Social MAGA 2025 Civil war incoming! Vivek Ramaswamy Betrays Base & reveals true colors, Says Americans SUCK !!

Labor disruptions = people being fired for cheaper labor = corporate greed.

Just like "inputs" = human beings

Expand social programs while cracking down on greed
You seem hung up on the semantics while sidestepping the substance of my argument.
Yeah, to be clear, I have no problem with Indians or anyone else coming to the US and working. What I have a problem with is employers exploiting immigrants for cheap labor and depressing wages for everyone else. The fault here lies with capital, not labor.
Personally I'm not even against that.

Let them come here and work for their cheaper wages while raising taxes to fund social programs for the ones who fall through the cracks. Apparently that's very offensive to certain people for some reason.
 
If the idea your proposing is to eliminate the Department of Education then I'm not sure we are having the same conversation. You say it adds unnecessary bloat and waste so then is the answer to provide states (some of whom rely heavily on Federal Aid of all types) with less money for things like special needs programs and eliminate the Pell Grant? The point I making was teachers and schools are already struggling as-is but does it not seem incorrect to help fix the same education system that can get you the qualified workers that are needed and then if absolutely necessary bring in H1-B candidates? To underfund the exact thing that provides the resources and the high skills for you in the long term and then say we need more highly skilled people does not make sense.
Yes the Department of Education provides no educational services and only a single digit percentage of its funds make it down to schools. It is pure bureaucratic waste that would not be missed by those actually delivering education. Teachers and schools struggle due to the weight of so many levels of political administration above them taking massive salaries while never stepping foot in classroom or teaching a kid a single thing.

My point is get the money grubbing, useless politicians out of the way so teachers can get the compensation and resources they need to educate the kids.

H1-B Visas are fine to use as long as it is known you cannot get enough of those highly skilled employees here currently and most countries need them. I know H1-B's are costly but the focus is on corps who can afford to pay the H1-B Visas, not the smaller businesses who generally cannot. The problem here is trusting corps. Do we honestly think corps are going to use H1-B Visas fairly? Corps will do what they need to at the expense of the American worker if need be. So it's not necessary the H1-B Visas themselves it's the companies asking for them that is the issue.

These questions I can't give you a definitive answer to in good faith because I don't know the intricate details of how the various visa programs work. As a long time technology consultant, I can share a little bit of what I learned from working with and getting to know lots of people actively engaged in the visa programs.

Overall I will say it feels pretty rough down at the personal level where it gets very impersonal handing out seemingly random conditions to people that put their lives in a very difficult state of uncertainty. Some people are told they just need to go get their passport stamped in another country and then come right back into the US, others are told they need to leave and maybe they will be allowed to reenter the US at sometime or maybe not.

It is tough issue all the way around, but I do find this discussion between Donald Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Elon Musk encouraging because they are not a group of blowhard politicians but each one of them is a very experienced businessman from different industry putting their heads together on this to hopefully come up with a better way to handle this.
 
Last edited:
"Jews will not replace us. Indians will, and we'll vote for it".

The only solace I have in Trump becoming president again is that his average voter will suffer worse from his policies than I will. I know it's petty, but I can't help it.

The populist right and left converge on a lot of that similar rhetoric.

Strangely in this case, the populist right is more consistent. They want to cap all immigration and the populist left only wants to cap it on the high skill jobs because they feel intimidated by the competition. It’s strange to see them trip over themselves with the birtherism stuff.
 
Last edited:
MCGA? Cesla oh I mean Tesla China has started building Cybertrucks for Chinese market possibly US too? What says America first then Chinese made Cybertrucks to US market.

 
MCGA? Cesla oh I mean Tesla China has started building Cybertrucks for Chinese market possibly US too? What says America first then Chinese made Cybertrucks to US market.


