited time in the US.
Indeed, the situation we see with welfare is actually a consequence, rather than a cause, of widespread unemployment.
To illustrate this most simply, the ratio of unemployed people to job openings is still greater than one:

Okay, if you believe so strongly that paying for routine heal-care is over all cheaper (As in cheaper for every one, not just someone.) then would you please mind providing me a source for such a claim.

Nevermind, apparently it isn't. It is, in my opinion, the right thing to do, and allows costs to be distributed more equitably though.

 

[Ajidica]

So basically bring the rich down and pull the poor up. Or, to put it another way, when ever someone finally does great, lets pull them back down because it did not happen to us and they are "abusing the system to get ahead."

What world are you living on where people are no longer able to get rich? Minnesota is a high tax state, but I haven't noticed any wealthy people disappearing or being taxed into poverty. (I haven't seen anyone on the side of the road with "Homeless. Hungry. Billionaire. Please Help. God Bless." signs.) Remember, at no point do you earn less money when your income goes up under a progressive tax scheme, just like in a flat or regressive tax scheme. It simply means you don't necessarily earn as much as you otherwise would have.

Okay, thank you for the clarification. But then how is this any different than what I said?

I'll agree with you and say life is not fair, but is one of the points of a government (Other than security) to help make a fairer environment?

You presented the comment as if you believe the government should not be working to make a fairer environment. So either you believe on of the founding judicial principle of civilization, that "the strong should not harm the weak" is bunk or somewhere along the line your train of thought got derailed. Nothing to be defensive about, happens to all of us.

So I'm pretty sure we both know what to actual definition of Communism is, but I'm just going to post what Google brought up just to make sure we are on the same page.

That is probably the worst definition of communism I have ever heard. Shall we just focus on what I actually have been talking about, a robust cradle-to-grave welfare state funded by a progressive tax structure; like what was common in France, the UK, Germany, and Scandinavia until the mid 1980s?

So first, I'll admit, its not Communism as all property won't be publicly owned, though it would still have quite some comparisons to Communism as the "each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs." shows.
So if we take your arguments that in which you say we need to tax the rich higher and lower the tax and provide free healthcare would basically be giving them pre-spent wage, or "paid according to their needs".

Provision of welfare services is in no way, shape, or form communist (or even socialist); unless you want to argue Otto von Bismarck, Charles deGaulle, and David Lloyd George were "communists".

I'm actually quite glad you asked this. I would suggest that they could ask their boss for a raise, find a better paying job, cut expenses, get a second job (I mean honestly, I've known people who worked 3 jobs, and still living pay check to pay check and never accepted government help.) , one of their dependents could get a job, and as a last resort scenario (no matter how much I'd recommend to try everything you can first, I still want to list it.) put things on a credit card and hope you can pay it all when the bill comes.

I would like to note that absolutely none of those address what a person living paycheck to paycheck is to do when they are unable make ends meet. On a broader note, we live in a society where some individuals have unimaginable wealth and others are living in a financial situation where through no fault of their own they could be plunged into poverty or debt. A car accident, an unexpected medical bill, a job loss, or any number of other events. Where funding for schools and health services is cut into order to give tax breaks to some wealthy individuals in the ephemeral hope they might bless us with largesse. Where worker protections are stripped away to try and attract a handful of low-wage jobs with no guarantee of their permanence. Put bluntly, your argument has been "Screw everyone else, I have cash". The fact you present "get a second job" or "cut expenses" as a valid replacement for a robust welfare state indicates you don't really know life works. In my old job, I worked for $15/hr, but had I not been able to live at home while paying off student loans, it would have been a very precarious situation if I had any unexpected expenses. I was able to get a new job that paid better; but that requires I have a college degree. College is expensive and increasingly becoming a requirement for a well paying secure job. Child dependents can't get a job and once adult have their own expenses to deal with. Putting things on credit cards is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea. Credit cards are high-interest and if you are in a financially precarious situation now, I somehow doubt it will have improved by the next month.

 

[GameBoy2000]

"Lazy people living off well-fair" is largely a myth; you can only collect welfare benefits for a limited time in the US.

Well, that is unless you get a job and purposelessly try to get fired from it.

Indeed, the situation we see with welfare is actually a consequence, rather than a cause, of widespread unemployment.
To illustrate this most simply, the ratio of unemployed people to job openings is still greater than one:

Except that this argument does not account for things like self-employment. You don't need to have a job opening to get a job and provide for your self/dependents.

Nevermind, apparently it isn't. It is, in my opinion, the right thing to do, and allows costs to be distributed more equitably though.

Okay, well then let me ask you this if you don't mind. Would distributing the costs equally not mean giving the same cost to all classes. (Well, more accurately, a % of the costs that is determined by the amount of people per class out of the total number of people living in the US.)

