13 Russians, 3 businesses indicted by Mueller/Rosenstein in connection to Trump

[Clydefrosch]

It was an instance of choosing the lesser of two evils, and sadly we did not.

only that it wasn't.
it was an instance of americans thinking a president should be flashy and interesting and special and not a fucking boring, intelligent but boring deskjockey.

also, for the other guy, elected officials have no right to do anything in private and no right to shield themselves from critic of any sort really.

 

[Xzi]

Invading a private space is trespass. Harassing someone in public is harassment. How is this difficult? The point is that you're not supposed to attack people in either setting and if you do, expect the person you're attacking to defend themselves.

Precisely. It's only because these representatives have no way of defending themselves verbally on many of their policy positions that they feel physically attacked. It's the same reason many Republicans are "retiring" (becoming lobbyists) too: it's hard to square the old Republican party with Trumpism. Morally, ethically, and politically.

 

[Deleted member 114266]

Precisely. It's only because these representatives have no way of defending themselves verbally on many of their policy positions that they feel physically attacked. It's the same reason many Republicans are "retiring" (becoming lobbyists) too: it's hard to square the old Republican party with Trumpism. Morally, ethically, and politically.

The Republican party was also already fractured by the tea party movement. The Democrats on the other hand seem to not have a unifying message other than Trump is bad. So crazy outliers don't appear to be operating outside of the party's goals which isn't great for the Democrat's image.

But we have four more months of craziness to go. We'll see where the dust settles after the elections in November.

 

[Xzi]

The Republican party was also already fractured by the tea party movement. The Democrats on the other hand seem to not have a unifying message other than Trump is bad. So crazy outliers don't appear to be operating outside of the party's goals which isn't great for the Democrat's image.

Disagree. Dems are letting the progressives have more say, which is much of what influenced 2016's outcome after Bernie lost. They just need to energize their own base, and if Bernie doesn't run hopefully whoever he endorses from the start takes it.

 

[Glyptofane]

I'm no Dem, but cheating Bernie out of the nomination was a huge misstep. Rumors that Hillary Clinton may be running again in 2020 are hopefully just that, as it would likely kill the party once and for all.

 

[Xzi]

I'm no Dem, but cheating Bernie out of the nomination was a huge misstep. Rumors that Hillary Clinton may be running again in 2020 are hopefully just that, as it would likely kill the party once and for all.

I hadn't even heard that rumor. It wouldn't matter if she did, either, she'd get crushed in the primary. Which is exactly why she won't run. Three to four options this time would definitely be preferable to the two we had last time.

 

[KingVamp]

For now, I'm watching Andrew Yang.

their call for guaranteed employment which is stupid and other nonsense straight from the communist cookbook

I don't agree with job guaranteed, but since a lot of people like to throw the word communism at any actual change to the system, please explain to me how "job guaranteed" is communism base on its definition.

 

[the_randomizer]

I'm no Dem, but cheating Bernie out of the nomination was a huge misstep. Rumors that Hillary Clinton may be running again in 2020 are hopefully just that, as it would likely kill the party once and for all.

Good, I hope she doesn't run again.

 

[SG854]

Show up and vote for who? Maxine Waters who's publicly calling for civil unrest and assault on Republicans? Bernie Sanders from Loonbagia whose economic plan would destroy the U.S. and who probably won't be with us anymore come 2020 because he's 900 years old? Elizabeth Warren, a compulsive liar and clam chowder expert? You have no avatar. Hold on to your butts, it's going to be a long election, and the Dems are doing their earnest to alienate as many people as possible with their "Abolish ICE" song and dance, their call for guaranteed employment which is stupid and other nonsense straight from the communist cookbook and other PC-friendly activities. It seems that they're on a mission to convince everyone that they're batshit crazy and unelectable, so I can't wait what other tricks they have in their bag ready for the next 2 years.

I really don't like Communist policies, there's already bad experiences with that in many countries that implemented it, and thousands died because your getting rid of your most successful productive people that keeps society and the economy going. And I think many people voted for Trump just to get back at the left and PC culture, and their equality of outcome and diversity (which to them is another way of saying equality of outcome, rather then equal opportunity).