Is there not crazy tariffs on Chinese made vehicles? Pretty sure that's why we don't see Chicom auto manufacturers imported
 
That's because the bottom half is screwed by people who are in debt. Probably the bottom 10% or 20% of people are dragging the other 30% of that distribution down with college, car and house debt. We wouldn't say they are living badly though would we? If someone gets into college debt but has more lifetime earnings than someone who didn't, we wouldn't say they are worse off. Once people hit their 40s and 50s they are probably in that upper 50%, if they did things right, such as pay off debts, pay of most of the house, invest in the stock market.
Three people own more wealth than the bottom half is insane regardless of what nuance trolling, bad faith horse shit you try to come up with. Anyone who's remotely paid attention to history, trends, CEO pay, and just, lives, knows what's up. I don't care about your deflectionary, "what about?" bullshit. There's been an upward transfer of wealth and undermining of labor for decades. It's so well documented it's crazy.

You seem hung up on the semantics while sidestepping the substance of my argument.

You disputed nothing of what I said. You're fine with American companies undercutting labor and tax payers picking up the tab, you've already said as much but you play word games. That's why you speak in coded language and try to make this complicated and I'm direct. Because you're pro capital and anti-worker and you're trying pretzel yourself away from saying that outright, my position is direct and clear so I don't have to jiu-jitsu my positions. You can dispute it but you're against unions, you think we shouldn't "vindictive" toward billionaires, and you said you're fine with companies using visas to undercut labor, I've literally never seen you complain about wealthy interests buying politicians nor underpaying working and you ignore Elon asking for over 50 billion dollars in compensation when he already has over 100 billion whilst he lays off workers. That's also why you didn't answer me when I asked if Jack lied when I posted direct quotes from my own thread. It's called being full of shit.
 
You disputed nothing of what I said. You're fine with American companies undercutting labor and tax payers picking up the tab, you've already said as much but you play word games. That's why you speak in coded language and I'm direct. Because you're pro capital and anti-worker and you're trying pretzel yourself away from saying that outright, my position is direct and clear so I don't have to jiu-jitsu my positions. You can dispute it but you're against unions, you think we shouldn't "vindictive" toward billionaires, and you said you're fine with companies using visas to undercut labor, I've literally never seen you complain about wealthy interests buying politicians nor underpaying working and you ignore Elon asking for over 50 billion dollars in compensation when he already has over 100 billion whilst he lays off workers. That's also why you didn't answer me when I asked if Jack lied when I posted direct quotes from my own thread. It's called being full of shit.
You didn't say anything to dispute, you were just harping on semantics.

I've never shied away from my positions and I've been pretty clear that I'm not a fan of unions when the subject comes up though I don't think its fair to say I'm anti-worker. I'm all for reasonable regulations to protect workers in regards to things like safety as well as robust family leave and unemployment benefits. Idk what "word games" you're talking about, just seems like you perceive anyone trying to explain their POV at length and with nuance as "being full of shit" because I'm not regurgitating your leftist checklist of policy priorities even though by US standards calling for robust cash transfers and higher taxes is generally seen as left leaning policy positions.
 
You didn't say anything to dispute, you were just harping on semantics.

I've never shied away from my positions and I've been pretty clear that I'm not a fan of unions when the subject comes up though I don't think its fair to say I'm anti-worker. I'm all for reasonable regulations to protect workers in regards to things like safety as well as robust family leave and unemployment benefits. Idk what "word games" you're talking about, just seems like you perceive anyone trying to explain their POV at length and with nuance as "being full of shit" because I'm not regurgitating your leftist checklist of policy priorities even though by US standards calling for robust cash transfers and higher taxes is generally seen as left leaning policy positions.
Again, you didn't dispute my points. You're fine with companies using visas to undercut American labor and you're anti-union. You've also not criticized billionaires, said we shouldn't be vindictive toward them, and you're fine with the safety net being utilized by workers that were fired so they could be replaced with cheaper labor, which is the government subsidizing corporate greed. Those are strongly anti-worker positions, hence me calling you anti-worker. Those a pro big business and anti-worker positions, there is no amount of word play and nuance trolling that changes that.

Not that fuckin' hard.
 
