The debate "Hillary will only continue Obama's agenda" was started by
September 27, 2016, 8:39 pm.
18 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 10 arguments, TheDebator9000 posted 2 arguments, neveralone posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
TheDebator9000, Nemiroff, TheExistentialist, silviafaiq, neveralone, north, Frdsdo17, Hijumi, RogueAmerican, Bodaciouslady16, DrBanner and 7 visitors agree.
blakelovesjesus and 7 visitors disagree.
what do you mean entry level? I'm talking low wage jobs, there is no entry level there. there is only one level. they are dead end jobs. and if it was so easy to find above minimum wage work, why would so many people be working minimum wage.
I think you are citing a few, abnormal cases, in very busy cities, that were created very recently due to protest and organized labor demands, both things the right tries to clamp down on.
They arent. The 3rd world lives off of a few dollars. In fact, it is easy to find entry-level labor above minimum wage.
so let's eliminate the minimum wages we currently have and completely eliminate the American ability to patron any business. what do you think that will do to our economy? even if we employ 100% of the people, if they are earning wages that are competitive to the 3rd world, how are they supposed to sustain local businesses?
It is am idealized a temporary solution, but it would eventually lead to more harm. Increasing money supply will inflate in every circumstance. Even if the business didnt remove the job, they would have to make up for it anyway.
I wouldn't give it the credit of expansive monetary policy. It is a populist movement, not an expansion of monetary supply. And all monetary expansionist policies inflate.
it's really about nuance. people often forget that on both sides, but my opinion thus far is that conservatives have better priorities while liberals have better policies to achieve those priorities.
I agree completely
the companies can produce their goods in nations with cheap labor but good luck to them to actually sell those products where people earn 5 dollars a week. this whole system is based on short sighted profit and is heading towards disaster.
I don't like minimum wage, it is an inefficient band aid needed to solve the problem in the short term. we need to invest heavily in education so that 3rd world nations can steal all our crappy jobs while we steal all their good jobs. every research facility, every corporate office, every job worthwhile will go to us if we make college free and maybe even mandatory just like elementary and high school. school wasn't always free and mandatory, and I don't think the massive investment it took to standardize it has harmed us. it's not bad that all our citizens can read and do basic math, and it wasn't that long ago when that wasn't so.
but until then we need minimum wage or our economy will collapse from eliminated demand. hey if we can do tax freezes on small businesses making under a certain amount of profit (many multi-billion dollar hedge funds are considered small businesses, not those) that's cool. but the giant corporations are pretty healthy on the profit front, don't need tax cuts, and guess who most of the proposed tax cuts are going to help?
I agree with many of the Republican ideologies, I just think much of their leadership are traitors who are implementing bad policies on purpose. I support any policy that helps struggling small businesses 100% UNLESS it helps giant companies more, especially if those companies are competing with each other. if you give a little guy a little help, but help his competition a lot more, your hurting the little guy. it's called competitive advantage (or competitive disadvantage here).
I was talking about taxes not regulations
I see ur side and agree with it. but that is why min. wage needs to be raised and most countries go outside USA for cheaper labor and no tax to send it back here so either we need to move them back here or tax them for that. idk if there's a dif. tax for the businesses themselves or not but there should be and the business one could be lowered and the tax on rich could get higher. idk on what that will do but it might work what's ur thoughts on it?
"I think they should be lowered to get those businesses to see an opportunity to expand and create jobs."
can you name a regulation you would like to see lowered or eliminated?
we deregulated the banks hoping they would help the economy prosper, and instead the economy collapsed.
making the claim that helping the wealthy will save our economy is ignoring the fact that the wealthy have been doing great this entire time.... the top have been doing stellar! and are the only segment of our nation that grew in wealth, and grew exceptionally fast. how will helping them more help?
there are 2 reasons why even if you give them infinite tax breaks and extra wealth they will not create anything.
1. they will only invest if there is opportunity for return on that investment, and considering that unlike the majority of Americans, the wealthy have significant savings and disposable income, if they saw an opportunity, they would have already taken it. giving them more money will only be more money out into a bank that will do nothing for the economy, as opposed to trickle up economics where the money will be given to those who urgently need to spend the money, sending it through the economy from the bottom up. creating demand.
2. also starts with they will only invest if they see opportunity for returns. why would they open a new business or produce a new product when the consumers are all broke and unable to generate any profit for them? Without consumers who can afford to use those businesses/products our economy will collapse.
demand creates supply.
a population with money and a need is the source of opportunity for businesses to grow and prosper.
a supply with no demand is just glut and waste.
I think they should be lowered to get those businesses to see an opportunity to expand and create jobs.
agreed, we should have regulation to prevent monopolies. we should also have regulations to promote consumer safety. regulations to protect the environment and our resources. regulations to protect workers rights so they aren't made to work 16 hour days 7 days a week without significant compensation.
The right has pretty much demonized the word regulation but I'm not sure what specific regulations they are against. all they say is that they make it harder for businesses, and I'm sure it would be cheaper for construction crews if they didn't have to secure their equipment to standards, but too freaking bad, those costs are worth it for the greater good of society as a whole.
everyone is for simplifying and eliminating red tape, as long as the safeguards remain intact and are fully enforceable.
regulations aside, the other issue is taxes.
though if they even if they are bad they could accidentally help anyways. with SOME not all taxes and regulations cut they will see a chance to expand and grow which will create jobs but also another problem is I know more people than not who are just fine with not having a job and don't try to get one so it makes it harder on the ones who do so we need to fix that as well. but back to what I was saying, we should keep some of the regulations so we don't get monopolies that will make everything worse.
I agree. a broad brush I never good.
however many at the top do think like that. and in any case, making policy based on the hope that people will act nice is silly.
dude u r painting too broad I know a lot of people on the top who are not greedy stereo types. that are generous and worked hard to get there. whether if there is enough people on top like that is the real question.
the problem is that the top is always going to be self interested billionaires. they don't want the system to benefit society or their employees. their only goal is to benefit them and their stockholders. if treating their employees like disposable trash helps them to reach those goals then that is exactly what they will do.
trickle down theory can work it just depends on who is at the top not the actual theory. if the top is good we do good if not then we don't it's as simple as that.
trickle down economics succeeded in doing exactly what it was meant to. it made the rich richer. it wasn't good for the people, it was good for the wealthy. everyone else just gets squeezed.
did u watch that video from alternate history hub?
Trickle Down Economics failed? It grew the economy by 1/3 in the Reagan Era! There have been times where raising taxes slumped the economy also. If you have any understanding in economics, more people will open up businesses with less regulations and less taxes. It gives people an incentive, and it will help small businesses drastically. If we lower the taxes on middle class familes, it will give them more money to invest in the economy. Trump has by far the biggest tax cut for middle class and poor folks, not Hillary. This narrative where Trump's plan benefits the rich and his presidency is just to benefit the rich is complete cow shit. Alot more poor people will have to pay none in federal income tax. His plan includes the biggest investment in urban communities and infrastructure than Hillary. Isn't that what you wanted Nemiroff, more investing?
isis is being pressured without any external attacks on our soil. economy is recovering better than any other in the world. and obviously bernie would have been a better choice, but Trump would be a disaster who is trying to do old failed trickle down economics which got us into this recession and would benefit mostly him.
whatever, his supporters wouldn't leave him even if he shot someone in the street in front of them (his words)
"I love the poorly educated" -Trump's shoutout to his supporters
No its a bad thing because my brother doesnt like him.
and that is a good thing