Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My suggestion would do both. Raising the min wage hurts poor people, pricing them out of the job market. Without an entry level job they cannot rise any higher.How about eliminate both? SOunds like my kind of compromise.Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. We can have compromise.
Give both the rich and poor a break. It can be done.
Corporate taxes hurt workers because there is less money available to pay them.
Why? So the rich can get richer faster?How about the real minimum wage is zero.a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation.
the right wing, has no better offer.
we already have education in this country and it's the politicians who fuck it upRight, so a kid at the age of 12 decides what skills he needs, but the school he goes to doesn't provide those skills, then what?
A society is strong when people get to choose, but too much choice doesn't make society stronger, you still need people to do certain things. Is society strong when people get conscripted? Sure, but they don't have the choice, do they?
I'm not talking about telling people to be a plumber. Hey, I want to be a multi billionaire, but the job vacancy for that one is taken by someone else. So where's my choice? Oh, the choice is there, I can choose to pursue something, that doesn't mean there's going to be room for me. Plenty of kids apply for schools they can't get into because others are better, so they have to do something they don't want to do. That's life.
What I'm talking about is saying "hey, we need 50,000 kids to study to be a plumber this year, and 2,000 to be engineers, you can apply to be an engineer, but if you don't make it, there are plenty of available spaces in plumbing"
You say the individual trumps the society, yet it doesn't. You can't say whatever the hell you want, society makes rules that you have to abide by or go to prison, how is this the individual trumping society exactly?
The right go on and on and on about how the left are destroying morals, morals are about society not the individual. Give me a break.
no kid at 12 knows what skills he needs and when he decides what skills he needs he then can find a place to get training in those skills
it isn't rocket science
Man you do like mixing your metaphors don't you? Rules or laws are a completely different matter than individual responsibility.
we are a country based on individual liberties and the responsibilities that go along with those liberties we are not and never will be a collective
Ah ha. No kid knows what they need for the rest of their life. So it's up to the adults then? It's up to people who know what skills are needed in society to go out there and make sure it happens.
Yes, the US is a country based on individual liberties and responsibilities. That doesn't mean society should completely break down. It doesn't mean that certain people should take a position of power and direct society towards a common goal. It seems you're confusing individual liberty for anarchy. Education is important for society, there's a reason mass education is compulsory in most countries that can afford it, because individuals do better and society does better. You want individual responsibility, but unwilling to teach the skills that kids will need in order to exercise this responsibility. It's bizarre.
You want to do something good for society then get rid of social promotion and grading on a curve and accept the reality that some people fail and that soon er or later each person has to decide what it is he or she will do.
I don't know about you but I don't want anyone telling me what to do for the rest of my life because some asshole on high says it's good for society
The problem is nothing you're saying is going to be able to be backed up with any evidence, is it? Hence why you didn't bother to back what you said up.
The thing is, I can prove that some social engineering actually has worked and had a positive effect. You look at places in the US with less positive social engineering and you end up with places like Louisiana and Mississippi where nothing seems to ever get better.
You don't want someone telling you what to do? But it happens anyway, go figure. You think you've got all this freedom of choice, and yet... you don't.
It's not the government's job to use it's ham handed social engineering on the populace. The only thing the government was meant to do was to protect the rights of the people.
And the fact that we don't have the freedom of choice we should is the problem but you can't seem to understand that can you?
you mean life isn't fair?Is it? Do you know what it's like having problems that you can't just solve by studying more? Some people can't take in as much as others, how are they going to compete? Oh, they should just be thrown out and live in the cold under a bridge because they were born with a brain that isn't as good as someone else's?
Where do you people get off?
DUH
No, not really. I mean that fairness should come from certain quarters. Govt shouldn't be going around choosing arbitrarily. All kids should be given the same opportunities, like education. What they make of that education is something quite different.
And yet you want to tell those kids what to study if it's "good for society"
I'm really sure you don't get it.
You need certain professions, so you make sure there are enough places for people to enter those professions, you need less of something, you have less places available for those professions. Kind of makes sense. I mean, like I said, you could have everyone studying to do dry stone walling, but what's the point?
Then if you have such courses that lead towards certain jobs you give them the skills they need to do that job.
I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with such a thing.
You seem to think everyone can and should be able to study for what they want to study for, regardless of whether they can get into it or not.
The market will decide that not the fucking government.
The more the need the higher the incentive to enter that field. The government doesn't have to interfere at all
and you seem to think you have the right to tell people what they have to study and what jobs they have to take
no it is notcapital gain is the gain value for our economy; trickle down can apply.i could call it, a deferred, capital gain. only the right wing, never gets it.that's exactly what you want.everyone is responsible for their success or failure; not everyone can get bailout from daddy or Uncle Sam.if you don't like the idea of working for someone else then start your own fucking business. But you won't because you don't want to be responsible for your own success or failure
At least there are more people in this country who will work who want to work and still have the integrity and self worth not to want to have others support them than there are lazy fucking leeches like you
the only lazy leaches, are the ones with nothing but fallacy instead of the hard work required for an argument.
