Posts by slygardener4

bluerider63 said:It’s the same old story we’re seeing today. You’ve got this supposed conservative center-right establishment running the show, but honestly, they’re all playing for the same team; they just change their tone to suit the room. A few of them might act like they’re actually listening to us or say the things we want to hear, but at the end of the day, they’re all just taking orders from the bureaucrats in D.C.

That is precisely the fatal flaw within our right-wing politics—they possess a deep-seated inclination toward authoritarian control over their own citizens
while simultaneously acting as puppets for foreign interests. 🤮

velvetmaker3 said:We don't need the left or the right; what we actually need are responsible patriots.

🙏

Just go ahead and explain that to the right-wingers—those folks absolutely obsessed with hunting down some imaginary communists
and the leftists, who are just overflowing with contempt and spitefully pushing back against the right, when in reality, both sides are nothing more than puppets for foreign interests.

steeleagle70 said:At Walmart, they have this whole system for offsetting stuff. They'll swap just about anything—we're talking everything from office supplies and tires to full-on marketing deals through their own agencies. Seriously, they’d probably trade anything from a tiny rubber band to a freaking space shuttle if they could.

😱 🙂
What makes it even more infuriating, however, is the complete lack of any mechanism to actually halt such a practice.

nimblecobra8 said:I guess the absolute floor used to be defined as 2,400 calories a day. But honestly, Europe—and even the US—moved past that a long time ago. Nowadays, the definition of a "minimum" has shifted way up to include things like smartphones, rent, cars, skincare, haircuts... you get the idea.
I don't see any reason to think people would suddenly stop being greedy if salaries hit $6,000. Even then, if you look at the wealthy, I bet they'd find plenty of reasons to feel just as unsatisfied.

Try surviving on $3,000 a month. See how that goes.

This whole 2,400 calorie nonsense reminds me quite a bit of Ceaușescu and his little
notions regarding what a person actually needs to survive. 🤣 🤣

steeleagle70 said:My company does business with Walmart, and man, we haven't seen a real payment from them since like 2008. They just want everything to be a trade-off. That’s the whole issue with Kroger/Walmart... they use their massive size to trap people, then they squeeze 'em and don't pay up.

One of the big produce distributors, Return, went belly up because Walmart wouldn't pay them the $4 million they owed.

There are tons of cases where Walmart intentionally pulls a huge amount of inventory they have no intention of paying for, waits for the company to go broke, and then just buys them out for pennies.

I’ve actually heard several people mention this compensation tactic—what can he even offer
to offset much larger debts?? 😕

Luke Skywalker said:Why "unfortunately"? It’s basic math—if the average salary sits at $55,000, then logically, someone has to fall below that mark. Who? And please, spare me the predictable finger-pointing at politicians or whatever else you were going to blame.

Regardless of what the median income looks like, there is a baseline cost of living required just to survive.
The issue here isn't about how people's salaries compare to one another—it's about the fact that with $1000, a decent life is simply impossible.

velvetdrifter86 said:I don't see the logic in slashing wages while the cost of living stays the same or keeps climbing. Honestly, the only way that makes sense is if you're trying to slide back into some kind of feudal, slave-labor society. I don't see any benefit for the country there, just huge wins for big corporations. The government should be focused on building a working class with actual buying power, not just churning out cheap labor.
Because those workers won't be able to afford an education, which basically kills any chance they have of moving up the social ladder.

Look, I'm not out here campaigning for any specific party; I'm just talking common sense.

A version of capitalism dominated by mega-corporations is, in many respects,
strikingly similar to feudalism.

driftingdrifter88 said:And what do we have now? An incompetent, corrupt leadership; gas prices so high they're insane—you can't even afford a car; zero jobs available; I could technically travel anywhere I want, but I can't go anywhere because I'm broke; and the military is non-existent (that's the one plus, I guess)...

Besides, back then (at least from what I remember), it wasn't even the kind of Communism you saw in SK, Cuba, or Romania...

🙏

redstag said:🤣
Cinenica is that you only had all that stuff because you were running up massive debts.

Ever since the collapse of Communism, debt has been climbing steadily, which means what we have actually inherited is
nothing more than 🤷 😕

redstag said:I’m just spinning my wheels here, but I might as well let the right side of the mill run for a bit 😁
The whole myth about having 200 powerhouse families? It’s total garbage. Why? Because they don't exist. Just imagine if America actually had 200 Todorichs. Even if I personally didn't care for their style, you can't deny we'd have a damn respectable economy. But look, if I had to choose between that vision and what we're stuck with now, I’d take those 200 families in a heartbeat. What we have right now is a complete joke. Besides, having 200 solid families would provide a foundation strong enough to actually run a normal political game—where Social Democrats could actually act like Social Democrats instead of being forced to pivot toward a Smithian Liberal market and implement all these anti-social measures just to jumpstart the economy.
So, Frank’s idea isn't necessarily trash, it's just the execution that sucks. 👎
Let’s see if anyone actually has something intelligent to say for once...

At first glance, it seems like a viable solution—it would certainly hold steady for a period, specifically while
those individuals who build wealth through genuine competence and responsibility managed to maintain the fortunes of those families
while they remained active participants in society. However, following that window (within a few decades or perhaps even sooner),
that aristocracy would inevitably devolve into a mere oligarchy.