But both the Left and Right are wrong.
The Left believes that everyone is born equal and have equal capabilities, which means that any differences in income is due to oppression. So they are working hard to get rid all of societal environmental barriers. But they are wrong because everyone is born with different abilities and talents. Even if everything in the environment was equal it will still create inequality because people with certain inherit talents will be better at what they do compared to others that don't have that talent, and it will create unequal income.

The Right is wrong because they say the reason people aren't as successful is because they are lazy and if they get off their asses and work hard they can be just as successful. But the are wrong because everyone is born with different talents and abilities. Even if they work hard they will never be as good as someone with a natural born talent. So its not a matter of working hard. And they will never earn good wages because they don't have the inborn mental capabilities to work at jobs that pay more. And in a shifting economy of hard manual labor to a knowledge based one, its going to be hard for them to navigate in the world and move up the economic ladder.

 

[gamesquest1]

I really don't like Communist policies, there's already bad experiences with that in many countries that implemented it, and thousands died because your getting rid of your most successful productive people that keeps society and the economy going. And I think many people voted for Trump just to get back at the left and PC culture, and their equality of outcome and diversity (which to them is another way of saying equality of outcome, rather then equal opportunity).

But both the Left and Right are wrong.
The Left believes that everyone is born equal and have equal capabilities, which means that any differences in income is due to oppression. So they are working hard to get rid all of societal environmental barriers. But they are wrong because everyone is born with different abilities and talents. Even if everything in the environment was equal it will still create inequality because people with certain inherit talents will be better at what they do compared to others that don't have that talent, and it will create unequal income.

The Right is wrong because they say the reason people aren't as successful is because they are lazy and if they get off their asses and work hard they can be just as successful. But the are wrong because everyone is born with different talents and abilities. Even if they work hard they will never be as good as someone with a natural born talent. So its not a matter of working hard. And they will never earn good wages because they don't have the inborn mental capabilities to work at jobs that pay more. And in a shifting economy of hard manual labor to a knowledge based one, its going to be hard for them to navigate in the world and move up the economic ladder.

as with most things the true reality usually lands somewhere in the middle, having parties that absolutely refuse to admit there is any truth in their opponents opinion is how you end up with stupid policies that don't reflect reality

 

[Foxi4]

For now, I'm watching Andrew Yang.

I don't agree with job guaranteed, but since a lot of people like to throw the word communism at any actual change to the system, please explain to me how "job guaranteed" is communism base on its definition.

It's government jobs paid for with taxes, therefore it's redistributionism. You're taking money away from those who pay taxes, take a bunch of people who don't have jobs and you tell them to dig holes and then fill them in to create a veneer of work. These kinds of policies are straight from the U.S.S.R playbook, I should know, Poland was under Russian control for decades, we're familiar with the scam. If there was any need for those jobs, the market would generate them, which tells me that there isn't. Now, if you tie that with the proposal of a new $15 minimum wage, an amount appropriate for a skilled worker, not an unskilled, unemployable non-worker, you're throwing the economy completely out of whack because you're devaluing labour. There's no reason why a ditch digger should make as much as a software engineer. This model is unsustainable and not realistic.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I really don't like Communist policies, there's already bad experiences with that in many countries that implemented it, and thousands died because your getting rid of your most successful productive people that keeps society and the economy going. And I think many people voted for Trump just to get back at the left and PC culture, and their equality of outcome and diversity (which to them is another way of saying equality of outcome, rather then equal opportunity).

But both the Left and Right are wrong.
The Left believes that everyone is born equal and have equal capabilities, which means that any differences in income is due to oppression. So they are working hard to get rid all of societal environmental barriers. But they are wrong because everyone is born with different abilities and talents. Even if everything in the environment was equal it will still create inequality because people with certain inherit talents will be better at what they do compared to others that don't have that talent, and it will create unequal income.