You want us to make it possible for you never to work again by giving you almost 30K a year for choosing not to work
you don't call that a bailout?
Tell you what since you still live with your mama have her pay you 14 an hour to dribble semen all over her couch
you don't know the definition of capital gain either
it refers to the appreciation in value of an asset
you have no assets because you are too lazy to work for any
we already have education in this country and it's the politicians who fuck it upno kid at 12 knows what skills he needs and when he decides what skills he needs he then can find a place to get training in those skills
it isn't rocket science
Man you do like mixing your metaphors don't you? Rules or laws are a completely different matter than individual responsibility.
we are a country based on individual liberties and the responsibilities that go along with those liberties we are not and never will be a collective
Ah ha. No kid knows what they need for the rest of their life. So it's up to the adults then? It's up to people who know what skills are needed in society to go out there and make sure it happens.
Yes, the US is a country based on individual liberties and responsibilities. That doesn't mean society should completely break down. It doesn't mean that certain people should take a position of power and direct society towards a common goal. It seems you're confusing individual liberty for anarchy. Education is important for society, there's a reason mass education is compulsory in most countries that can afford it, because individuals do better and society does better. You want individual responsibility, but unwilling to teach the skills that kids will need in order to exercise this responsibility. It's bizarre.
You want to do something good for society then get rid of social promotion and grading on a curve and accept the reality that some people fail and that soon er or later each person has to decide what it is he or she will do.
I don't know about you but I don't want anyone telling me what to do for the rest of my life because some asshole on high says it's good for society
The problem is nothing you're saying is going to be able to be backed up with any evidence, is it? Hence why you didn't bother to back what you said up.
The thing is, I can prove that some social engineering actually has worked and had a positive effect. You look at places in the US with less positive social engineering and you end up with places like Louisiana and Mississippi where nothing seems to ever get better.
You don't want someone telling you what to do? But it happens anyway, go figure. You think you've got all this freedom of choice, and yet... you don't.
It's not the government's job to use it's ham handed social engineering on the populace. The only thing the government was meant to do was to protect the rights of the people.
And the fact that we don't have the freedom of choice we should is the problem but you can't seem to understand that can you?
Says who? Says you.
According to some people it's not the govt's job to do anything, except what they want them to do. Which is the very point of govt, isn't it? To do what the people want it to do. So it is the govt's job if the people tell the govt this is what they want. The problem in the US is the govt doesn't do the bidding of the people, it does it of the rich people, who convince the voters what to do and the voters go along with it mindlessly.
But, the example I will use is of East Germany, West Germany and Austria. The West Germans were basically told WW2 was their fault and they spent 50 years dealing with this, making sure things changed, and now West Germany is far less racist than East Germany or Austria, both of which didn't do this. It's been a positive thing, it's changed society for good, made it easier for people to get along and live together as a society.
You say you don't have freedom of choice. Rubbish. You're harping on about one thing without fulling considering what is choice and what isn't.
You seem to be implying that everyone should have the choice to go to Harvard University to study a PhD in Nuclear Physics. But everyone doesn't have this choice. That doesn't mean they don't have freedom of choice, does it?
you mean life isn't fair?
DUH
No, not really. I mean that fairness should come from certain quarters. Govt shouldn't be going around choosing arbitrarily. All kids should be given the same opportunities, like education. What they make of that education is something quite different.
And yet you want to tell those kids what to study if it's "good for society"
I'm really sure you don't get it.
You need certain professions, so you make sure there are enough places for people to enter those professions, you need less of something, you have less places available for those professions. Kind of makes sense. I mean, like I said, you could have everyone studying to do dry stone walling, but what's the point?
Then if you have such courses that lead towards certain jobs you give them the skills they need to do that job.
I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with such a thing.
You seem to think everyone can and should be able to study for what they want to study for, regardless of whether they can get into it or not.
The market will decide that not the fucking government.
The more the need the higher the incentive to enter that field. The government doesn't have to interfere at all
and you seem to think you have the right to tell people what they have to study and what jobs they have to take
The market? You're forgetting that it can take 20 years for a student to go through school. The market will just take in anyone to make money. If everyone wants to do dry stone walling then the market will take their money, no matter how useless it'll be for those coming out.
