An Elizabeth Warren Quote Spreading On Social Media; Any Brainy Responses?

[Toddsterpatriot]

When has anyone earning minimum wage ever been able to afford to live on his own and support a family? This miracle sure never occurred when I was making minimum wage.

When someone is trying to live on minimum and support a family, it means something went terribly wrong.

Many of us had minimum wage jobs as teens. They are meant for stepping stones to the better jobs and they are designed to build your resume and establish a good work history. Finishing high school is a must if you want to get anywhere and going to college is easier than ever with loans. Yea, loans suck, but once you have that degree you qualify for better jobs. Few can just write a check to the college to pay tuition, so whether you came from a dirt poor family or middle class you can still get loans and start paying them after you graduate. Once you graduate college, you are equal to other grads regardless of how poor you were growing up. Many colleges now help with job hunting, so there are few excuses for not having any kind of diploma and experience.

Of course, so many middle class jobs have disappeared and people started fighting for the minimum jobs because those are all that's left in some places. You have a choice between minimum wage or jobs that require higher skills. Seems most can't qualify for the better jobs and that is on them. Raising the starter jobs pay to the level of better jobs isn't going to help in the long run. As always, there will end up being fewer jobs up for grabs.

If the left would let up on middle class and quit killing businesses, it would be easier for those with an education to find something that will earn them a better living.

Why do some insist on begging government to raise them up instead of doing something for themselves, like at least finish high school?

Just raise the minimum wage to 1969 levels, adjusted for inflation,

unless you think the minimum wage was too high in 1969.

What would that be?
Show your math.

Minimum wage since 1938 - CNNMoney

Deport the illegals, that will increase wages for Americans.

 

[bripat9643]

WOW! Bonuses like that to the Uber-Rich probably make the repubs very happy!

Does this mean you will not be voting for a woman that gets 300K or more for giving a speech.

She is also willing to increase the amount of taxes she pays on that $300K

Something Republicans aren't

And that is relevant to what?

How does that help anyone? And I am speaking of the total culture... from her up?

Let me explain how it it is relevant

Conservatives are always screaming.....Aha!....Liz Warren is rich, therefore she is a hypocrit for complaining about the wealthy

The difference is that Warren is willing to institute programs to help working Americans and force the wealthy to contribute more

Meanwhile, rich conservatives blame the poor for having too much

If she doesn't want to be a hypocrite, then she can simply write a check to the federal government for the difference between what she pays and what she thinks people in her income bracket should pay. Forcing everyone else to go along with her is not an example of altruism or integrity. It's just a bullshit excuse for not sending in the check.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Just raise the minimum wage to 1969 levels, adjusted for inflation... .

And through that process you will devalue the currency by the precise same valuation.

Meaning that doing so, will axiomatically inflate the cost of labor to the same value as inflation over the same period: Summed.

Which will mean that currency used to pay for that labor, will purchase the correlated value LESS, than what it purchased prior to the implementation of that idiocy.

Who's up for THAT?

 

[bripat9643]

Dems plan on running on Communism in 2016

Perfect

Didn't the Dims already run on communism?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liz Warren, Democrat: From each according to his means, to each according to what I believe their needs to be

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems plan on running on Communism in 2016

Perfect

Didn't the Dims already run on communism?

No, never formally.

Remember Obama ran as a political Moderate and fiscal Conservative

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Dems plan on running on Communism in 2016

Perfect

Didn't the Dims already run on communism?

No, never formally.

Remember Obama ran as a political Moderate and fiscal Conservative

ROFLMNAO! Yeah he did... .

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dems plan on running on Communism in 2016

Perfect

maybe

 

[rightwinger]

WOW! Bonuses like that to the Uber-Rich probably make the repubs very happy!

Does this mean you will not be voting for a woman that gets 300K or more for giving a speech.

She is also willing to increase the amount of taxes she pays on that $300K

Something Republicans aren't

And that is relevant to what?

How does that help anyone? And I am speaking of the total culture... from her up?

Let me explain how it it is relevant

Conservatives are always screaming.....Aha!....Liz Warren is rich, therefore she is a hypocrit for complaining about the wealthy

The difference is that Warren is willing to institute programs to help working Americans and force the wealthy to contribute more

Meanwhile, rich conservatives blame the poor for having too much

Warren is willing to institute programs to help working Americans and force the wealthy to contribute more

There have always been rich liberals willing to raise taxes. So what?

