Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ive more than paid back for it now anyway.

Ha ha quality,

So you participated in socialism and now want to pull up the ladder behind you.

It seems you dont actually know how the country works.

Are you aware we need new citizens, babies youth to come in behind you getting that same social assistance legs up so they can pay for the country when your old and frail.

Its almost like you cannot see past your front door.

Theres a road outside your gate, You didnt pay for it yourself. (and frankly never could or afford to)

Dannyriver

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So before the world got into a welfare state mentality and before the state paid for everyones education and before free healthcare what happened ? did everyone die at 6 , could nobody read ? no.

Correct Not Everybody

Eric Cartman

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not really. The point of social programs and public schools is to give people that start and that help so that in the future they can pay back. So you are a classic example of why public funded education works.

yet again primary education could be considered essential government spending.

You are having essential spending explained and using it to justify 'socialist policies'

It is possible to agree with state funded primary education but disagree with social welfare and social housing , its not an all or nothing case. The only thing that anyone here who supports the GOP is saying is that smaller government, less spending and less taxation is the ideal.

People paying the government a small sum to build roads and teach kids to read is still 95% capitalism , its not socialist.

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So before the world got into a welfare state mentality and before the state paid for everyones education and before free healthcare what happened ? did everyone die at 6 , could nobody read ? no.

You want to go back to the 40's ?


Ah great, i see now.

The great unwashed, leave them at it.

How about we peasantise everyone and have a select view owning the land?

ELM327

listermint wrote: »

No you did not!

Excuse me sir but private schools in this country are funded by the State. They could not stay open if that wasnt the case.

It appears you actually dont know the inner workings of Ireland at all.

This is such any easy thing to dismiss, why did you bother even bringing it up.

Beggars belief

Private schools are not funded by the state.
Some of the wages expenditure for teaching staff is funded, as is some large identified capital expenditure projects, but opex and general capex are not, excluding the two identified costs above.

This is such an easy thing to dismiss, why did you bother even bringing it up.


Beggars belief how you can twist something to favour a welfare agenda when it has been identified as below:

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yet again primary education could be considered essential government spending.

You are having essential spending explained and using it to justify 'socialist policies'

It is possible to agree with state funded primary education but disagree with social welfare and social housing , its not an all or nothing case. The only thing that anyone here who supports the GOP is saying is that smaller government, less spending and less taxation is the ideal.

People paying the government a small sum to build roads and teach kids to read is still 95% capitalism , its not socialist.

rossie1977

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What country possesses the highest regarded universities ? What country do we send all the really complicated and rare medical cases to ? what country has been responsible for the majority of the large companies that provide us innovative products in our lives ?

US spends more public money per capita on health than every major nation on Earth except for Norway.

Most of the biggest universities in the States receive huge amounts of public funding through research development grants and contracts. Yale alone received $480m of public money in 2015.

Those innovative companies only exist and thrive thanks to government regulations. Safety features on road vehicles, aircraft, food standards etc were all implemented by the government.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So before the world got into a welfare state mentality and before the state paid for everyones education and before free healthcare what happened ? did everyone die at 6 , could nobody read ? no.

We had very wealthy land owners using slaves. We had people dying in factories to be replaced by the next guy.

Do you really not see that the US, Ireland etc have advanced in the last 100 years or so. You think that is simply down to the likes of Apple or Microsoft. Maybe Nike?

These companies have been able to use more women in the workforce to enable them to grow. Why? Because woman are educated. Their kids go to schools leaving them some time to work.

listermint

ELM327 wrote: »

This is such an easy thing to dismiss, why did you bother even bringing it up.


Beggars belief how you can twist something to favour a welfare agenda when it has been identified as below:

Why are you repeating what im saying youve done it twice now?
Are you just trolling.

You stated that you 'paid' for your secondary private education.

1- you did not pay for it you got a scholarship

2- you did not pay for it as private schools are state funded otherwise they couldnt keep the lights on.


Your education wouldnt exist for the backs of other peoples work.


Grow up a bit, with the repeating of what other posters are saying and actually address the lies you are being called out on.

ELM327

Leroy42 wrote: »

We had very wealthy land owners using slaves. We had people dying in factories to be replaced by the next guy.

