Just an idea for those with only a few spare minutes but want to spread the good word.
I've started "trolling" Yahoo! Answers in the politics section. There are the obvious troll posts, but then there are actual questions, a cogent answer to which might actually cause someone to stop and think --
Q: Ok does any pro-illegal guru have a real solution to the problem that is in the interest of the US as a whole?
and not in the sole interest of the illegals,,,,,explain your anser in detail,,,,if it is about the Human Rights of oppressed minorities don't bother,,,remember the US first,,,this is about US law after all
My answer: Yes. The solution is to crack down on the corporate world that is employing illegals at less than minimum wage. The reason these folks have jobs is that they are willing to take less money than employers are legally required to pay U.S. citizens. If the jobs dry up, they go home. But companies that are interested in the bottom line and know they won't be penalized by a government that was elected by corporate contributions. (If we have public financing of elections, that will cease to be a problem.)
This works for the U.S. as a whole because:
1) Illegal immigrants have less of a motivation to come over here, and those that have come over will have trouble staying employed here.
2) It increases employment for American citizens.
3) It raises the minimum wage and gives working-class Americans a higher standard of living, expanding the middle class.
4) It makes corporations accountable and reduces cronyism and corruption.
5) A well-informed, voting middle class is the basis for a strong democracy.
Q: Since tax cuts increase revenue in this country and every country that has tried it.Then why would Democrats want to raise taxes?
My answer:
Because "increased revenue," the Dow., etc., reveal very little about the standard of living of the average working-class or middle-class American, and because tax cuts have very little effect on just how much money the average working-class or middle-class American has on hand.
Allow me to explain.
Point One: Increased Revenue does not mean bettered lives.
Rationale: Say you take two samples of 10 people. In one sample, everyone in the group makes between $30,000 and $60,000 a year. In the second sample, you have three millionaires and seven people who are making less than $20,000 per year. Group A is undoubtedly the better-off group, as nobody is starving or working three jobs, and everyone is able to save a little bit for retirement. But if you were to compare revenue, Group B would sound better.
Point Two: Tax cuts have little or no relevance to how much working-class Americans are paid.
Rationale: Imagine you are the boss of a business. Your workers work for $50,000 a year. You know that after taxes, they really only take home about $30,000. As for you, you pay yourself $75,000.
Now some tax cuts have come along, and you already know your workers are going to work for $30,000. Will you keep their pay at $50,000, if that's now lost profitability for your company?
And since profitability for your company is really profit for you, won't you keep your salary right where it is?
So your company makes more profit, you make more money (because you get a tax cut), but nothing has changed for your workers. Sounds great, doesn't it?
Until -- OUCH! -- they stop having funding -- OUCH! -- for filling those potholes in the -- OUCH! -- street.
And your house catches fire and all the available fire engines are across town because they closed the local fire station.
And you lose your most talented employee because she has to go take care of her mother, who can no longer afford the medicine she's been getting thru Medicare, and her disease has progressed to the point she needs constant care.
But hey, they're your hard-earned dollars and you don't want the government spending them!
Disclaimer, I did in fact credit Thom with the above economic arguments :)
Of course, I am occasionally trying to answer a troll post just for fun...
Q: Will Bush be recorded in history as the president that saved America from liberalism and terrorism?
My answer: He will be recorded in history as the president who conflated the two, although much of the terrorists' ideology -- religion-based moral standards instituted by government, sacrificing untold numbers of civilian lives for an unwinnable war, suppressing the middle class and driving up oil prices -- echoes the conservative roll call.
Q: If the Liberals opened a massage parlor in Guantanamo Bay for the terrorists, what would it be called?
My answer: I have a few ideas:
1) We'd name it after the Saudi Arabian royal family's oil riches that the Bushites sponsor, even though more than half of the 9-11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia.
2) We'd name it the Darfur, after all the other brutal regimes in the world that we turned a blind eye to just to go into Iraq.
3) We'd name it the Habeas Corpus, after the latest casualty of the "war on terrrrrrr."
Oh. No. Wait. We'd call it "The Innocent Man," for the great majority of those who you assume are terrorists:
"Among the roughly 500 detainees, 10 have been tried and none has been proven guilty." -Wikipedia
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your gleeful liberal-bashing.
Anyone care to join me over there?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
