I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

[kaz]

And the Democrats' message is "you're on unemployment and can't find a job so we're giving you welfare becaue you're an unemployable skank." Yeah that'll resonate.

You guys have a big problem. You lump Entitlement Moochers in with hard-working workers. You express the same level of disdain for people out working hard, as you do Entitlement Moochers. You've painted yourselves into an ugly corner. You're forcing American Workers to turn to the other Party.

I have nothing but respect for those who show up and work hard. They're not sitting around mooching on Entitlements. You guys need to start respecting them too. Otherwise, American Workers will go with the Democrats permanently.

No, you are completely wrong. But what's new?

There's a big difference between the moocher sitting home milking Entitlements, and the person showing up for work everyday trying to get by. But unfortunately, you guys lump the two together. You show equal disdain for both. And that's just not a winning message. Average workers see no reason to vote Republican. It is what it is.

Most low end workers say they support Democrats and don't bother to vote because they think their vote doesn't matter. I don't think they mostly react to the rhetoric, but they do view the Republican as the rich party. What do you think would reach them? I don't really have an answer to that. They don't see themselves as free, so freedom doesn't do it. It doesn't matter what the reality is, that's their perception

They see the Republican Party as a Party that truly doesn't give a shite about them. The GOP isn't giving em any reason to support it. Most Republicans i know, show absolute disdain for struggling workers who work at places like McDonalds and Walmarts. They look down on them. They truly believe they're worthless. And workers are getting that message loud & clear. The Democrats have a big advantage. It should put them over the top in the next Election.

You need better friends, most Republicans I know don't think that.

Either way you didn't answer my question

 

[Jarhead]

Who is lumping entitlement moochers with walmart workers?

You do know that a goodly number of Walmart workers (as well as other MW service companies) are receiving entitlements from the government. What does that tell you? Are workers who qualify for SNAP moochers? Paid to little? Lazy? What class do they fall under?

They're showing up, trying to get by. I respect them. Republicans shouldn't express such disdain for them. It's an irrational hateful approach.

why is it showing them disdain for refusing to call them hard working?

Don't you think calling them hard working when, in fact, they have co workers working harder than they are, the wrong approach and quite possibly giving them the wrong message?

 

[Spare_change]

I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

They both cost money.

But do you have any proof that higher costs are more expensive?

Dude do you realize how stupid that statement was?

Read the thread instead of hopping in thinking you understand the conversation.

Translation: "I have no rebuttal for your statement."

 

[paulitician]

Drop the 'angry greedy white dude' shtick. You accuse others of not working hard despite knowing absolutely nothing of which you speak. That makes you a hateful ignorant fuckwit. Walmart Employees work hard alright. They deal with fuckwits like you all day. So quit talkin out your ass, and start showing struggling American Workers some respect. Capisce.

hmmm....look at how you post here....and you say I am the fuckwit?

And I did not say they were not hard working....some are and those are the ones who get promotions.

But simply working 40 hours a week does not make you hard working. It simply makes you a full time employee.

To work hard takes more than simply "doing your job"

Now...one more childish attack on me, and I will ignore you and move on.

Rather see em out there showing up for work, than sitting home mooching off Entitlements. You guys need to stop lumping the two together. You need to show more respect for struggling hard-working Americans. Your current approach is a hateful ignorant approach. You certainly won't sell workers on it. It's gonna cost you in future General Elections.

going to cost me elections? I am not running for anything, but thanks for your concern.

Who is lumping entitlement moochers with walmart workers?

One is a lazy mooch and one is a working American.

But I hate it when they are defined as hard working Americans....some are most are not. As a recruiter, HR consultant, I used to have to do analyses of performance for clients.

Over 90% of the employees of any given client....yes...over 90% of all non exempt employees were found to have used ALL of their sick days and personal days each year.

Over 80% had used at least 2 bereavement days a year...and over 50% had used as many as 4 bereavement days.