Do you really not see that the US, Ireland etc have advanced in the last 100 years or so. You think that is simply down to the likes of Apple or Microsoft. Maybe Nike?

These companies have been able to use more women in the workforce to enable them to grow. Why? Because woman are educated. Their kids go to schools leaving them some time to work.

You cannot equate the US advancement to Irish advancement.
The former is leaning towards capitalism, the latter a socialist banana republic paradise.

Eric Cartman

Leroy42 wrote: »

We had very wealthy land owners using slaves. We had people dying in factories to be replaced by the next guy.

Do you really not see that the US, Ireland etc have advanced in the last 100 years or so. You think that is simply down to the likes of Apple or Microsoft. Maybe Nike?

These companies have been able to use more women in the workforce to enable them to grow. Why? Because woman are educated. Their kids go to schools leaving them some time to work.

Interesting you bring up slavery and people dropping dead in factories and then reference nike, who were brave enough to use Colin Kapernick in an ad campaign, to sell more shoes made in socialist countries that allow slave labour.

Eric Cartman

ELM327 wrote: »

You cannot equate the US advancement to Irish advancement.
The former is leaning towards capitalism, the latter a socialist banana republic paradise.

and lets be honest, the only reason we're not all still using horses and carts and a farming country is from FDI from US multinational capitalist companies.

Captain Obvious

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yet again primary education could be considered essential government spending.

You are having essential spending explained and using it to justify 'socialist policies'

It is possible to agree with state funded primary education but disagree with social welfare and social housing , its not an all or nothing case. The only thing that anyone here who supports the GOP is saying is that smaller government, less spending and less taxation is the ideal.

People paying the government a small sum to build roads and teach kids to read is still 95% capitalism , its not socialist.

There's certainly a debate to be had over which policies deliver more. Like social housing. I think social housing increases the potential of people to be better contributors to the economy. Do you believe being homeless will make them better contributors?

ELM327

listermint wrote: »

Why are you repeating what im saying youve done it twice now?
Are you just trolling.

You stated that you 'paid' for your secondary private education.

1- you did not pay for it you got a scholarship

2- you did not pay for it as private schools are state funded otherwise they couldnt keep the lights on.


Your education wouldnt exist for the backs of other peoples work.


Grow up a bit, with the repeating of what other posters are saying and actually address the lies you are being called out on.

I'd expect a better standard of posting from you if you'd like a serious discussion.
Remarks like "ha ha" and "easy to dismiss" and similar derogations are not acceptable as a form of debate and when you learn to speak politely like an adult I will engage with you on that level.

And with that I have a work meeting to attend and shall leave it there for now.

Eric Cartman

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There's certainly a debate to be had over which policies deliver more. Like social housing. I think social housing increases the potential of people to be better contributors to the economy. Do you believe being homeless will make them better contributors?

No, but I believe the reason people are homeless is due to a lot of the time their own inaction or bad decisions, if you are saying that without social housing many more would be homeless , thats fair but id counter that by saying the same government that 'needs' to build social housing to house these people is the same government that props up planning restrictions and zoning rules that make housing unaffordable to those who actually work.

listermint

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There's certainly a debate to be had over which policies deliver more. Like social housing. I think social housing increases the potential of people to be better contributors to the economy. Do you believe being homeless will make them better contributors?

Of course not,

the 2 lads want to close up schools and colleges , You now the ones they went to themselves paying next to nothing in the process.

They want the ladder firmly pulled up behind them , so that the country withers and dies and no one can pay for anything when we are all old and infirm and our nation falls apart.


Thats pretty much what they are advocating for.


Some mad free market will come in and fix it all for us though...
:rolleyes:

prawnsambo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Interesting you bring up slavery and people dropping dead in factories and then reference nike, who were brave enough to use Colin Kapernick in an ad campaign, to sell more shoes made in socialist countries that allow slave labour.

You're actually arguing his point for him here.

Eric Cartman

listermint wrote: »

Of course not,

the 2 lads want to close up schools and colleges , You now the ones they went to themselves paying next to nothing in the process.

They want the ladder firmly pulled up behind them , so that the country withers and dies and no one can pay for anything when we are all old and infirm and our nation falls apart.


Thats pretty much what they are advocating for.