The Right is wrong because they say the reason people aren't as successful is because they are lazy and if they get off their asses and work hard they can be just as successful. But the are wrong because everyone is born with different talents and abilities. Even if they work hard they will never be as good as someone with a natural born talent. So its not a matter of working hard. And they will never earn good wages because they don't have the inborn mental capabilities to work at jobs that pay more. And in a shifting economy of hard manual labor to a knowledge based one, its going to be hard for them to navigate in the world and move up the economic ladder.

I agree with most of what you have to say, except that I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what most people on the left stand for... which is understandable, because many people toss around the word "equality" when what they really mean is "equity". While there are a lot of... Shall we say, "blind" liberals that are incredibly short-sighted and behave basically how you say, most of us understand that people ARE different, and it is BECAUSE of that that we need to treat them differently. A good example of this would be a neurotypical vs an autistic person: if you don't adjust your engagement to treat the autist differently than you would a neurotypical (i.e. allow for them to stim, get away to "cool down" for a bit, communicate nonverbally, flap their hands to blow off steam, etc), they will most likely get (justifiably) upset. An even better example would be access to a building for someone with a wheelchair vs. someone who's abled. Equality would mean both would have to either climb stairs, because the majority of people are capable of using them, while equity recognizes the wheelchair person's disability and would provide a ramp or elevation either in place of or in addition to said stairs

It's government jobs paid for with taxes, therefore it's redistributionism.

You must REALLY hate where all the money for government officials comes from, then, huh?

You're taking money away from those who pay taxes, take a bunch of people who don't have jobs and you tell them to dig holes and then fill them in to create a veneer of work.

That would be a really unproductive use of time and labor, considering that we have crumbling infrastructure that NEEDS to be repaired, the construction and reparation of which is already included in most local taxes

Now, if you tie that with the proposal of a new $15 minimum wage, an amount appropriate for a skilled worker, not an unskilled, unemployable non-worker, you're throwing the economy completely out of whack because you're devaluing labour. There's no reason why a ditch digger should make as much as a software engineer. This model is unsustainable and not realistic.

In my experience, there's no such thing as unskilled labor, only labor in which the skillset is unappreciated. Just because a job may require little to no mental presence, for instance, doesn't mean it isn't physically demanding, and likewise in converse. I'd like to see your ditch digger try to code a website while your software engineer takes a stab at digging ditches at the same rate as they did, for example. Both will probably suck at it. (Plus, in what reality is a software engineer making only slightly more than $15/hr? If that's you, you need to demand a raise because your time is being undervalued)
Plus, I'm a bit peeved that you're tossing in the whole "if we pay the lowest wage-earners more, then they'll be making just as much as people with slightly higher wages, and that's unacceptable!" mantra, because that is EXACTLY what people with power always say to make sure that no one ever is payed more for their time, and you're just another person who's swallowed that line and is feeding it back out. You act as though placing more value on one person's job somehow takes value away from someone else's, as though value is a scarecly limited resource, but it's not; if the lowest earners are paid enough to actually feed themselves while paying rent, a few things will happen: jobs will open up, allowing for more people to enter the workforce (there are a LOT of people working two and three jobs just to get by, in my eyes that's unacceptable), wages will go up incrementally all the way up as laborers in higher positions demand wage increases and finally get that bargaining leverage, and the local economy will improve as more of the people who were just barely getting by in the lower-middle class can finally afford some non-essential niceties.

Now, I'm also no fool, I've seen how the push for $15/hr has negatively affected Seattle (although there are a lot of things that make the numbers a little questionable, such as including chain industries that have locations outside of Seattle in the study, as well as the fact that to fight paying increased benefits employers slashed hours and hired more part-time workers), but I've also seen how positively efforts are going in New York with the slow roll-out of an increase from $9 to both $12.50 and $15, depending on the area. All in all, I recognize that it absolutely has to depend on what the local cost-of-living is, and I will agree that fiscal conservatives have a lot of valid points on the matter that should be considered an allowed to collaborate with in terms of how to budget. But everyone needs to be on the same page in understanding that if someone puts in 40 hours a week, they shouldn't be struggling to get by, no matter what job they're doing

