Corporate welfare in action ....

[Conservative65]

The government shouldn't dictate to a business owner the minimum he/she has to pay an employee. If said employee has such low skills they can't make enough to survive, it's not the fault of the business owner paying that employee but the employee having such low skills.

So the government shouldn't be giving out corporate welfare then either. If they can't even dictate good wages it should all be free market capitalism!

We've gone over this, son. They don't. There is no such thing as corporate welfare. It's the same type of mythical creature as this white privilege the Liberal race pimps want to use as an excuse for blacks not being able to keep up.

So you are stupid and delusional. Got it.

I'm not the one that believe something exists when it really doesn't. That's you, boy.

There are many examples in this thread alone. But continue to be stupid if you wish. I guess you are a "conservative" who is ok with the government picking winners and losers.

The government doesn't pick winners and losers. Individual choices do.

 

[Markle]

So if you people want to pay Americans $2 an hour ..why are you so hell bent on deporting immigrants who provide cheap labor?

If someone is only worth $2.00 an hour, why should they be paid more?

Someone else might value their labor more.

Then they go someplace else. Simple!

 

[Brain357]

So the government shouldn't be giving out corporate welfare then either. If they can't even dictate good wages it should all be free market capitalism!

We've gone over this, son. They don't. There is no such thing as corporate welfare. It's the same type of mythical creature as this white privilege the Liberal race pimps want to use as an excuse for blacks not being able to keep up.

So you are stupid and delusional. Got it.

I'm not the one that believe something exists when it really doesn't. That's you, boy.

There are many examples in this thread alone. But continue to be stupid if you wish. I guess you are a "conservative" who is ok with the government picking winners and losers.

The government doesn't pick winners and losers. Individual choices do.

That's what they are doing when they give one company a sweet tax deal over a competitor.

 

[Markle]

Your sister and her kids are shining examples of the problem. People shouldn't be in debt their entire life to get an edu.

Then they have hundreds of options.

In Florida, we have a scholarship program called Bright Futures. For high enough high school GPA, they will pay a substantial part of each college credit hour.

Go to a community college, work part time and then attend an in state university.

If you're planning on teaching, you know the pay scale before going into the least demanding school at most universities. Your choice, your bill.

Why is your sister paying and not the kids? They chose the major and they chose the jobs. If they majored in ancient musical instruments, it sounds like a personal problem.

Millions of people shouldn't be going to college in the first place. We have millions of well-paying job openings for people who have attended technical school. Why is that not an option?

I worked full time and graduated from the U of M, a private school in Miami Florida. I skipped one semester because I didn't have enough money. I paid my senior year with the winnings from a tournament. A sport which had contributed to paying my fees the previous four years.

It can be done. It takes hard work and determination.

 

[Markle]

My point is just that we talk about what people are worth or, more accurately, what their labor is worth - but it's not an intrinsic value. It's entirely subjective. What a job is worth depends on who is paying for it and who is doing the work.

Wrong. Nothing subjective about the worth of a worker. If I have a job opening, and I publicize that opening at "X" dollars per hour, you apply and I hire you, that is your worth. Nothing subjective.

 

[Markle]

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour anyway. Why not simply provide recourse to unemployment compensation to Labor, so they can maintain their, ready reserve labor force status?

In what city?

 

[Markle]

Smart employers get Reid of their most productive employees before they hang around too long. Replacing them with brand new workers constantly keeps wages dirt low.

 

[Conservative65]

We've gone over this, son. They don't. There is no such thing as corporate welfare. It's the same type of mythical creature as this white privilege the Liberal race pimps want to use as an excuse for blacks not being able to keep up.

So you are stupid and delusional. Got it.

I'm not the one that believe something exists when it really doesn't. That's you, boy.

There are many examples in this thread alone. But continue to be stupid if you wish. I guess you are a "conservative" who is ok with the government picking winners and losers.

The government doesn't pick winners and losers. Individual choices do.

That's what they are doing when they give one company a sweet tax deal over a competitor.

That assumes the competitor desires to go into business in the same location. That competitor may be locating elsewhere and getting a deal. Neither is corporate welfare.

 

[jc456]

If someone is only worth $2.00 an hour, why should they be paid more?

Someone else might value their labor more.

As long as the person paying them is doing it because they chose to rather than the government mandating a minimum amount.

So the government shouldn't dictate actions in the economy?

The government shouldn't dictate to a business owner the minimum he/she has to pay an employee. If said employee has such low skills they can't make enough to survive, it's not the fault of the business owner paying that employee but the employee having such low skills.

So the government shouldn't be giving out corporate welfare then either. If they can't even dictate good wages it should all be free market capitalism!

no explanation of corporate welfare. try again.

 

[Brain357]

So you are stupid and delusional. Got it.

I'm not the one that believe something exists when it really doesn't. That's you, boy.