What world are you living on where people are no longer able to get rich? Minnesota is a high tax state, but I haven't noticed any wealthy people disappearing or being taxed into poverty.

I'm not saying that they are being taxed into poverty and they are disappearing, they are simply moving out of the US due to the higher taxes. (Not to mention the desire to raise them.)

Remember, at no point do you earn less money when your income goes up under a progressive tax scheme, just like in a flat or regressive tax scheme. It simply means you don't necessarily earn as much as you otherwise would have.

Okay, I'll be honest here, I just got done typing out an example for why your would be wrong, and after looking over it for spelling errors I realized I was wrong, and I can't think of any counter arguments so you have a fair point.

You presented the comment as if you believe the government should not be working to make a fairer environment. So either you believe on of the founding judicial principle of civilization, that "the strong should not harm the weak" is bunk or somewhere along the line your train of thought got derailed. Nothing to be defensive about, happens to all of us.

Okay, I'll chalk it up as me do being clear with what I was meaning, but I was (trying) saying that they government should be trying to make a fairer environment (for the poor and the rich.)

That is probably the worst definition of communism I have ever heard.

Well, its the first thing Google provided. But if you want to provide a one that you feel is decent, I'll work with it. Until such time though, I'm going to use that definition for my arguments.

Provision of welfare services is in no way, shape, or form communist (or even socialist); unless you want to argue Otto von Bismarck, Charles deGaulle, and David Lloyd George were "communists".

Based on what I just said, I'm going to leave this side for next time to give you a chance to respond with a definition of your liking.

I would like to note that absolutely none of those address what a person living paycheck to paycheck is to do when they are unable make ends meet.

How? Asking their boss for a raise, find a better paying job, and/or getting a second job would increase the amount they make and cutting expenses, well, there is normal somewhere you can cut back. (For example, as inhumane as this might sound, fully grown adults can survive without food for 3 weeks. I mean, I would not suggest it nor would I like to see it happen, but you don't have to eat every day.) Dependents can get jobs, I mean there are plenty of ways, even for kids. I mean, there are some regulations, but you can get a job when your 14 years of age.

A car accident, an unexpected medical bill, a job loss, or any number of other events.

Or you, something called life? I mean, there are plenty of middle class people that something like that could happen to and they'd be in the same boat.

Where funding for schools and health services is cut into order to give tax breaks to some wealthy individuals in the ephemeral hope they might bless us with largesse.

Okay, I'll admit, the current system we have is messed up. (But on a side note, I'm hoping some of Trump's policies will help out situation out.)

Put bluntly, your argument has been "Screw everyone else, I have cash".

In what way? I'm saying there is ways for the poor to get by and I feel giving them my money is not right? (Or put differently "I don't have money, give yours to me and screw you.")

The fact you present "get a second job" or "cut expenses" as a valid replacement for a robust welfare state indicates you don't really know life works.

So wait, having a different opinion from you to get to the same answer means "I don't know how life works"? Man, what an echo chamber.

I worked for $15/hr, but had I not been able to live at home while paying off student loans, it would have been a very precarious situation if I had any unexpected expenses.

Again, that's called life.

I was able to get a new job that paid better; but that requires I have a college degree. College is expensive and increasingly becoming a requirement for a well paying secure job

No arguments here. In fact I fully agree with you.

Child dependents can't get a job

Well, actually, that is only mostly true for kids under 14 years of age. But if they are below that, why can they decide to go have a kid (and they should know they would not be able to afford it. I mean, its not exactly a secret that on average it costs 1 million USD to raise a kid from birth to their 18th birthday.) and then expect others to pay for it? If you can't afford it, don't have a kid. And to clean this second part up as much as I can, if it was an accident, well they consciously chose to do it and they gave consent. (Though, I want to point out, if there was no consent, this brings up a hole new argument, but to put it a a few words, I'd be much, much, more open to the idea.)

Putting things on credit cards is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea.

No argument, and I did specifically say it was a horrible idea. But I have friends who have literally had to put hings on credit cards and and random pick which one are they going to pay. All of which before they accepted government assistance (by they way, they never did accept it.) So it is do-able, but I'd still hardly ever recommend it.

Credit cards are high-interest

Well, if you pay the full amount on time, they are 0% interest.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, that is unless you get a job and purposelessly try to get fired from it.

You can only collect welfare for 60 months. That's the lifetime limit for anyone.

Except that this argument does not account for things like self-employment. You don't need to have a job opening to get a job and provide for your self/dependents.

This doesn't address the issue that employment springs from spending, and when there isn't enough spending, there won't be enough jobs. Self-employment only works if people have enough money to buy what you're selling.

Okay, well then let me ask you this if you don't mind. Would distributing the costs equally not mean giving the same cost to all classes. (Well, more accurately, a % of the costs that is determined by the amount of people per class out of the total number of people living in the US.)