 

[Foxi4]

I agree with most of what you have to say, except that I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what most people on the left stand for... which is understandable, because many people toss around the word "equality" when what they really mean is "equity". While there are a lot of... Shall we say, "blind" liberals that are incredibly short-sighted and behave basically how you say, most of us understand that people ARE different, and it is BECAUSE of that that we need to treat them differently. A good example of this would be a neurotypical vs an autistic person: if you don't adjust your engagement to treat the autist differently than you would a neurotypical (i.e. allow for them to stim, get away to "cool down" for a bit, communicate nonverbally, flap their hands to blow off steam, etc), they will most likely get (justifiably) upset. An even better example would be access to a building for someone with a wheelchair vs. someone who's abled. Equality would mean both would have to either climb stairs, because the majority of people are capable of using them, while equity recognizes the wheelchair person's disability and would provide a ramp or elevation either in place of or in addition to said stairs

You must REALLY hate where all the money for government officials comes from, then, huh?

That would be a really unproductive use of time and labor, considering that we have crumbling infrastructure that NEEDS to be repaired, the construction and reparation of which is already included in most local taxes

In my experience, there's no such thing as unskilled labor, only labor in which the skillset is unappreciated. Just because a job may require little to no mental presence, for instance, doesn't mean it isn't physically demanding, and likewise in converse. I'd like to see your ditch digger try to code a website while your software engineer takes a stab at digging ditches at the same rate as they did, for example. Both will probably suck at it. (Plus, in what reality is a software engineer making only slightly more than $15/hr? If that's you, you need to demand a raise because your time is being undervalued)
Plus, I'm a bit peeved that you're tossing in the whole "if we pay the lowest wage-earners more, then they'll be making just as much as people with slightly higher wages, and that's unacceptable!" mantra, because that is EXACTLY what people with power always say to make sure that no one ever is payed more for their time, and you're just another person who's swallowed that line and is feeding it back out. You act as though placing more value on one person's job somehow takes value away from someone else's, as though value is a scarecly limited resource, but it's not; if the lowest earners are paid enough to actually feed themselves while paying rent, a few things will happen: jobs will open up, allowing for more people to enter the workforce (there are a LOT of people working two and three jobs just to get by, in my eyes that's unacceptable), wages will go up incrementally all the way up as laborers in higher positions demand wage increases and finally get that bargaining leverage, and the local economy will improve as more of the people who were just barely getting by in the lower-middle class can finally afford some non-essential niceties.

Now, I'm also no fool, I've seen how the push for $15/hr has negatively affected Seattle (although there are a lot of things that make the numbers a little questionable, such as including chain industries that have locations outside of Seattle in the study, as well as the fact that to fight paying increased benefits employers slashed hours and hired more part-time workers), but I've also seen how positively efforts are going in New York with the slow roll-out of an increase from $9 to both $12.50 and $15, depending on the area. All in all, I recognize that it absolutely has to depend on what the local cost-of-living is, and I will agree that fiscal conservatives have a lot of valid points on the matter that should be considered an allowed to collaborate with in terms of how to budget. But everyone needs to be on the same page in understanding that if someone puts in 40 hours a week, they shouldn't be struggling to get by, no matter what job they're doing

By introducing a bunch of labourers who work for the money sourced by taxing other labourers you are effectively depressing wages because it necessitates an increase in taxation and introduces a whole bunch of new employees who will displace others as the cost of their employment is zero, if not negative altogether. Contracts that were previously fulfilled by private industry will now be fulfilled internally, which leads to lay-offs, which leads to more unemployed people, which leads to higher taxes. It's a surefire way to destroy the economy. If you don't like what happened in Seattle, you haven't seen anything yet. A wage should reflect the demand for a particular job to be done, if there is no demand and you compound that with elevating wages, the value of the currency depreciates because you're creating labour nobody asked for. It's a stupid idea, if it wasn't, communist states like Cuba or Venezuela would be superpowers.