In NYC.....over 50% of the employees would not show up to work if there was 4 inches of snow or more on the ground when they woke up.

Over 90% did not come in late, even if the snow had stopped and most of the streets clear.

Now for the kicker....

They were always the same people...the ones who took all of their sick and personal days were the same ones that would not come to work if there was 4 inches of snow...the same ones that would not come to work, even if the snow had melted....the ones who seems to have as many as 4 people close to them dies EVERY YEAR.....

So the ones that made the effort to come in when they had a stuffy nose......did not need to take a personal day so they did not.....did not take a bereavement day because some long lost uncle in Kalamazoo died.....and went to work when there was a foot of snow on the ground....

What do you call them if the others are hard working?

Work a busy weekend at a Walmart. Then come back and tell us how it went for ya. Walmart workers work very hard for the most part. They're actually under-paid and over-worked.

I have some relatives who were in management there. And they could tell you hundreds of horror stories they experienced working there. It's not the piece of cake you think it is. Try showing more respect. It'll do your soul some good.

Still ignoring the point.

If the walmart worker who uses all of his sick and personal days and never offers to stay late to help the manager is a hard working American...what do you call the guy that only uses sick days when he needs them and always offers his time to help?

A suck up ass kisser?

Like i said, work a busy weekend at a Walmart and then get back to us. Dealing with hateful ignorant fucktards like you isn't easy. They earn their pay. They should actually get much more.

 

[Jarhead]

But the fact that an accountant, to you, is by no means a hard worker makes me realize we will never see eye to eye on the topic.

Never said or implied that accountants are not hard workers. Different type of hard work. Stressful hard work.

Which do you think is harder on a person physically; hard work for years in construction or years of stressful hard work?

If you say stress, then the idea of working for almost MW knowing that it is not enough money to care for your family and yourself, does that make a MW job harder than a person working a job with lots of hours with plenty of stress but also plenty of income as well?

I worked 100% commission jobs for 23 years. You want to talk about stress and hard work? Get up every morning and realize you could spend all your working day trying hard and not make a single thin dime. That's an interesting way to work.

That's it. Had enough of you based on the fact that you said this in one post.....

Come on now. You expect the MW retail worker to work harder than the accountant? Who isn't doing jack shit of hard work when compared to the roofer.

And then you said this is the next post.....

Never said or implied that accountants are not hard workers

No interest in debating with you. You are all over the place. Sorry dude.

 

[Royce99]

I have an idea: In the future any senator or representative who votes to send other folk's kids to fight and die in some god-for-saken desert 10,000 miles from home will be required to send one of their own family and pay a double tax rate for the rest of his life. That'll apply some brakes to this stupid warmongering crap which has been going on all my life.....'course I'm just 80.

Does that include drone strikes and proxy battles in places like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? You want obama to send his teenage girls to the front, Herr Goering?

I have news for you numbnuts! George W. Bush stirred up the entire middle east when he declared war on Saddam Hussein. Iraq had done nothing to America and had no part in 9/11. W. Bush was pissed about one thing...Saddam trying to assassinate Bush41 in Qatar circa 1993. Texas justice is expensive.....especially to everybody else except the Bushes.

Look at the bright side. Only 4500 young Americans were killed and another 35,000 seriously wounded...it could have been bad.

Oh! It wasn't just the Bushes wanting war in Iraq. Here's a letter from major Republicans to Bill Clinton dated 1998. They were champing at the bit then:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is
not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more
serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming
State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That
strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand
ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment
of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to
uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to
ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially
diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely,
experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter
many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of
confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a
seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam
does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we
continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and
allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil
will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the
first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness
of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or
threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein
and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a
strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.
Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the
dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN
resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in
the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of
mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security
interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future
at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Oh good gracy. Where do these pricks come from? This is a discussion of min wage, not fantasies about George W Bush lying us into war.
You are a total disgrace.