It would mean the rich would pay more because they can afford more. Universal insurance would also mean that if I end up in the hospital with a heart attack, I'm not on the hook for $60,000.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm not saying that they are being taxed into poverty and they are disappearing, they are simply moving out of the US due to the higher taxes. (Not to mention the desire to raise them.)

So rather than taking steps to cut down on semi-legal offshore accounts and tax havens, you are saying we should cut taxes so wealthy individuals will somehow decide out of the generosity of their hearts to start paying taxes at a lower rate rather than keeping in the Virgin Islands any paying no tax?

Okay, I'll chalk it up as me do being clear with what I was meaning, but I was (trying) saying that they government should be trying to make a fairer environment (for the poor and the rich.)

Remember though that absent government welfare, there is no fairness between the rich and the poor. If public schools didn't exist, with the only option being private, it would be "fair" in the sense everybody had the same options. However, anyone looking at it would see it is manifestly unfair because the kids of wealthy individuals would have a massive advantage in that they had far easier access to education. My parents weren't poor, but the thought of having to put two kids through private school was the main reason we moved to Minnesota.

Well, its the first thing Google provided. But if you want to provide a one that you feel is decent, I'll work with it. Until such time though, I'm going to use that definition for my arguments.

Since we aren't talking about Communism, are not stamping the hammer and sickle on everything, and I haven't been overcome with the urge to start singing the Internationale, perhaps we should focus on what I've been talking about. You know, a robust cradle-to-grave welfare state as in France, the UK, and Scandinavia following WWII (and to some extent still around).
Or you can try and characterize our two strongest allies during the Cold War- and founding members of NATO- as Communist. I must admit I would be somewhat interested to see how far down that rabbit hole you feel like going.

Or you, something called life? I mean, there are plenty of middle class people that something like that could happen to and they'd be in the same boat.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the welfare system wouldn't apply to everybody.

Okay, I'll admit, the current system we have is messed up. (But on a side note, I'm hoping some of Trump's policies will help out situation out.)

What white papers has #thetrumpening proposed that you believe would remove the need for a welfare system? (PROTIP: "Make America Great Again" is not a policy.)

In what way? I'm saying there is ways for the poor to get by and I feel giving them my money is not right? (Or put differently "I don't have money, give yours to me and screw you.")

It is more just startling that you believe people can live in the wealthiest country in the world, but are not entitled to education, health care, or financial security as part of securing human dignity and decency.

So wait, having a different opinion from you to get to the same answer means "I don't know how life works"? Man, what an echo chamber.

No. The fact you seem to consider "not eating for a day", "put it on a credit card", or "put 14 year olds to work" rather than school as valid replacements for a welfare system.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Well, that is unless you get a job and purposelessly try to get fired from it.

Do you have any idea how insane you sound right now? Who would do this? Why would anybody ever do this? It makes no sense.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Well, that is unless you get a job and purposelessly try to get fired from it.

this is indeed what humans seek

 

[GameBoy2000]

You can only collect welfare for 60 months. That's the lifetime limit for anyone.

Well, unless you think TANF is the only thing welfare consists of, I'm going to need you to provide a link for that statement. (For the record, I've looked around a bit and nothing shows this, with the exception of TANF. And in addition I [sadly] know people how have been collecting welfare for decades, legally.)

This doesn't address the issue that employment springs from spending, and when there isn't enough spending, there won't be enough jobs. Self-employment only works if people have enough money to buy what you're selling.

Given the fact that you provide a halfway decent product at a fair price, the middle class would be where your sales are. But on a slightly irreverent note, it doe not have to be a product, you could very well provide a service.

It would mean the rich would pay more because they can afford more. Universal insurance would also mean that if I end up in the hospital with a heart attack, I'm not on the hook for $60,000.

Okay, I was just curious on what you specifically meant by that.

So rather than taking steps to cut down on semi-legal offshore accounts and tax havens

For the record, I'd say those are problems. But not ones where we should remove them, rather somehow put a tax/fee on it so high its not worth doing anymore.

you are saying we should cut taxes so wealthy individuals will somehow decide out of the generosity of their hearts to start paying taxes at a lower rate rather than keeping in the Virgin Islands any paying no tax?

No, I'm just saying that if we keep raising taxes that they will move out of the US.

Remember though that absent government welfare, there is no fairness between the rich and the poor.

Well, equal opportunity, if the law does not discriminant ageist a group, then it is very well equal opportunity. The key word here is opportunity. The poor are in a position to use the opportunity, but weather they chose to is another story.

If public schools didn't exist, with the only option being private

*cough* homeschooling *cough*

it would be "fair" in the sense everybody had the same options.

It would not be "fair", it would be fair.