There are many examples in this thread alone. But continue to be stupid if you wish. I guess you are a "conservative" who is ok with the government picking winners and losers.

The government doesn't pick winners and losers. Individual choices do.

That's what they are doing when they give one company a sweet tax deal over a competitor.

That assumes the competitor desires to go into business in the same location. That competitor may be locating elsewhere and getting a deal. Neither is corporate welfare.

Walmart had many small business competitors in every city...

It is amazing how little "conservatives" care about the tax payer. When a corporation gets these deals they stil receive services. Services are not free so the tax payer covers the bill.

 

[Brain357]

Where a business goes should be based on consumers, not where the government chooses they go.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm not the one that believe something exists when it really doesn't. That's you, boy.

There are many examples in this thread alone. But continue to be stupid if you wish. I guess you are a "conservative" who is ok with the government picking winners and losers.

The government doesn't pick winners and losers. Individual choices do.

That's what they are doing when they give one company a sweet tax deal over a competitor.

That assumes the competitor desires to go into business in the same location. That competitor may be locating elsewhere and getting a deal. Neither is corporate welfare.

Walmart had many small business competitors in every city...

It is amazing how little "conservatives" care about the tax payer. When a corporation gets these deals they stil receive services. Services are not free so the tax payer covers the bill.

They pay for those services. That means they aren't getting them for free.

 

[Conservative65]

Where a business goes should be based on consumers, not where the government chooses they go.

The government isn't choosing. The businesses go where they've determined the customers are.

 

[Brain357]

There are many examples in this thread alone. But continue to be stupid if you wish. I guess you are a "conservative" who is ok with the government picking winners and losers.

The government doesn't pick winners and losers. Individual choices do.

That's what they are doing when they give one company a sweet tax deal over a competitor.

That assumes the competitor desires to go into business in the same location. That competitor may be locating elsewhere and getting a deal. Neither is corporate welfare.

Walmart had many small business competitors in every city...

It is amazing how little "conservatives" care about the tax payer. When a corporation gets these deals they stil receive services. Services are not free so the tax payer covers the bill.

They pay for those services. That means they aren't getting them for free.

So they don't pay taxes but are paying for services? You are an idiot.

 

[Brain357]

Where a business goes should be based on consumers, not where the government chooses they go.

The government isn't choosing. The businesses go where they've determined the customers are.

They are going where the government gives them the best deal. Clearly you have no grasp on this subject.

 

[Conservative65]

The government doesn't pick winners and losers. Individual choices do.

That's what they are doing when they give one company a sweet tax deal over a competitor.

That assumes the competitor desires to go into business in the same location. That competitor may be locating elsewhere and getting a deal. Neither is corporate welfare.

Walmart had many small business competitors in every city...

It is amazing how little "conservatives" care about the tax payer. When a corporation gets these deals they stil receive services. Services are not free so the tax payer covers the bill.

They pay for those services. That means they aren't getting them for free.

So they don't pay taxes but are paying for services? You are an idiot.

Who says they don't pay taxes? You assume the incentives mean they pay nothing.

 

[Conservative65]

Where a business goes should be based on consumers, not where the government chooses they go.

The government isn't choosing. The businesses go where they've determined the customers are.

They are going where the government gives them the best deal. Clearly you have no grasp on this subject.

The business is still making the choice. Clearly you have no grasp of what it means to run a business.

 

[Brain357]

That's what they are doing when they give one company a sweet tax deal over a competitor.

That assumes the competitor desires to go into business in the same location. That competitor may be locating elsewhere and getting a deal. Neither is corporate welfare.

Walmart had many small business competitors in every city...

It is amazing how little "conservatives" care about the tax payer. When a corporation gets these deals they stil receive services. Services are not free so the tax payer covers the bill.

They pay for those services. That means they aren't getting them for free.

So they don't pay taxes but are paying for services? You are an idiot.

Who says they don't pay taxes? You assume the incentives mean they pay nothing.

The incentives mean none or almost none. That means the tax payer covers the bill.

 

[Brain357]

Where a business goes should be based on consumers, not where the government chooses they go.

The government isn't choosing. The businesses go where they've determined the customers are.

They are going where the government gives them the best deal. Clearly you have no grasp on this subject.

The business is still making the choice. Clearly you have no grasp of what it means to run a business.

A choice dictated by the government.

 

[Conservative65]

That assumes the competitor desires to go into business in the same location. That competitor may be locating elsewhere and getting a deal. Neither is corporate welfare.

Walmart had many small business competitors in every city...

It is amazing how little "conservatives" care about the tax payer. When a corporation gets these deals they stil receive services. Services are not free so the tax payer covers the bill.

They pay for those services. That means they aren't getting them for free.

So they don't pay taxes but are paying for services? You are an idiot.

Who says they don't pay taxes? You assume the incentives mean they pay nothing.

The incentives mean none or almost none. That means the tax payer covers the bill.

That's what you say.