If we had a decent minimum wage the Republicans might have to do some of the ME fighting themselves. The way it is young men who can't afford college join the military because that's the only place they can get a decent job. The rich white folks send their offspring to an ivy league college and never have to worry about anyone in their family having to fight and die in a desert 10,000 miles from home. The poor folks have to do their fighting for them. It's been that way since Richard Nixon did away with the draft.

 

[Jarhead]

hmmm....look at how you post here....and you say I am the fuckwit?

And I did not say they were not hard working....some are and those are the ones who get promotions.

But simply working 40 hours a week does not make you hard working. It simply makes you a full time employee.

To work hard takes more than simply "doing your job"

Now...one more childish attack on me, and I will ignore you and move on.

Rather see em out there showing up for work, than sitting home mooching off Entitlements. You guys need to stop lumping the two together. You need to show more respect for struggling hard-working Americans. Your current approach is a hateful ignorant approach. You certainly won't sell workers on it. It's gonna cost you in future General Elections.

going to cost me elections? I am not running for anything, but thanks for your concern.

Who is lumping entitlement moochers with walmart workers?

One is a lazy mooch and one is a working American.

But I hate it when they are defined as hard working Americans....some are most are not. As a recruiter, HR consultant, I used to have to do analyses of performance for clients.

Over 90% of the employees of any given client....yes...over 90% of all non exempt employees were found to have used ALL of their sick days and personal days each year.

Over 80% had used at least 2 bereavement days a year...and over 50% had used as many as 4 bereavement days.

In NYC.....over 50% of the employees would not show up to work if there was 4 inches of snow or more on the ground when they woke up.

Over 90% did not come in late, even if the snow had stopped and most of the streets clear.

Now for the kicker....

They were always the same people...the ones who took all of their sick and personal days were the same ones that would not come to work if there was 4 inches of snow...the same ones that would not come to work, even if the snow had melted....the ones who seems to have as many as 4 people close to them dies EVERY YEAR.....

So the ones that made the effort to come in when they had a stuffy nose......did not need to take a personal day so they did not.....did not take a bereavement day because some long lost uncle in Kalamazoo died.....and went to work when there was a foot of snow on the ground....

What do you call them if the others are hard working?

Work a busy weekend at a Walmart. Then come back and tell us how it went for ya. Walmart workers work very hard for the most part. They're actually under-paid and over-worked.

I have some relatives who were in management there. And they could tell you hundreds of horror stories they experienced working there. It's not the piece of cake you think it is. Try showing more respect. It'll do your soul some good.

Still ignoring the point.

If the walmart worker who uses all of his sick and personal days and never offers to stay late to help the manager is a hard working American...what do you call the guy that only uses sick days when he needs them and always offers his time to help?

A suck up ass kisser?

Like i said, work a busy weekend at a Walmart and then get back to us. Dealing with hateful ignorant fucktards like you isn't easy. They earn their pay. They should actually get much more.

Curioius, child.....

If the guy that shows up at 9AM for big sale day at walmart is a hard working American.......what do you call his co worker that showed up at 8 knowing that it was a big day and extra time was likely necessary to get the store ready?

As suck up ass kisser?

 

[Jarhead]

I have an idea: In the future any senator or representative who votes to send other folk's kids to fight and die in some god-for-saken desert 10,000 miles from home will be required to send one of their own family and pay a double tax rate for the rest of his life. That'll apply some brakes to this stupid warmongering crap which has been going on all my life.....'course I'm just 80.

Does that include drone strikes and proxy battles in places like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? You want obama to send his teenage girls to the front, Herr Goering?

I have news for you numbnuts! George W. Bush stirred up the entire middle east when he declared war on Saddam Hussein. Iraq had done nothing to America and had no part in 9/11. W. Bush was pissed about one thing...Saddam trying to assassinate Bush41 in Qatar circa 1993. Texas justice is expensive.....especially to everybody else except the Bushes.

Look at the bright side. Only 4500 young Americans were killed and another 35,000 seriously wounded...it could have been bad.