However, anyone looking at it would see it is manifestly unfair because the kids of wealthy individuals would have a massive advantage in that they had far easier access to education.

2 things.

1. Again, homeschooling.

2. So, unless the poor gets something for free that the rich MUST provide it to them, that is fair? Okay, just ponder on this for me, you don't even need to respond. If you take the average poor person in America and the Average rich person in America and switch all of their fanatical assets. Do you really think, the now rich poor person would pay to bring the now poor rich person up in the world? (And this is not even taping on the subject that most likely the rich person worked for that wealth.)

Since we aren't talking about Communism, are not stamping the hammer and sickle on everything, and I haven't been overcome with the urge to start singing the Internationale, perhaps we should focus on what I've been talking about.

Okay, well then I'll have to work with the definition I've provided.

You know, a robust cradle-to-grave welfare state as in France, the UK, and Scandinavia following WWII (and to some extent still around).

I've given my 2 cents on it, nothing to respond to here.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the welfare system wouldn't apply to everybody.

Well, unless you want it to apply to the middle class and the rich (which would be quite counter intuitive.) then it would only apply to the poor.

What white papers has #thetrumpening proposed that you believe would remove the need for a welfare system?

I never said remove, I said help decrees the need. And specifically, putting the tariffs on imports. (Ergo, bringing jobs back.)

(PROTIP: "Make America Great Again" is not a policy.)

I don't know what you think about me, but come on. At least give me enough credit to know this. (And for the record, I did.)

It is more just startling that you believe people can live in the wealthiest country in the world, but are not entitled to education, health care, or financial security as part of securing human dignity and decency.

Oh, when did we start talking about Qatar? Sorry, don't know much about the politics over there.

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-richest-countries-in-the-world.html

No. The fact you seem to consider "not eating for a day", "put it on a credit card", or "put 14 year olds to work" rather than school as valid replacements for a welfare system.

I don't have the patience to keep resting what I have been saying over and over.

Do you have any idea how insane you sound right now?

Yes, I don't.

Who would do this?

People who don't care about contributing to the world and instead live off of welfare. (And for the record, I find it sickening.)

Why would anybody ever do this?

Because that way they can stay at home smoking (insert drug of your choice here) instead of having a job and being productive.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, unless you think TANF is the only thing welfare consists of, I'm going to need you to provide a link for that statement. (For the record, I've looked around a bit and nothing shows this, with the exception of TANF.

How about you provide links to any welfare benefits that can be collected indefinitely.

And in addition I [sadly] know people how have been collecting welfare for decades, legally.)

I don't believe you.

 

[Ajidica]

For the record, I'd say those are problems. But not ones where we should remove them, rather somehow put a tax/fee on it so high its not worth doing anymore.

Wait, so you are saying we should raise taxes? I'm confused.

Well, equal opportunity, if the law does not discriminant ageist a group, then it is very well equal opportunity. The key word here is opportunity. The poor are in a position to use the opportunity, but weather they chose to is another story.

In the same way Stephen Hawking has the same opportunity to win a race as Usain Bolt.

*cough* homeschooling *cough*

Not an answer. Dumpster diving is an alternative to WIC; but not necessarily one we want to encourage.

It would not be "fair", it would be fair.

In the same way a race between Stephen Hawking and Usain Bolt is fair.

2. So, unless the poor gets something for free that the rich MUST provide it to them, that is fair?

Education, health services, and financial security is a right; not a privilege. Not sure how this is a difficult concept to grasp.

Okay, well then I'll have to work with the definition I've provided.

Hey, if you want to jump down the rabbit hole of calling our four strongest allies in the Cold War "Communist", be my guest.

Well, unless you want it to apply to the middle class and the rich (which would be quite counter intuitive.) then it would only apply to the poor.

Do you seriously not understand how the NHS or public education works? It is provided to EVERYBODY AS THEIR RIGHT AS A CITIZEN. There is no cutoff where you are too rich, no public education for you! That is how a cradle to grave welfare state works. If you happen to be fortunate enough to be able to afford alternate services, good on you. But it is still provided to you as a right.

I never said remove, I said help decrees the need. And specifically, putting the tariffs on imports. (Ergo, bringing jobs back.)

Tell me how a trade war with Mexico would help bring jobs back; as opposed to simply making goods more expensive and screwing over farmers by cutting off one of their largest export markets.

Oh, when did we start talking about Qatar? Sorry, don't know much about the politics over there.

Flippancy does not become you.

People who don't care about contributing to the world and instead live off of welfare. (And for the record, I find it sickening.)

