Johnson or Corby...

[YDB95]

Define "live even remotely comfortably" on minimum wage?

Minimum wage isn't meant to be comfortable.

No, but it IS meant to enable a person to provide for all the essentials of living. And at this point it no longer does that in any part of the US.

And I didn't say minimum wage, I said above minimum wage.

Which brings us back to my fast food manager example. They make above minimum wage, and they're nowhere near what you claimed to mean in your next comment.

Doesn't have to, once the policy is in place it can be used to take everything from everyone....like good comrades who aren't SELFISH do.

In other words, you're not really talking about what Warren's tax policies would do at all, you're talking about what you think they'll open the door to. If you want to debate that, fine, but you should have said so in the first place.

Supporting wealth redistribution doesn't make you virtuous nor does it mean you're not selfish. It means you're authoritarian in nature.

I could argue the same about defining providing for the common good as "wealth redistribution".

Her lies aren't answers, the numbers don't add up, there isn't enough money in the whole economy to do what she's talking about much less in the top 20%.

Even if I agreed, you haven't proven your side of the story at all here. You've also made it clear that what you're really afraid of isn't her proposal but rather what else it might lead to.

How do you figure not oppressing people is going to bite us in the ass?

I figure progressive taxation isn't "oppressing people" except in some Libertarian's paranoid imagination.

Because that's what people are willing to pay.

I think you're confusing a literally life-or-death choice people are forced to make with being "willing to pay". Are you seriously arguing that if diabetics just stopped buying insulin at heaven knows how many times its actual cost, the miracle of the market would lead to lower prices? I mean, I suppose it would, but that would also lead to millions of premature deaths. You can't just remove those from the equation.

And nationalizing shit is still un-American.

Does that mean Social Security, Medicare, the interstate highway system, and even the military are un-American?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Which brings us back to my fast food manager example. They make above minimum wage, and they're nowhere near what you claimed to mean in your next comment.

Yea, they are.

They just have to not be retarded with their money and living above their means.

In other words, you're not really talking about what Warren's tax policies would do at all, you're talking about what you think they'll open the door to. If you want to debate that, fine, but you should have said so in the first place.

I am talking about her tax policies.

It's where they HAVE to lead to because the numbers don't match the principal of authority.

I could argue the same about defining providing for the common good as "wealth redistribution".

No you can't, because there is a way to provide for the common good without redistributing wealth.

It's called equal taxation for public services.

Even if I agreed,

Your agreement is irrelevant because math.

To do the things she wants she's going to have to tax everyone a whole lot more for a lot longer than what she says she plans.

And if she gets to nationalize as much of the economy as she claims she wants to? An impossible amount and we will have literally Venezuela'ed ourselves. We have real world examples of what happens when you do what Warren is talking about, and none of them are good.

I think you're confusing a literally life-or-death choice people are forced to make with being "willing to pay". Are you seriously arguing that if diabetics just stopped buying insulin at heaven knows how many times its actual cost, the miracle of the market would lead to lower prices? I mean, I suppose it would, but that would also lead to millions of premature deaths. You can't just remove those from the equation.

Premature? No...their lives have already been extended past where they should be.

Without highly skilled people who take their time/labor and produce a product that allows them to keep living despite the fact that their body has failed them they would have wound up like their 3rd world counterparts, dead.

If they want that produce someone has to pay for it.

Does that mean Social Security, Medicare, the interstate highway system, and even the military are un-American?

Do you not understand the difference between public services and nationalization of industry??

Nationalization is the transfer of control and administration of a major branch of industry from private to state ownership. This means no more private exchanges. You have to go to the state and you'll like whatever you're given because there is no other option. It's quite literally Cuba/N. Korea/Soviet level authoritarianism.....and considered "progressive" by a rapidly growing number of radical leftist like E. Warren.

This is different from a public service, which is just that, a publicly funded service available to the public. It doesn't restrict/prohibit private exchanges. Alt-reich adjacent Liberal Democrats like myself support this model. This is reflected in our long history of providing public services without without sending any jackbooted thugs to shut down private markets/industry. Education for example.

Providing public services, hopefully through equal and honest/responsible taxation but that's a totally different topic, is liberal and American as apple pie.

Nationalizing industry is fucking EVIL and un-American as Stalin and Mao.


As for your itemized list of what I think is and is not American...

SS and medicare, though neither of them is an example of nationalization of industry they are however simple arbitrary wealth redistribution. Which I find un-American.

Interstate highways no...that's voluntary pay to use public infrastructure. I still get to go thrash my car on private roads all I want and I don't have to pay for the public roads unless I use them.

And military much like police and courthouses being an exclusive function of government no....not nationalization either.