Again, you didn't dispute my points. You're fine with companies using visas to undercut American labor and you're anti-union. You've also not criticized billionaires, said we shouldn't be vindictive toward them, and you're fine with the safety net being utilized by workers that were fired so they could be replaced with cheaper labor, which is the government subsidizing corporate greed. Those are strongly anti-worker positions, hence me calling you anti-worker. Those a pro big business and anti-worker positions, there is no amount of word play and nuance trolling that changes that.

Not that fuckin' hard.
I care about protecting those who legitimately live precarious lives under capitalism like the elderly, children, the disabled, and their caretakers who are disproportionately women, not about protecting workers in tech or in unions who have some of the higher average salaries in the country.

The fact that my suggestion of raising taxes to fund social programs for the poor enrages you because it doesn't involve eating the rich tells me you have all the wrong priorities.
 
I care about protecting those who legitimately live precarious lives under capitalism like the elderly, children, the disabled, and their caretakers who are disproportionately women, not about protecting workers in tech or in unions who have some of the higher average salaries in the country.

The fact that my suggestion of raising taxes to fund social programs for the poor enrages you because it doesn't involve eating the rich tells me you have all the wrong priorities.
You're not going to fix the problems in this country without going after the ultrawealthy and tech workers are not the only ones hurt by corporate greed, in this case in the form of outsourcing labor. We've had plenty of outsourcing already in other fields. Corporate greed is not limited to the tech industry. You know this.

Are you fine with Elon Musk spending a 1/4 of a billion dollars to put a presidential candidate in his back pocket? How the fuck do you think we're going to fund, never mind expand social programs when the wealthy can buy politicians and we've a growing wealth disparity?
 
You're not going to fix the problems in this country without going after the ultrawealthy and tech workers are not the only ones hurt by corporate greed, in this case in the form of outsourcing labor. We've had plenty of outsourcing already in other fields.

Are you fine with Elon Musk spending a 1/4 of a billion dollars to put a presidential candidate in his back pocket? How the fuck do you think we're going to fund, never mind expand social programs when the wealthy can buy politicians and we've a growing wealth disparity?
What does that mean in practice?
 
What does that mean in practice?
Taxing the shit out of them and removing money from politics, for starters. More regulations too, a friendlier environment for unions which you're against, (which Biden made progress on), etc.

Also,

Are you fine with Elon Musk spending a 1/4 of a billion dollars to put a presidential candidate in his back pocket? How the fuck do you think we're going to fund, never mind expand social programs when the wealthy can buy politicians and we've a growing wealth disparity?
 
Tax them how? Income tax? Corporate tax? Capital gains tax? All of the above?

Such as what? A lower cap on HB1 visas?

I'm not happy about it but I'd certainly be skeptical of any solution you'd offer.
In every way conceivable. Does every exact tax matter? This is why I call this nuance trolling. You're either for taxing the shit out of them or you're not, these motherfuckers do not give a shit about the public programs you claim to care about. They'd loot them all in a second.

Fuck whatever solution I'd offer, who cares I'm not a politician. You either think this is a problem that needs to be dealt with, or you don't. Politicians like Bernie have already proposed ways of dealing with this and then of course we can look to the past. My solution, get money out of politics.

Ooh, I'm so crazy! Look out, I'm a madman! I don't like corporate greed and I'm pro labor, what a d bag!
 
In every way conceivable. Does every exact tax matter?
It does matter because different taxes have different upsides and downsides. Some are easier or harder to dodge, others create drag on the economy and dissuade productive activity while others have the opposite effect. In general income, capital gains, and corporate taxes create drag while land and estate taxes don't and so I find the latter two preferable to the others.
This is why I call this nuance trolling.
Its quite interesting that you think I'm the one trolling here because I want to take a nuanced approach. Why on earth would that be a bad thing?
You're either for taxing the shit out of them or you're not, these motherfuckers do not give a shit about the public programs you claim to care about. They'd loot them all in a second.
To be clear, you don't either right? IIRC the social programs I'm advocating for here are "subsidizing corporations" in your view so presumably you're against cash transfers to the poor in favor of unions and restrictions on immigration.
Fuck whatever solution I'd offer, who cares I'm not a politician. You either think this is a problem that needs to be dealt with, or you don't. Politicians like Bernie have already proposed ways of dealing with this and then of course we can look to the past. My solution, get money out of politics.