You seem to be full of negative anecdotal stories about welfare, so here is a positive one.
My mother's family lived off welfare for several decades. Her dad was a garbageman and mother was a switchboard operating. Her dad was in and out of the hospital constantly (diabetes complications, lost both legs, went blind, dialysis, etc) as a result of a whole bunch of weird medical issues likely resulted from his deployment to the Pacific. As a result of LBJ's Great Society programs and our nascent attempt at a cradle to grave welfare state she was able to stay in high school, get free tuition to college, and was then able to get a full-ride scholarship for a masters program where she graduated with honors. Had welfare programs not existed, she probably would be a cashier at some store. Not much else you can do with a half completed high school degree. That is why I find it so repugnant when you say things like "welfare programs aren't necessary because you can just put the kid to work or put it on a credit card".

 

[W|M]

As an actual communist, welfare states aren't communism. Much better to have welfare than to not have it while capitalism is still around, though

*cough* homeschooling *cough*

Homeschooling is a terrible idea and if you think it's a good idea you need to go to an actual school and learn why it isn't.

2. So, unless the poor gets something for free that the rich MUST provide it to them, that is fair?

The rich will provide the flesh from which the poor will eat

 

[GameBoy2000]

How about you provide links to any welfare benefits that can be collected indefinitely.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/collecting-unemployment-benefits-indiana.html

Its quite simple actually, you find a job, meet the requirements, then let your work performance go down the drain until you get fired and thus are unable to "keep a job". (And this will keep working because if any previous employer wants to say that your a bad employee, well there is always suing for slander.)

I don't believe you.

Well then, sorry. There is nothing I can/care to do.

Wait, so you are saying we should raise taxes? I'm confused.

Okay, let me explain.

Tax the rich for the sake of them being rich - no

Put a tax (Or fee, what ever is easier and/or better in the long run.) on everyone for doing legal actions that get them out of paying taxes - Yes (To such a point, paying the regular tax would be cheaper. And as an example, off shore accounts. [I mean, it is their legal right to keep money off shore, do why infringe on the rights? Just make it less lucrative.])

Not an answer. Dumpster diving is an alternative to WIC; but not necessarily one we want to encourage.

2 things.

1: Who said they where mutually exclusive?

2: So wait, home schooling is dumpster diving in your mind? I'd very much like to hear how, given the fact that I was both in public, private, and homeschooled. (And for the record, Public - bored out of my mind, private - friend got a knife pulled on him, homeschooling - blew though a years worth of work in 1/2 a year and by the time I was done I was heading off to collage with about 1 year ahead of the people I was with in public school. [For the record again, my parents did check to be sure, and they did not even half to repeat a year.])

Education, health services, and financial security is a right; not a privilege. Not sure how this is a difficult concept to grasp.

2 things

1: Education, I agree should be a right and not a privilege. Health services, a fair amount of specifications that make me go both ways. And financial security, no just no. I can list why I feel that way if you want me to.

2: I suppose the ability to drive is also a right and not a privilege to you as well.

Do you seriously not understand how the NHS or public education works? It is provided to EVERYBODY AS THEIR RIGHT AS A CITIZEN. There is no cutoff where you are too rich, no public education for you! That is how a cradle to grave welfare state works. If you happen to be fortunate enough to be able to afford alternate services, good on you. But it is still provided to you as a right.

I understand that, but in reality it only befits the poor, the middle class and the rich can go on with out it.

Tell me how a trade war with Mexico would help bring jobs back; as opposed to simply making goods more expensive and screwing over farmers by cutting off one of their largest export markets.

Put simply as I can, it makes building factories here and producing the goods here cheaper. (Ergo, Americans have to work in those factories.) and the ones who don't, get their markets pushed out by cheaper and cheaper prices.

Flippancy does not become you.

Hey, I was not the one making an argument around a false "fact".

You seem to be full of negative anecdotal stories about welfare

The stories are not suppose to be the argument it self, I'm including them to help make my logic seem more logical. Now I don't expect you or anyone else to accept them as true or as a fact, for all I care you can completely ignore them. but much like how you take your personal experiences when reading a book, I'm taking mine when I go to the polls.

My mother's family lived off welfare for several decades. Her dad was a garbageman and mother was a switchboard operating. Her dad was in and out of the hospital constantly (diabetes complications, lost both legs, went blind, dialysis, etc) as a result of a whole bunch of weird medical issues likely resulted from his deployment to the Pacific. As a result of LBJ's Great Society programs and our nascent attempt at a cradle to grave welfare state she was able to stay in high school, get free tuition to college, and was then able to get a full-ride scholarship for a masters program where she graduated with honors. Had welfare programs not existed, she probably would be a cashier at some store. Not much else you can do with a half completed high school degree.

Well, that is a nice story you have there, I'll even accept it as a fact for our argument. (Something I don't expect from anyone else.) But for every nice one like this, there is also another one where lazy people live off of the government.

That is why I find it so repugnant when you say things like "welfare programs aren't necessary because you can just put the kid to work or put it on a credit card".