 

[Xzi]

If there was any need for those jobs, the market would generate them, which tells me that there isn't.

That's not the way things work unfortunately. Our infrastructure rates at Ds and Fs across pretty much all of America, but there are no market forces pushing for a massive nationwide renewal project. The "free market" only cares up to a certain point about anything, because it's all about making money for the people at the top, not providing basic needs and upkeep. You've got to have a government that actually cares about its own people for that, unlike our current one.

 

[Foxi4]

That's not the way things work unfortunately. Our infrastructure rates at Ds and Fs across pretty much all of America, but there are no market forces pushing for a massive nationwide renewal project. The "free market" only cares up to a certain point about anything, because it's all about making money for the people at the top, not providing basic needs and upkeep. You've got to have a government that actually cares about its own people for that, unlike our current one.

Total nonsense. The more you intervene in the free market the less efficient the economy is. The market is driven by consumers, not "the guys at the top", if there's no demand then that's that.

 

[SG854]

I agree with most of what you have to say, except that I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what most people on the left stand for... which is understandable, because many people toss around the word "equality" when what they really mean is "equity". While there are a lot of... Shall we say, "blind" liberals that are incredibly short-sighted and behave basically how you say, most of us understand that people ARE different, and it is BECAUSE of that that we need to treat them differently. A good example of this would be a neurotypical vs an autistic person: if you don't adjust your engagement to treat the autist differently than you would a neurotypical (i.e. allow for them to stim, get away to "cool down" for a bit, communicate nonverbally, flap their hands to blow off steam, etc), they will most likely get (justifiably) upset. An even better example would be access to a building for someone with a wheelchair vs. someone who's abled. Equality would mean both would have to either climb stairs, because the majority of people are capable of using them, while equity recognizes the wheelchair person's disability and would provide a ramp or elevation either in place of or in addition to said stairs

You must REALLY hate where all the money for government officials comes from, then, huh?

That would be a really unproductive use of time and labor, considering that we have crumbling infrastructure that NEEDS to be repaired, the construction and reparation of which is already included in most local taxes

In my experience, there's no such thing as unskilled labor, only labor in which the skillset is unappreciated. Just because a job may require little to no mental presence, for instance, doesn't mean it isn't physically demanding, and likewise in converse. I'd like to see your ditch digger try to code a website while your software engineer takes a stab at digging ditches at the same rate as they did, for example. Both will probably suck at it. (Plus, in what reality is a software engineer making only slightly more than $15/hr? If that's you, you need to demand a raise because your time is being undervalued)
Plus, I'm a bit peeved that you're tossing in the whole "if we pay the lowest wage-earners more, then they'll be making just as much as people with slightly higher wages, and that's unacceptable!" mantra, because that is EXACTLY what people with power always say to make sure that no one ever is payed more for their time, and you're just another person who's swallowed that line and is feeding it back out. You act as though placing more value on one person's job somehow takes value away from someone else's, as though value is a scarecly limited resource, but it's not; if the lowest earners are paid enough to actually feed themselves while paying rent, a few things will happen: jobs will open up, allowing for more people to enter the workforce (there are a LOT of people working two and three jobs just to get by, in my eyes that's unacceptable), wages will go up incrementally all the way up as laborers in higher positions demand wage increases and finally get that bargaining leverage, and the local economy will improve as more of the people who were just barely getting by in the lower-middle class can finally afford some non-essential niceties.

Now, I'm also no fool, I've seen how the push for $15/hr has negatively affected Seattle (although there are a lot of things that make the numbers a little questionable, such as including chain industries that have locations outside of Seattle in the study, as well as the fact that to fight paying increased benefits employers slashed hours and hired more part-time workers), but I've also seen how positively efforts are going in New York with the slow roll-out of an increase from $9 to both $12.50 and $15, depending on the area. All in all, I recognize that it absolutely has to depend on what the local cost-of-living is, and I will agree that fiscal conservatives have a lot of valid points on the matter that should be considered an allowed to collaborate with in terms of how to budget. But everyone needs to be on the same page in understanding that if someone puts in 40 hours a week, they shouldn't be struggling to get by, no matter what job they're doing

Ya, of course there is different extremes to the left. And I do know that not all of them believe in equality of outcome. I was mostly referring to extreme ends.