Meanwhile, rich conservatives blame the poor for having too much

Who? Where? Link?

Did you miss the Romney 47% quote that cost him the election?

 

[rightwinger]

Just raise the minimum wage to 1969 levels, adjusted for inflation... .

And through that process you will devalue the currency by the precise same valuation.

Meaning that doing so, will axiomatically inflate the cost of labor to the same value as inflation over the same period: Summed.

Which will mean that currency used to pay for that labor, will purchase the correlated value LESS, than what it purchased prior to the implementation of that idiocy.

Who's up for THAT?

That has never proven to be true in any minimum wage hike.....yet, conservatives make the same threat every time

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Just raise the minimum wage to 1969 levels, adjusted for inflation... .

And through that process you will devalue the currency by the precise same valuation.

Meaning that doing so, will axiomatically inflate the cost of labor to the same value as inflation over the same period: Summed.

Which will mean that currency used to pay for that labor, will purchase the correlated value LESS, than what it purchased prior to the implementation of that idiocy.

Who's up for THAT?

That has never proven to be true in any minimum wage hike.....yet, conservatives make the same threat every time

ROFLMNAO!

Sweet MOTHER!

Do you understand what mathematics IS?

It's a principle or law of nature.

That means that there is no way that 'that' is NOT true. You can't artificially increase the cost of labor and not artificially reduce the value of that which is exchanged for that labor.

If the labor was being exchanged for rocks... the value of rocks would be reduced by an equal value of whatever value artificially increased the cost of that labor. If labor were being exchanged for gold, the value of gold would be reduced by an equal value of whatever value artificially increased the cost of that labor.

See how it works the same without regard to what is being exchanged? So that means that the issue is what?

The issue is the increase in the cost of labor absent an increase in the actual value of that labor... so without greater skill providing for either higher levels of production or a more valuable implementation of the labor, then the value of that labor has not changed. When you increase the COST of that unchanged labor, that means that it MUST require more of what is exchanged for that labor: WHICH DEVALUES THE EXCHANGED ARTICLE.

When that article is currency, the currency used in exchange for labor has less value where that labor cost more for the same labor.

There's no other potential alternative.

Now where you disagree with that immutable NATURAL LAW... you present with an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder: which is, in specific terms: DELUSION.

LOL! Now you're also one who 'believes' that there is a RIGHT to murder one's pre-born children and that deviant sexual behavior is perfectly normal... right?

Huh... Now I wonder what we should make of THAT?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems plan on running on Communism in 2016

Perfect

maybe

Does this mean you will not be voting for a woman that gets 300K or more for giving a speech.

She is also willing to increase the amount of taxes she pays on that $300K

Something Republicans aren't

And that is relevant to what?

How does that help anyone? And I am speaking of the total culture... from her up?

Let me explain how it it is relevant

Conservatives are always screaming.....Aha!....Liz Warren is rich, therefore she is a hypocrit for complaining about the wealthy

The difference is that Warren is willing to institute programs to help working Americans and force the wealthy to contribute more

Meanwhile, rich conservatives blame the poor for having too much

Warren is willing to institute programs to help working Americans and force the wealthy to contribute more

There have always been rich liberals willing to raise taxes. So what?

Meanwhile, rich conservatives blame the poor for having too much

Who? Where? Link?

Did you miss the Romney 47% quote that cost him the election?

No, it didn't. Being half a Liberal cost him the election

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Dems plan on running on Communism in 2016

Perfect

maybe

ROFL! Maybe?

Name one credible potential candidate which has not long since demonstrated Marxist tendencies, if not core communist traits.

 

[rightwinger]

Just raise the minimum wage to 1969 levels, adjusted for inflation... .

And through that process you will devalue the currency by the precise same valuation.

Meaning that doing so, will axiomatically inflate the cost of labor to the same value as inflation over the same period: Summed.

Which will mean that currency used to pay for that labor, will purchase the correlated value LESS, than what it purchased prior to the implementation of that idiocy.

Who's up for THAT?