Okay, you seem to be ignoring a good chuck of what I'm saying, such as "I don't recommend this" or "bad idea". But it would be ignorant of us to ignore those options.

Homeschooling is a terrible idea and if you think it's a good idea you need to go to an actual school and learn why it isn't.

As I've stated before, I've been to public schools, I've been to private schools, I've even been schooled. So, I'd very much like to hear why this is the case, especially since most myths like we are anti-social are simply false.

The rich will provide the flesh from which the poor will eat

So basically, "We don't have it so bring it to us on a silver platter!"

 

[Lexicus]

Its quite simple actually, you find a job, meet the requirements, then let your work performance go down the drain until you get fired and thus are unable to "keep a job". (And this will keep working because if any previous employer wants to say that your a bad employee, well there is always suing for slander.)

Those aren't benefits that can be collected indefinitely. And unemployment insurance isn't welfare.

 

[Samson]

Do you seriously not understand how the NHS or public education works? It is provided to EVERYBODY AS THEIR RIGHT AS A CITIZEN. There is no cutoff where you are too rich, no public education for you! That is how a cradle to grave welfare state works. If you happen to be fortunate enough to be able to afford alternate services, good on you. But it is still provided to you as a right.

I understand that, but in reality it only befits the poor, the middle class and the rich can go on with out it.

This is incorrect. Most of the middle class and a lot of the rich rely the NHS.

 

[W|M]

As I've stated before, I've been to public schools, I've been to private schools, I've even been schooled. So, I'd very much like to hear why this is the case, especially since most myths like we are anti-social are simply false.

You seem pretty anti-social to me

So basically, "We don't have it so bring it to us on a silver platter!"

No, I mean what I said in a literal sense. Eat the rich

 

[Ajidica]

2 things.

1: Who said they where mutually exclusive?

So women and children should go dumpster diving to supplement WIC then?

2: So wait, home schooling is dumpster diving in your mind?

No, but presenting homeschooling as a viable alternative to comprehensive state provided public education is the functional equivalent of saying WIC isn't all that necessary because they can just go dumpster diving.
Homeschooling worked for you, Great! If parents have the resources to homeschool their kid and believe it is the right thing to do, Great! In no way, shape, or form is the existence of homeschooling an argument against a robust state provided public education.

2: I suppose the ability to drive is also a right and not a privilege to you as well.

Being able to drive is not part of ensuring basic human dignity. Receiving an education, and being free from the twin scourges of sickness and financial instability are essential to human dignity.

I understand that, but in reality it only befits the poor, the middle class and the rich can go on with out it.

Care to prove that middle and upper class people don't make use of the NHS, or don't believe they benefit from it? (When nearly 80% of British society believes it is essential to maintain the NHS, they probably are on to something. When Tories, Kippers, LibDems, and Labour all agree on something, it should clue you in to the fact it shouldn't be a controversial position.)
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/healthcarecommission.pdf
Or are you also going to be objecting to state provided clean water on the grounds in only benefits the poor as middle class and rich people can just buy propane tanks to boil the water before consumption.

Put simply as I can, it makes building factories here and producing the goods here cheaper.

No, tariffs and trade wars do not make domestic production of goods and services cheaper. If a TV can get made in Mexico by workers earning $5/hour; but due to trade restrictions it has to be made by domestic workers demanding $20/hr as befits a blue-collar job; that TV is going to be more expensive, significantly so. Especially because the CEO isn't going to let the increased cost of labor eat into his salary.
Absent government subsidies, tariffs and trade wars only make goods more expensive. Because, you know, the whole reason the good wasn't heavily made domestically was because it was cheaper to make it elsewhere. Not sure why you think bringing it back stateside would somehow make it cheaper.

Okay, you seem to be ignoring a good chuck of what I'm saying, such as "I don't recommend this" or "bad idea". But it would be ignorant of us to ignore those options.

Just because it is an option doesn't mean we need to consider it. We could also try and resolve poverty by requisitioning the property of everyone named Steve. It is an option. Doesn't mean it should brought up as a serious proposal.

 

[GameBoy2000]

Edit: Spelling (It needed it badly.)

Those aren't benefits that can be collected indefinitely.

If your willing to put the incredibly tiny amount of work into "looking" for a job (Going to interviews.) and "failing" to keep a job (Trying to get fired after you meet the requirements.). It effectively is.

And unemployment insurance isn't welfare.

Well, there is no actual definition of "welfare" when it comes to government programs, so if we are getting technical we have both been wrong this whole time. Or we can just agree that we have been using "welfare" as a more convenient term for "government assistance programs". I'm good both ways.

This is incorrect. Most of the middle class and a lot of the rich rely the NHS.

I'm not saying they don't rely on it, I'm saying they could go without it.

You seem pretty anti-social to me

In what ways? I'm having a civilized and social conversation, how does that make me anti-social?