Some mad free market will come in and fix it all for us though...
:rolleyes:

Yet again, nobody has advocated for closing schools and colleges, I agreed that primary education is essential government spending, you have taken that and run with it into 'close colleges'

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If you're trying to make that a race thing you can jog on, thats not what I'm implying, you know its not and so do most other people, trying to conflate my comments with anything along that vein or a 'mask slipping' are wrong and I won't entertain such suggestions.

Can you clarify on if you'd prefer to revert to apartheid era South Africa?

Eric Cartman

prawnsambo wrote: »

You're actually arguing his point for him here.

Not really, the reason you have slavery in those countries like china (communist) is because of government policies that allow it.

In a free market system slavery really isnt possible because people are entitled to their self determination and there wouldnt be the possibility for the government to enforce, by force the slaves to stay.

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

Can you clarify on if you'd prefer to revert to apartheid era South Africa?

No. Although statistically it was safer for all involved, it was clearly abusive from the get go. The ideals under which south africa was conceived were sound, but in practice it unfortunatly resulted in the loss of life and subjugation of a native people which should never have happened. I condemn both the british and the ANC for both making the past and future worse for everybody in SA.

There are theories that had the british never been involved there that it would still be the third world country that it seems intent on going back to but thats crystal ball stuff.

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Not really, the reason you have slavery in those countries like china (communist) is because of government policies that allow it.

In a free market system slavery really isnt possible because people are entitled to their self determination and there wouldnt be the possibility for the government to enforce, by force the slaves to stay.

no no, In a free market the person willing to take the lowest wage gets the job and the people holding all the money get to decide.

Its actually really easy to pull apart the points you make.

why are you making it so easy ?

Water John

No, he also wants the US given back to England.

Eric Cartman

listermint wrote: »

no no, In a free market the person willing to take the lowest wage gets the job and the people holding all the money get to decide.

Its actually really easy to pull apart the points you make.

why are you making it so easy ?

well you can either regulate it so theres 1 factory offering jobs and then they can drive wages to slave levels (ala china) or you can have a free market where 15 factories compete for 13 staff and by the market are forced to pay more.

listermint

Water John wrote: »

No, he also wants the US given back to England.

Ha ha, that is probably one of the main themes of the argument.

Although im not sure there has been one so far. Its mainly bluster and aimless bluster at that.

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well you can either regulate it so theres 1 factory offering jobs and then they can drive wages to slave levels (ala china) or you can have a free market where 15 factories compete for 13 staff and by the market are forced to pay more.

But you dont want regulation.

You want the free market,

next to no taxes and small sums spent on just roads....


:eek:

2 Scoops

Great night in Florida and Ohio for Republicans, bodes well for 2020. Texas stays red, barely. Without Trumps rallies in these paper thin races it might have been a very bad evening. Overall Dem's did well in the house races, not a blue wave but not a red wave either. It seems American remains firmly split down partisan lines.

Stallingrad

To anyone arriving late this thread can be summed up as follows:

There are two types of people in this world.

A) Those that see him for what he is.

Those that are willing turn a blind eye to what he is.

Most people with a moral compass can't get beyond A and don't understand those that do.

Eric Cartman

listermint wrote: »

But you dont want regulation.

You want the free market,

next to no taxes and small sums spent on just roads....


:eek:

thats exactly my point, without regulation more factories open and more jobs are available driving wages higher, you can't keep a minimum pay slave labour economy without stopping competing businesses opening.

2 Scoops

ELM327 wrote: »

I'd expect a better standard of posting from you if you'd like a serious discussion.
Remarks like "ha ha" and "easy to dismiss" and similar derogations are not acceptable as a form of debate and when you learn to speak politely like an adult I will engage with you on that level.

There's a pattern there. I was told a few weeks ago by the same poster it was all over for Kavanaugh when it "all comes out next week" and that Lindsey Graham is under investigation for Russian connections and that it's the end for the GOP.

prawnsambo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Not really, the reason you have slavery in those countries like china (communist) is because of government policies that allow it.

In a free market system slavery really isnt possible because people are entitled to their self determination and there wouldnt be the possibility for the government to enforce, by force the slaves to stay.

In a free market system companies are still prepared to exploit workers and move production to where that's possible. And they're doing that because they can't do it in their home countries.