Oh! It wasn't just the Bushes wanting war in Iraq. Here's a letter from major Republicans to Bill Clinton dated 1998. They were champing at the bit then:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is
not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more
serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming
State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That
strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand
ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment
of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to
uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to
ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially
diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely,
experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter
many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of
confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a
seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam
does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we
continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and
allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil
will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the
first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness
of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or
threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein
and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a
strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.
Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the
dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN
resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in
the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of
mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security
interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future
at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Oh good gracy. Where do these pricks come from? This is a discussion of min wage, not fantasies about George W Bush lying us into war.
You are a total disgrace.

If we had a decent minimum wage the Republicans might have to do some of the ME fighting themselves. The way it is young men who can't afford college join the military because that's the only place they can get a decent job. The rich white folks send their offspring to an ivy league college and never have to worry about anyone in their family having to fight and die in a desert 10,000 miles from home. The poor folks have to do their fighting for them. It's been that way since Richard Nixon did away with the draft.

really?

Wow.

I see you know very little about real life in middle America.


Here is a little head start for you......
The vast majority of college students do not go to ivy league schools.

Take it from there and maybe you will see your entire post is way off base.

 

[kaz]

I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

They both cost money.

But do you have any proof that higher costs are more expensive?

Dude do you realize how stupid that statement was?

Read the thread instead of hopping in thinking you understand the conversation.

Translation: "I have no rebuttal for your statement."

When you paraphrase you don't use quote marks. Quote marks means you're quoting. Clever weren't they when they named them?

 

[kaz]

The rich white folks send their offspring to an ivy league college and never have to worry about anyone in their family having to fight and die in a desert 10,000 miles from home. The poor folks have to do their fighting for them. It's been that way since Richard Nixon did away with the draft.

Wow, I know so many military people and so few of them were motivated to join by money. And by few I mean zero

 

[kaz]

hmmm....look at how you post here....and you say I am the fuckwit?

And I did not say they were not hard working....some are and those are the ones who get promotions.

But simply working 40 hours a week does not make you hard working. It simply makes you a full time employee.

To work hard takes more than simply "doing your job"

Now...one more childish attack on me, and I will ignore you and move on.

Rather see em out there showing up for work, than sitting home mooching off Entitlements. You guys need to stop lumping the two together. You need to show more respect for struggling hard-working Americans. Your current approach is a hateful ignorant approach. You certainly won't sell workers on it. It's gonna cost you in future General Elections.

going to cost me elections? I am not running for anything, but thanks for your concern.

Who is lumping entitlement moochers with walmart workers?

One is a lazy mooch and one is a working American.

But I hate it when they are defined as hard working Americans....some are most are not. As a recruiter, HR consultant, I used to have to do analyses of performance for clients.

Over 90% of the employees of any given client....yes...over 90% of all non exempt employees were found to have used ALL of their sick days and personal days each year.

Over 80% had used at least 2 bereavement days a year...and over 50% had used as many as 4 bereavement days.

In NYC.....over 50% of the employees would not show up to work if there was 4 inches of snow or more on the ground when they woke up.

Over 90% did not come in late, even if the snow had stopped and most of the streets clear.

Now for the kicker....

They were always the same people...the ones who took all of their sick and personal days were the same ones that would not come to work if there was 4 inches of snow...the same ones that would not come to work, even if the snow had melted....the ones who seems to have as many as 4 people close to them dies EVERY YEAR.....

So the ones that made the effort to come in when they had a stuffy nose......did not need to take a personal day so they did not.....did not take a bereavement day because some long lost uncle in Kalamazoo died.....and went to work when there was a foot of snow on the ground....

What do you call them if the others are hard working?

Work a busy weekend at a Walmart. Then come back and tell us how it went for ya. Walmart workers work very hard for the most part. They're actually under-paid and over-worked.

I have some relatives who were in management there. And they could tell you hundreds of horror stories they experienced working there. It's not the piece of cake you think it is. Try showing more respect. It'll do your soul some good.