And even if we assume that I am anti-social, that is still avoiding the question.

No, I mean what I said in a literal sense. Eat the rich

*Takes a step backwards* Okay... *Takes another step backwards* guess cannibalism is a good argument now... *Takes one more step backwards* I'll just be over there if you need me... *Runs off before I encounter an unfortunate set of circumstances*

So women and children should go dumpster diving to supplement WIC then?

I never said that. But biased off my understanding of what you said (Which could very well be wrong.) you where saying it was one or the other, I was simply asking when it was determined that you could only have one.

No, but presenting homeschooling as a viable alternative to comprehensive state provided public education

But, it is. I mean homeschooling is on the rise and a large chunk of colleges (and Google for that matter.) are preferring home schooled kids. Now I don't mean to say that a comprehensive state provided public education (Up till college, but that is another discussion.) is a bad thing, I might even support it depending on the details. But if what America has now is any sort of clue as how it would turn out, I'd be 100% against it.

is the functional equivalent of saying WIC isn't all that necessary because they can just go dumpster diving.

And this is the functional equivalent of saying homeschooling is dumpster diving.

Care to prove that middle and upper class people don't make use of the NHS

As I said to @Samson (But I don't expect you to read my responses to other people so I'll say it again.), I never said "don't make use of" I said "can live without it".

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/healthcarecommission.pdf

Sorry, but I don't really know what you want to to take from this. I looked over it and it only seems to be a report on peoples opinion of it and some statistics about their opinions. (Which is obviously has a bias as they are getting something for free. And that all the questions seemed to be either "Do you think Britain NHS is the best in the world?" and "What do you think we can do to improve it?" with nothing along the lines of "Do you think we need the NHS?" or [assuming they said no to the previous question.] "Why do you think we don't need it?")

Or are you also going to be objecting to state provided clean water on the grounds in only benefits the poor as middle class and rich people can just buy propane tanks to boil the water before consumption.

For the record, I do think clean water should be provided by the local government, but should be billed instead of free to everyone. (Largely because if its free no one would care about wasting water anymore and if its free it has to come from tax dollars, which means anyone who wants to use, say a well, still has to pay for it.)

No, tariffs and trade wars do not make domestic production of goods and services cheaper. If a TV can get made in Mexico by workers earning $5/hour; but due to trade restrictions it has to be made by domestic workers demanding $20/hr as befits a blue-collar job; that TV is going to be more expensive, significantly so. Especially because the CEO isn't going to let the increased cost of labor eat into his salary.

Okay, I could have been a bit clearer. What I was meaning was that it would be cheaper to make it here instead of over seas when the tariff is in place. EG: if it costs $10 to make a product in China vs $20 to make it in the US, the tariff would make it so that it would now cost more to import it from China rather than make it in the US.

Just because it is an option doesn't mean we need to consider it. We could also try and resolve poverty by requisitioning the property of everyone named Steve. It is an option. Doesn't mean it should brought up as a serious proposal.

Fair enough. But I still has several other options listed for solutions. (And actually, if I may touch back on putting 14 year olds to work, as sad as it might seem, its not uncommon to have a part-time job while going to school. Even if it is just so the kids can have some spending money to buy what they want rather than needing to do it so they can eat.)

 

[Ajidica]

I never said that. But biased off my understanding pf what you said (Which could very well be wrong.) you where saying it was one or the other, I was simply asking when it was determined that you could only have one.

Saying "they can supplement WIC by dumpster diving" isn't a statement you should be nailing your flag to. If women and children need to go dumpster diving to supplement WIC, it would suggest that income assistance should be increased.

But, it is. I mean homeschooling is on the rise and a large chunk of collages (and Google for that matter.) are preferring home schooled kids. Now I don't mean to say that a comprehensive state provided public enucation (Up till collage, but that is another discussion.) is a bad thing, I might even support it depending on the details. But if what America has now is any sort of clue as how it would turn out, I'd be 100% ageist it.

We are talking about colleges, not art projects; enucation is not a word; and the word you are against it, not biased due to age.
I'm not one to get butthurt about poor spelling, but a defense of homeschooling accompanied by chronic misspelling of words in forum software that supports autocorrect and spellcheck is moderately funny.

As I said to @Samson (But I don't expect you to read my responses to other people so I'll say it again.), I never said "don't make use of" I said "can live without it".

I could live without environmental protection laws, anti-pollution laws, and without public education. "Can live without it" is not a valid argument for why something should not be provided. People in many parts of the world can live without modern medical care or comprehensive public education; but those places tend to be on the crappy side of places to live. I doubt the Democratic Republic of Congo is a country we want to be emulating though.

For the record, I do think clean water should be provided by the local government, but should be billed instead of free to everyone. (Largely because if its free no one would care about wasting water anymore and if its free it has to come from tax dollars, which means anyone who wants to use, say a well, still has to pay for it.)