Ooh, I'm so crazy! Look out, I'm a madman! I don't like corporate greed and I'm pro labor, what a d bag!
You are a d-bag but it has more to do with the fact that you act in bad faith and engage in shallow thinking.
 
Last edited:
It does matter because different taxes have different upsides and downsides. Some are easier or harder to dodge, others create drag on the economy and dissuade productive activity while others have the opposite effect. In general income, capital gains, and corporate taxes create drag while land and estate taxes don't and so I find the latter two preferable to the others.

Its quite interesting that you think I'm the one trolling here because I want to take a nuanced approach. Why on earth would that be a bad thing?

To be clear, you don't either right? IIRC the social programs I'm advocating for here are "subsidizing corporations" in your view so presumably you're against cash transfers to the poor in favor of unions and restrictions on immigration.

You are a d-bag but it has more to do with the fact that you act in bad faith and engage in shallow thinking.
Yes, and I'm sure there's a lot of regulatory stuff that goes with that to close those loopholes. When the corporate tax rate was above 90% they effectively paid 45%. I call it nuance trolling because ultimately they need the shit taxed out of them and a lotta loopholes need to be closed, I'm not a politician and I don't need to know every detail of every way to do so, I know the problems and the broad solutions. Give you an example you'll appreciate: Does someone need to understand every detail of the history of the Israel/Palestine situation to understand that history didn't begin on October 7th? That Israel has committed a lot of violence against the Palestinians including a now ongoing genocide? People in that thread who are pro-Israel nuance troll. It's getting hung up on details or starting arguments about relative minutia to obfuscate the greater discussion.

I explained my position multiple times and you're not stupid. When a corporation exploits labor to the point where that person needs to utilize public services from layoffs, the shit Wal Mart gets up too, basically underpaying, etc and the public programs pick up the slack that is essentially the government subsidizing of corporate greed (the depressing of wages which contributes to that too), and that's not even mentioning the lobbying they do to get a favorable regulatory environment and lower their taxes. What the actual fuck about that is hard to understand. Did I type that out in mandarin? I'm not going to repeat myself. And, I'll remind you, you're for that and in following those views one could easily reach the conclusion that you think the wealthy business interests that partake in these practices and buy off politicians give a fuck about social safety nets as they're trying to undermining the government and buying it off. Edit: The same business interests that engage in these practices, ain't exactly fans of public programs. This ties into getting money out of politics. You want social programs to be strong? Me too. Guess what powerful interests we're going to have to deal with to ensure they're strong, never mind getting a SPUHC system which would also empower workers (not stuck to jobs for healthcare) and make it easier to start businesses as the business owners wouldn't have to cover healthcare for their employees (though I think with a system like that there is a payroll tax for the system). And again, from my knowledge we're not lacking in tech workers, but even if we were, guess what would help with education? Free or at least cheap college. This stuff is all tangled together.

You think I'm a douche because I called you on your bullshit and I've not been polite to your recently. My charity and politeness only goes so far though.

You're soft on billionaires, you express flagrantly anti-labor views but then get butthurt when I call you anti-labor, not a single point of which you disagreed with because I quoted your own words and I also caught your boy Jack straight up lying and you ducked answering whether he lied as I quoted his own words which doesn't do wonders for your credibility. It's fine if you hold anti-labor positions, you said you're fine with companies undermining American labor to get cheaper labor from abroad, like bro, holy fuck that's anti-labor, and that's without getting into the ramifications of the exploitation of the global south. Just own it. It's fine. It's when you play this, "well no" game that it gets old quickly.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
1,255,796
Messages
56,739,192
Members
175,382
Latest member
LaPalmaJoa
Back
Top