That has never proven to be true in any minimum wage hike.....yet, conservatives make the same threat every time

ROFLMNAO!

Sweet MOTHER!

Do you understand what mathematics IS?

It's a principle or law of nature.

That means that there is no way that 'that' is NOT true. You can't artificially increase the cost of labor and not artificially reduce the value of that which is exchanged for that labor.

If the labor was being exchanged for rocks... the value of rocks would be reduced by an equal value of whatever value artificially increased the cost of that labor. If labor were being exchanged for gold, the value of gold would be reduced by an equal value of whatever value artificially increased the cost of that labor.

See how it works the same without regard to what is being exchanged? So that means that the issue is what?

The issue is the increase in the cost of labor absent an increase in the actual value of that labor... so without greater skill providing for either higher levels of production or a more valuable implementation of the labor, then the value of that labor has not changed. When you increase the COST of that unchanged labor, that means that it MUST require more of what is exchanged for that labor: WHICH DEVALUES THE EXCHANGED ARTICLE.

When that article is currency, the currency used in exchange for labor has less value where that labor cost more for the same labor.

There's no other potential alternative.

Now where you disagree with that immutable NATURAL LAW... you present with an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder: which is, in specific terms: DELUSION.

LOL! Now you're also one who 'believes' that there is a RIGHT to murder one's pre-born children and that deviant sexual behavior is perfectly normal... right?

Huh... Now I wonder what we should make of THAT?

And you tried so hard on this post...

Labor is not the only cost of doing business. They are faced with rent, cost of supplies, taxes, energy, insurance.....

All of which routinely increase without conservatives screaming about runaway inflation and the devaluation of the dollar

Wages routinely increase without the economy crumbling like conservatives predict

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does this mean you will not be voting for a woman that gets 300K or more for giving a speech.

She is also willing to increase the amount of taxes she pays on that $300K

Something Republicans aren't

And that is relevant to what?

How does that help anyone? And I am speaking of the total culture... from her up?

Let me explain how it it is relevant

Conservatives are always screaming.....Aha!....Liz Warren is rich, therefore she is a hypocrit for complaining about the wealthy

The difference is that Warren is willing to institute programs to help working Americans and force the wealthy to contribute more

Meanwhile, rich conservatives blame the poor for having too much

Warren is willing to institute programs to help working Americans and force the wealthy to contribute more

There have always been rich liberals willing to raise taxes. So what?

Meanwhile, rich conservatives blame the poor for having too much

Who? Where? Link?

Did you miss the Romney 47% quote that cost him the election?

Did you miss the Romney 47% quote that cost him the election?

So no luck finding any rich conservatives who blame the poor for having too much?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Just raise the minimum wage to 1969 levels, adjusted for inflation... .

And through that process you will devalue the currency by the precise same valuation.

Meaning that doing so, will axiomatically inflate the cost of labor to the same value as inflation over the same period: Summed.

Which will mean that currency used to pay for that labor, will purchase the correlated value LESS, than what it purchased prior to the implementation of that idiocy.

Who's up for THAT?

That has never proven to be true in any minimum wage hike.....yet, conservatives make the same threat every time

ROFLMNAO!

Sweet MOTHER!

Do you understand what mathematics IS?

It's a principle or law of nature.

That means that there is no way that 'that' is NOT true. You can't artificially increase the cost of labor and not artificially reduce the value of that which is exchanged for that labor.

If the labor was being exchanged for rocks... the value of rocks would be reduced by an equal value of whatever value artificially increased the cost of that labor. If labor were being exchanged for gold, the value of gold would be reduced by an equal value of whatever value artificially increased the cost of that labor.

See how it works the same without regard to what is being exchanged? So that means that the issue is what?

The issue is the increase in the cost of labor absent an increase in the actual value of that labor... so without greater skill providing for either higher levels of production or a more valuable implementation of the labor, then the value of that labor has not changed. When you increase the COST of that unchanged labor, that means that it MUST require more of what is exchanged for that labor: WHICH DEVALUES THE EXCHANGED ARTICLE.

When that article is currency, the currency used in exchange for labor has less value where that labor cost more for the same labor.

There's no other potential alternative.

Now where you disagree with that immutable NATURAL LAW... you present with an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder: which is, in specific terms: DELUSION.