But a scary statistic is in the United States is that it is illegal to have anyone in the Army that has less than an IQ of 83. Because they say there is nothing they can do for that person to teach them to follow instructions properly, and transform them think quick on their feet when they are alone to solve problems on the battlefield. These people can't be trained to be useful and are a detriment to the Army.

People with less then 85 IQ is around 16% of the population, 51 million people. These people are not smart enough to go to or finish graduate school, and they are not going to find a stable job that pays a livable wage. And people that has worked with low 80 IQ people say that its very hard to train them and for them to hold a job. And the fact that we are moving from doing jobs physically ourselves (these jobs disappearing), to having machines do them for us, and newer jobs requiring to interact with complex machines and increasingly complex tasks, means these people finding a good job and moving out of the poverty line is going to be far beyond their ability.

So its not just a Wheel Chair person that needs help. IQ is a good predictor of long term success and wages. And IQ can be measured more accurately than anything else in social sciences. And you can be sure scientists test every type of variable they can think of, education quality, environment quality, twin studies, people from lower class adopted to rich upper class, head start programs, random ticket studies, and they couldn't increase IQ, it mostly remains unchanged. Also certain races have higher IQ then others, evolution did not stop once we became Homo Sapiens.

This is a problem we're going to have to figure out on how to incorporate these people in a changing society. Wealth inequality and helping people move out of the poverty line is much tougher than we know, and destroying societal oppression barriers, or telling them to work harder to succeed won't solve the problem.

 

[Foxi4]

Ya, of course there is different extremes to the left. And I do know that not all of them believe in equality of outcome. I was mostly referring to extreme ends.

But a scary statistic is in the United States is that it is illegal to have anyone in the Army that has less than an IQ of 83. Because they say there is nothing they can do for that person to teach them to follow instructions properly, and transform them think quick on their feet when they are alone to solve problems on the battlefield. These people can't be trained to be useful and are a detriment to the Army.

People with less then 85 IQ is around 16% of the population, 51 million people. These people are not smart enough to go to or finish graduate school, and they are not going to find a stable job that pays a livable wage. And people that has worked with low 80 IQ people say that its very hard to train them and for them to hold a job. And the fact that we are moving from doing jobs physically ourselves (these jobs disappearing), to having machines do them for us, and newer jobs requiring to interact with complex machines and increasingly complex tasks, means these people finding a good job and moving out of the poverty line is going to be far beyond their ability.

So its not just a Wheel Chair person that needs help. IQ is a good predictor of long term success and wages. And IQ can be measured more accurately than anything else in social sciences. And you can be sure scientists test every type of variable they can think of, education quality, environment quality, twin studies, people from lower class adopted to rich upper class, head start programs, random ticket studies, and they couldn't increase IQ, it mostly remains unchanged. Also certain races have higher IQ then others, evolution did not stop once we became Homo Sapiens.

This is a problem we're going to have to figure out on how to incorporate these people in a changing society. Wealth inequality and helping people move out of the poverty line is much tougher than we know, and destroying societal oppression barriers, or telling them to work harder to succeed won't solve the problem.

Negative Income Tax. That, and we need to reintroduce jobs for low-skilled workers who can't really do any complex tasks, not even at an assembly line. I listened to a story of one of those low IQ people working with his therapist to find employment and it was heartbreaking. He was sorting mail, but it was just too much for him.

 

[Xzi]

Total nonsense. The more you intervene in the free market the less efficient the economy is. The market is driven by consumers, not "the guys at the top", if there's no demand then that's that.