I never said free water, unless the water line on the property tax is secretly going to fund the mayors supervillain lair beneath Mount Doom. Rather, I am using it as an example of the government providing a service that you can, technically, live without. If you are arguing against a National Health Service in America on the grounds that we can "live without it", I expect to see an equally vigorous argument against government run utility companies on the grounds we can "live without it".

Okay, I could have been a bit clearer. What I was meaning was that it would be cheaper to make it here instead of over seas when the tariff is in place. EG: if it costs $10 to make a product in China vs $20 to make it in the US, the tariff would make it so that it would now cost more to import it from China rather than make it in the US.

If the price of a good doubles, I have effectively taken a 50% pay cut when buying that good.

Limited use of tariffs, trade quotas, and capital controls*, can be useful to achieve clear policy goals - such as in post-war Britain or the EU CAP. When tariffs, trade quotas, and capital controls become a fact of life, like in India until the 1990s, nobody is helped.

*Which I would like to note Trump hasn't said anything about. Probably because weak to nonexistent capital controls help him and his plutocratic friends fleece the country.

Even if it is just so the kids can have some spending money to buy what they want rather than needing to do it so they can eat.)

That is completely separate from "put Junior to work in the mines so we can put food on the table".

 

[Samson]

I understand that, but in reality it only befits the poor, the middle class and the rich can go on with out it.

This is incorrect. Most of the middle class and a lot of the rich rely the NHS.

I'm not saying they don't rely on it, I'm saying they could go without it.
...
As I said to @Samson (But I don't expect you to read my responses to other people so I'll say it again.), I never said "don't make use of" I said "can live without it".

You said "it only befits the poor", where as I am saying the middle class and some of the rich will benefit from it. For many who pay for medical treatment will use the NHS as the first point of contact (General Practitioners) and many other services. There are not many people here who think we should get rid of the NHS. Sure they could live without it, but they derive a benefit from it.

But, it is. I mean homeschooling is on the rise and a large chunk of collages (and Google for that matter.) are preferring home schooled kids. Now I don't mean to say that a comprehensive state provided public enucation (Up till collage, but that is another discussion.) is a bad thing, I might even support it depending on the details. But if what America has now is any sort of clue as how it would turn out, I'd be 100% ageist it.

Are you saying that given the choice between having the free education system you have now, and having no free education at all you would choose no free education?

 

[GameBoy2000]

Edit: I forgot to mention 2 things, so my apologies for that.

1. Even though I may be on more than once a day, I'm going to have to limit my replies to once per day (or even a few days if I'm busy that day, but I probably won't be on that day at all.) just for my own sanity. (Nothing against the discussion, its just exhausting of my to make replies here.)

2. I may be busy at times so I might not be able to reply every day, my apologies. In addition to that, some time in April I won't be able to respond for 1-2 weeks. Just some personal stuff going on I don't care to put on the internet, but still, my apologies.

Saying "they can supplement WIC by dumpster diving" isn't a statement you should be nailing your flag to.

Again, I never said that, your the one who keeps insisting that I said it.

We are talking about colleges, not art projects; enucation is not a word; and the word you are against it, not biased due to age.
I'm not one to get butthurt about poor spelling, but a defense of homeschooling accompanied by chronic misspelling of words in forum software that supports autocorrect and spellcheck is moderately funny.

My apologies for the horrible spelling. But given the fact that I posted that at the time I did compared to when I normally post (for convince, roughly 10 hours earlier.) and the fact that I have Dyslexia (Which I know I've never mentioned before.) I feel some slack is in order. However, I do agree with you, it is funny.

I could live without environmental protection laws, anti-pollution laws, and without public education. "Can live without it" is not a valid argument for why something should not be provided. People in many parts of the world can live without modern medical care or comprehensive public education; but those places tend to be on the crappy side of places to live. I doubt the Democratic Republic of Congo is a country we want to be emulating though.

See, your making an argument by comparing people who can't get something to people who don't want to pay for it.

If the price of a good doubles, I have effectively taken a 50% pay cut when buying that good.

Yet, you chose to buy that good, its 100% voluntary. Or in more piratical terms, you'd chose to take that 50% pay cut. And if you, along with enough other people, chose to not pay that price, they go out of businesses. the populace will get what they want at the price they want eventually. (Assuming we don't do what Obama did with the Automobile industry.)

You said "it only befits the poor", where as I am saying the middle class and some of the rich will benefit from it.

While I did technically say that, show me and rich person who is going to use a generic Doctor because the government will pay for it over the local best. And there are plenty of the middle class who don't even use government provided healthcare.

Are you saying that given the choice between having the free education system you have now, and having no free education at all you would choose no free education?

Well, given the fact of how much of a mess the education system is, yes.