Still ignoring the point.

If the walmart worker who uses all of his sick and personal days and never offers to stay late to help the manager is a hard working American...what do you call the guy that only uses sick days when he needs them and always offers his time to help?

A suck up ass kisser?

Like i said, work a busy weekend at a Walmart and then get back to us. Dealing with hateful ignorant fucktards like you isn't easy. They earn their pay. They should actually get much more.

It's interesting you object to them being bucketized by bucketizing them

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I have an idea: In the future any senator or representative who votes to send other folk's kids to fight and die in some god-for-saken desert 10,000 miles from home will be required to send one of their own family and pay a double tax rate for the rest of his life. That'll apply some brakes to this stupid warmongering crap which has been going on all my life.....'course I'm just 80.

Does that include drone strikes and proxy battles in places like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? You want obama to send his teenage girls to the front, Herr Goering?

I have news for you numbnuts! George W. Bush stirred up the entire middle east when he declared war on Saddam Hussein. Iraq had done nothing to America and had no part in 9/11. W. Bush was pissed about one thing...Saddam trying to assassinate Bush41 in Qatar circa 1993. Texas justice is expensive.....especially to everybody else except the Bushes.

Look at the bright side. Only 4500 young Americans were killed and another 35,000 seriously wounded...it could have been bad.

Oh! It wasn't just the Bushes wanting war in Iraq. Here's a letter from major Republicans to Bill Clinton dated 1998. They were champing at the bit then:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is
not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more
serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming
State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That
strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand
ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment
of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to
uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to
ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially
diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely,
experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter
many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of
confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a
seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam
does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we
continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and
allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil
will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the
first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness
of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or
threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein
and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a
strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.
Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the
dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN
resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in
the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of
mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security
interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future
at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Oh good gracy. Where do these pricks come from? This is a discussion of min wage, not fantasies about George W Bush lying us into war.
You are a total disgrace.

If we had a decent minimum wage the Republicans might have to do some of the ME fighting themselves. The way it is young men who can't afford college join the military because that's the only place they can get a decent job. The rich white folks send their offspring to an ivy league college and never have to worry about anyone in their family having to fight and die in a desert 10,000 miles from home. The poor folks have to do their fighting for them. It's been that way since Richard Nixon did away with the draft.

really?

Wow.

I see you know very little about real life in middle America.


Here is a little head start for you......
The vast majority of college students do not go to ivy league schools.

Take it from there and maybe you will see your entire post is way off base.

One has to wonder exactly how does one develop that mindset?

 

[The Rabbi]

I have an idea: In the future any senator or representative who votes to send other folk's kids to fight and die in some god-for-saken desert 10,000 miles from home will be required to send one of their own family and pay a double tax rate for the rest of his life. That'll apply some brakes to this stupid warmongering crap which has been going on all my life.....'course I'm just 80.

Does that include drone strikes and proxy battles in places like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? You want obama to send his teenage girls to the front, Herr Goering?

I have news for you numbnuts! George W. Bush stirred up the entire middle east when he declared war on Saddam Hussein. Iraq had done nothing to America and had no part in 9/11. W. Bush was pissed about one thing...Saddam trying to assassinate Bush41 in Qatar circa 1993. Texas justice is expensive.....especially to everybody else except the Bushes.

Look at the bright side. Only 4500 young Americans were killed and another 35,000 seriously wounded...it could have been bad.

Oh! It wasn't just the Bushes wanting war in Iraq. Here's a letter from major Republicans to Bill Clinton dated 1998. They were champing at the bit then:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is
not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more
serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming
State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That
strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand
ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment
of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to
uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to
ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially
diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely,
experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter
many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of
confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a
seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam
does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we
continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and
allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil
will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the
first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness
of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or
threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein
and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a
strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.
Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the
dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN
resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in
the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of
mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security
interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future
at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Oh good gracy. Where do these pricks come from? This is a discussion of min wage, not fantasies about George W Bush lying us into war.
You are a total disgrace.