My point was that the free market isn't some sort of benevolent god like you're making it out to be. It serves its purpose, but that purpose is limited in scope. You can't tell me with a straight face that there's no demand placed on our infrastructure on a daily basis. The demand is there, you're still not going to see the free market do dick about it. The free market doesn't provide social security or disability assistance, either. The free market isn't concerned with anyone's well being, it's as simple as that. That's why I can't take anybody seriously who believes "free market" is a solution to any of our country's modern problems. If it was, they wouldn't be problems in the first place.

Oh, and as a side note: Trump's tariffs are fairly damaging to the market, so I guess he doesn't believe in letting it do its own thing.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Negative Income Tax.

Could you explain that concept? To me that sounds like welfare, but somehow I doubt that's what you're talking about

 

[Foxi4]

My point was that the free market isn't some sort of benevolent god like you're making it out to be. It serves its purpose, but that purpose is limited in scope. You can't tell me with a straight face that there's no demand placed on our infrastructure on a daily basis. The demand is there, you're still not going to see the free market do dick about it. The free market doesn't provide social security or disability assistance, either. The free market isn't concerned with anyone's well being, it's as simple as that. That's why I can't take anybody seriously who believes "free market" is a solution to any of our country's modern problems. If it was, they wouldn't be problems in the first place.

Oh, and as a side note: Trump's tariffs are fairly damaging to the market, so I guess he doesn't believe in letting it do its own thing.

Who's in charge of the roads, Xzi? The infrastructure you're constantly complaining about is not in the hands of private industry, it's in the hands of the state. If it's in bad shape, that's the fault of the state, not private industry. Speaking of private industry...

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...es-road-repair-potholes-paving-infrastructure

The free market provides all of the things you mentioned via construction companies, private insurance companies and private clinics. The core concern of the free market is the customer because dead customers don't have a tendency to spend money.

PS: I'm against tariffs unless they're used in a trade war for moral or economic reasons (forcing a country to reduce another tariff or tax, for instance). Ideally countries shouldn't be involved in private trade at all.

Could you explain that concept? To me that sounds like welfare, but somehow I doubt that's what you're talking about

It is and it isn't. A negative income tax explained in one sentence is a minimum amount of money that a person must have after tax. It's not an ideal solution, but it addresses the call for universal income and eliminates welfare. I would prefer if it supplemented income after tax rather than just give people money for nothing, but I can't have everything I want, right? The point is reduction of waste and useless departments, it streamlines the welfare system to one form - your tax return. If you didn't earn enough after tax, you get supplemented. Watch some Milton Friedman, he explains the idea well.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

It is and it isn't. A negative income tax explained in one sentence is a minimum amount of money that a person must have after tax. It's not an ideal solution, but it addresses the call for universal income and eliminates welfare. I would prefer if it supplemented income after tax rather than just give people money for nothing, but I can't have everything I want, right? The point is reduction of waste and useless departments, it streamlines the welfare system to one form - your tax return. If you didn't earn enough after tax, you get supplemented. Watch some Milton Friedman, he explains the idea well.

So... Wait, seriously? You're in favor of what's effectively a supplemental UBI?

 

[Xzi]

Who's in charge of the roads, Xzi? The infrastructure you're constantly complaining about is not in the hands of private industry, it's in the hands of the state.

Private construction companies are the ones who have to fix/maintain our infrastructure, but first they have to be given an incentive (contract) by the state/federal government. Just one of several examples where the free market is insufficient and would rather skate by on the bare minimum.

Kinda getting back on topic though: what a joke Trump's summit with Putin was. Even some right-wing media is bashing him for that pathetic display of submissiveness. As they should. He looked weak and he blamed America for everything. A few random articles on the matter:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/07/17/trump-is-colluding-with-russia-right-in-front-of-our-eyes/

https://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2018/07/southeast_ohio_republican_part.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/opinion/trump-putin-summit-russia-collusion.html

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-that-was-treason-donald-trump-we-all-saw-it/

So... Wait, seriously? You're in favor of what's effectively a supplemental UBI?

At some point in the near future a UBI will be all but required. Automation is going to take over some of the biggest employment industries in the US.