LOL! Now you're also one who 'believes' that there is a RIGHT to murder one's pre-born children and that deviant sexual behavior is perfectly normal... right?

Huh... Now I wonder what we should make of THAT?

And you tried so hard on this post...

Labor is not the only cost of doing business. They are faced with rent, cost of supplies, taxes, energy, insurance.....

All of which routinely increase without conservatives screaming about runaway inflation and the devaluation of the dollar

Wages routinely increase without the economy crumbling like conservatives predict

ROFLMNAO!

Labor is by far and away the largest expense to run ANY BUSINESS.

So... that means that artificially increasing the cost of labor, is the most destructive to any economy which uses labor.

LOL!

But let's set that aside and come to the relevant issue...

Without regard to what 'it' is... what do we use to pay for 'it'?

(Clue: CURRENCY) Feel better?

But it gets worse...

Now we know from our previous lesson that by ARTIFICIALLY increasing the cost of Labor, we DEVALUE the currency.

So what happens when the currency we have or are receiving, purchases less than it did before? I mean we still need the same amount of groceries, gas, etc... Right?

But our money just buys less of it... so, what must we do THEN?

We need more money right? So, if I make money by renting property, then the Rent goes up. If I make money by offering services, then the cost of my services must go up, right?

What's that tell us?

Inflation causes inflation.

And that's why for DECADES, every time the minimum wage went up, inflation spiked and when inflation spiked, the government ran to do what? FIX PRICES... making it illegal for companies to raise their prices for products and services.

Now what happens when people's money is worth less and they can't raise their rates? THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND POOR INCREASES...

OH MY! Look at THAT!

Now, wasn't it you that were crying about "THE GAP"?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Did you miss the Romney 47% quote that cost him the election? So no luck finding any rich conservatives who blame the poor for having too much?

Romney lost the election because Romney was ruse... he was SELECTED to run, to LOSE the election.

ROFLMNAO!


The Left chose Romney... Romney lost.


Where's the mystery?

 

[rightwinger]

She is also willing to increase the amount of taxes she pays on that $300K

Something Republicans aren't

And that is relevant to what?

How does that help anyone? And I am speaking of the total culture... from her up?

Let me explain how it it is relevant

Conservatives are always screaming.....Aha!....Liz Warren is rich, therefore she is a hypocrit for complaining about the wealthy

The difference is that Warren is willing to institute programs to help working Americans and force the wealthy to contribute more

Meanwhile, rich conservatives blame the poor for having too much

Warren is willing to institute programs to help working Americans and force the wealthy to contribute more

There have always been rich liberals willing to raise taxes. So what?

Meanwhile, rich conservatives blame the poor for having too much

Who? Where? Link?

Did you miss the Romney 47% quote that cost him the election?

Did you miss the Romney 47% quote that cost him the election?

So no luck finding any rich conservatives who blame the poor for having too much?

Did you miss Romneys 47% quote that cost him the election?

 

[rightwinger]

Did you miss the Romney 47% quote that cost him the election? So no luck finding any rich conservatives who blame the poor for having too much?

Romney lost the election because Romney was ruse... he was SELECTED to run, to LOSE the election.

ROFLMNAO!


The Left chose Romney... Romney lost.


Where's the mystery?

You stop taking that medication for Paranoia?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And that is relevant to what?

How does that help anyone? And I am speaking of the total culture... from her up?

Let me explain how it it is relevant

Conservatives are always screaming.....Aha!....Liz Warren is rich, therefore she is a hypocrit for complaining about the wealthy

The difference is that Warren is willing to institute programs to help working Americans and force the wealthy to contribute more

Meanwhile, rich conservatives blame the poor for having too much

Warren is willing to institute programs to help working Americans and force the wealthy to contribute more

There have always been rich liberals willing to raise taxes. So what?

Meanwhile, rich conservatives blame the poor for having too much

Who? Where? Link?

Did you miss the Romney 47% quote that cost him the election?

Did you miss the Romney 47% quote that cost him the election?

So no luck finding any rich conservatives who blame the poor for having too much?

Did you miss Romneys 47% quote that cost him the election?

Did his 47% quote say that the poor had too much?