If we had a decent minimum wage the Republicans might have to do some of the ME fighting themselves. The way it is young men who can't afford college join the military because that's the only place they can get a decent job. The rich white folks send their offspring to an ivy league college and never have to worry about anyone in their family having to fight and die in a desert 10,000 miles from home. The poor folks have to do their fighting for them. It's been that way since Richard Nixon did away with the draft.

Good gawd. Fuck off. Just fuck off. Your comments are wildly off base. MW has zero to do with the military.

 

[Jarhead]

I was at the Home Depot about a year ago. I wanted to paint my garage floor and had no experience in such a project, so while looking at the "garage floor" paint kits, a young lady approached me and asked if I need help. I explained my project and how naïve I was as it pertains to epoxy paint and she sent the better part of a half hour going over all of the options and procedures. I thanked her and mentioned to her how I found her level of customer service above and beyond any I had experienced at The Home depot in the past. She appreciated my comment and told me to feel free to ask for her anytime I needed help in that department.

About 6 months later, I was in the paint department and asked for her as I needed help regarding exterior finishes. The guy I asked did not look up at me...he was looking at his Iphone...and he said "she don't work the floor no more"...yep...those exact words....."she don't work the floor no more.".....and he did not ask me if he can help me nor did he really care that I was even there.

SO I asked him if he knows exterior finishes...and he said...no joke..."cant you see I am on break".......

I did not respond to him...I just walked away and asked someone else for help. They admitted they did not know much about exteriror finishes, but knew a manager who could help me.

5 minutes later, she showed up.....the manager.....was Tamara...the woman that helped me with the garage floor paint. She was promoted...

I wonder why.

Anyone who thinks that all workers who work 40 hours a week are hard working Americans do not realize that there are good employees and mediocre employees in every company.

Only the good ones earn the right to be called Hard Working Americans. The others should just be grateful for the job.

 

[Clementine]

Believe it or not, both the left and the right want to end welfare for the poor. The left just has a realistic and humane way of doing it.

$153 billion of public assistance is spent on people because of their low wage jobs. 18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour. How many more do you think make less than $15? If the minimum was raised to $10.10, republicans are to stupid/immature to realize that far less people would be eligible for programs like food stamps. It would dramatically fix the fucking problem of the poor on welfare!

Like it or not, $15 as a minimum wage would be a base wage kept up with the rate of inflation. The last time someone could live comfortably off 10.10 per hour was the fucking 60s. Since the recession, low wage jobs out number higher wage jobs. That means MILLIONS OF PEOPLE have no choice but to accept low wage jobs.

As long as it was gradually raised over a couple of years, the initial cost to the market would be minimized. Prices would go up, but not nearly enough to offset the consumer spending power created by it. Consumer spending would boom. The market would begin to create jobs. Way more than the jobs that would have been scrapped initially. Prices would also go down.

Look the only reason most (not all) CEOs are against raising wages is because it just easier to for them to keep the ridiculous money they make rather than invest in a strong labor force. The average CEO makes over 300x what the average worker makes. Sure we can all agree CEOs deserve a wealthy life for all their hard work, but do you really think they deserve 300x more?

Hell no.

So, why are Dems asking for minimum to be raised to $10 if that's not enough? How many people actually stay in a minimum wage for years? Most people start at that rate and get raises each year. I worked for less than minimum at a restaurant and got a raise after I was there for a while. I didn't stay at the job because I was taking night classes and got a better job after I graduated, but I would have kept getting raises as long as I showed up for work and did my job well. I can't imagine someone without education having children to provide for in that job.

Some people reject the help offered. One state decided that able bodied single people must either attend classes, get a part time job or volunteer a whole 6 hours a week to continue getting benefits. The majority, 80%, stopped receiving food stamps because they weren't willing to go along with the new rules.

I'm sorry, but that tells me that too many people are not interested in taking steps to improve their situation.

Government and tax payers can only do so much. The individual has to meet us halfway and if they don't then it's likely nothing will ever change for them.

The economy still sucks for the average person because those middle class companies that offered advancement for the serious workers have dwindled down and what we have available is mostly minimum wage jobs. I've always considered minimum wage jobs as starter jobs that were never meant to provide for a family or even a single person with rent and other expenses. It was usually teens, college students and sometimes a spouse getting a job to supplement the other spouse's income. Now that middle class jobs have been killed off and minimum jobs are the only choice for some, the left is wanting to increase minimum so those starter jobs are equivalent to the better jobs. The wisest thing to do would be to change policies so middle class businesses could thrive again so more people had the opportunity for advancement.

Some states offer such good welfare benefits that people would actually have less resources if they started working. Really kills the incentive, but I would rather help supplement a minimum wage worker than allow them to do nothing and still receive benefits. Making it mandatory to take some kind of job training would help them land better jobs downs the road, at least after the liberals stop killing the businesses that offered those jobs.


Jarhead, your post (#54) is awesome and sooooo true!!!!!!!

 

[kaz]

So, why are Dems asking for minimum to be raised to $10 if that's not enough?!

They want phased in lifetime unemployment for the lowest skilled and least experienced workers so it's not so obviously they are responsible for their inability to get any job.

Maybe they can move to Mexico and get work

 

[Royce99]

So, why are Dems asking for minimum to be raised to $10 if that's not enough?!

They want phased in lifetime unemployment for the lowest skilled and least experienced workers so it's not so obviously they are responsible for their inability to get any job.

Maybe they can move to Mexico and get work

Things worked just fine before Ronald Reagan....the big tax cutter. He slashed tax rates to 50 year lows, continued to spend like a drunk sailor then between he and Bush41 they quadrupled the national debt.

Clinton balanced the budget, generated nearly $400 billion of surplus in fy's 1997-2001 and then along came slow walking, slow talkin' George. He cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003, increased spending and doubled the national debt again. Since Obama took over over $2 trillion of borrowed money has gone to pay the annual interest on the Reagan/Bushes debt:

..........Total U S Debt.........

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[zeke]

Only the good ones earn the right to be called Hard Working Americans. The others should just be grateful for the job.

No, the ones who don't want to work and do the job they were hired for. You know what they should be called?
Unemployed. Or fired.

I thought you worked in HR?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is a 2 parter.

1. Walmart has done this before. Ir raises the pay for new hire only. When the raises happen, the long term employee will end up making less than the new hire. This isn't a decision by Walmart Store Management, it's a Corporate Decision. Not the first time for walmat and they do a great PR. Lousy company to work for but great PR.

2. If you raise the workers salaries, the Distributors raise their prices, pass it onto the stores and they pass it onto the customer. It's all about greed. The Rich are be damned not going to let you cut into the pie since they own almost all of it. Not one iota. The end result is, the worker gets a raise, the cost of living goes up exactly or more than their raise and they are not in a nigher tax bracket. Until this is dealt with then pay increases for the middle class and down do more damage than good.

Unless the distributors, housing owners, etc. are told to knock it off then it's only going to get worse.

 

[Iceweasel]

Things worked just fine before Ronald Reagan....the big tax cutter. He slashed tax rates to 50 year lows, continued to spend like a drunk sailor then between he and Bush41 they quadrupled the national debt.

Clinton balanced the budget, generated nearly $400 billion of surplus in fy's 1997-2001 and then along came slow walking, slow talkin' George. He cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003, increased spending and doubled the national debt again. Since Obama took over over $2 trillion of borrowed money has gone to pay the annual interest on the Reagan/Bushes debt:

Lies and bullshit. The Republicans were responsible for the economic restraint during Clinton's years. It wasn't his idea. And Reagan did not get the reduced spending from Democrats during his term in office. obama and the senate spent way more than anybody, especially before Republicans got the House.