And I don't entirely disagree with you. I'm not necessarily talking about the govt setting policy on everything. However I am talking about govt looking to the future, seeing what skills need to be enhanced for the jobs that exist. Clearly the govt can have people look at what is required and shift resources to those places. Universities can choose, students can choose, and in the end they don't have to take up a good offer, say a scholarship in engineering rather than paying full fair for a Literature degree, but the govt is pushing towards something.
In Germany, Austria and other such countries they start pushing kids at the age of 13. I say pushing because whatever the govt does at High School level is "social engineering", they can't avoid it. They have technical schools and kids can CHOOSE whether to go to those technical schools. In the UK the Labour govt started to have technical aspects to Comprehensive Schools, yet the Tories came in and decided everyone should do academic work until the age of 18. Which is better? Well clearly there's far more choice in Austria and Germany where kids can choose to go down the technical route. At the same time there is less choice to choose to go through academic education because there are less places for this.
The difference is that in Austria they're getting 18 year olds who come out with the skills of a builder. In the UK they come out without those skills, but have wasted their last 5 years doing something that doesn't interest them at all.
Yes, Labor has a higher worth than the purchase price. The "dividend" is equal protection of the law, as a capital gain, in modern times.no it is notcapital gain is the gain value for our economy; trickle down can apply.i could call it, a deferred, capital gain. only the right wing, never gets it.that's exactly what you want.everyone is responsible for their success or failure; not everyone can get bailout from daddy or Uncle Sam.
the only lazy leaches, are the ones with nothing but fallacy instead of the hard work required for an argument.
You want us to make it possible for you never to work again by giving you almost 30K a year for choosing not to work
you don't call that a bailout?
Tell you what since you still live with your mama have her pay you 14 an hour to dribble semen all over her couch
you don't know the definition of capital gain either
it refers to the appreciation in value of an asset
you have no assets because you are too lazy to work for any
you can't just make up definitions
Capital gains
Capital gain is an increase in the value of a capital asset (investment or real estate) that gives it a higher worth than the purchase price. The gain is not realized until the asset is sold. A capital gain may be short-term (one year or less) or long-term (more than one year) and must be claimed on income taxes.
labor is not an asset it is a commodity and is only worth what the market will pay for it at any particular timeYes, Labor has a higher worth than the purchase price. The "dividend" is equal protection of the law, as a capital gain, in modern times.no it is notcapital gain is the gain value for our economy; trickle down can apply.i could call it, a deferred, capital gain. only the right wing, never gets it.that's exactly what you want.
You want us to make it possible for you never to work again by giving you almost 30K a year for choosing not to work
you don't call that a bailout?
Tell you what since you still live with your mama have her pay you 14 an hour to dribble semen all over her couch
you don't know the definition of capital gain either
it refers to the appreciation in value of an asset
you have no assets because you are too lazy to work for any
you can't just make up definitions
Capital gains
Capital gain is an increase in the value of a capital asset (investment or real estate) that gives it a higher worth than the purchase price. The gain is not realized until the asset is sold. A capital gain may be short-term (one year or less) or long-term (more than one year) and must be claimed on income taxes.
an asset is a commodity.labor is not an asset it is a commodity and is only worth what the market will pay for it at any particular timeYes, Labor has a higher worth than the purchase price. The "dividend" is equal protection of the law, as a capital gain, in modern times.no it is notcapital gain is the gain value for our economy; trickle down can apply.i could call it, a deferred, capital gain. only the right wing, never gets it.
you don't know the definition of capital gain either
it refers to the appreciation in value of an asset
you have no assets because you are too lazy to work for any
you can't just make up definitions
Capital gains
Capital gain is an increase in the value of a capital asset (investment or real estate) that gives it a higher worth than the purchase price. The gain is not realized until the asset is sold. A capital gain may be short-term (one year or less) or long-term (more than one year) and must be claimed on income taxes.
If what you said was true then the best buggy whip makers labor would be worth more today than it was 200 years ago
an asset is a commodity.labor is not an asset it is a commodity and is only worth what the market will pay for it at any particular timeYes, Labor has a higher worth than the purchase price. The "dividend" is equal protection of the law, as a capital gain, in modern times.no it is notcapital gain is the gain value for our economy; trickle down can apply.you don't know the definition of capital gain either
it refers to the appreciation in value of an asset
you have no assets because you are too lazy to work for any
you can't just make up definitions
Capital gains
Capital gain is an increase in the value of a capital asset (investment or real estate) that gives it a higher worth than the purchase price. The gain is not realized until the asset is sold. A capital gain may be short-term (one year or less) or long-term (more than one year) and must be claimed on income taxes.
If what you said was true then the best buggy whip makers labor would be worth more today than it was 200 years ago
any advance in civil rights, is a capital gain for labor.an asset is a commodity.labor is not an asset it is a commodity and is only worth what the market will pay for it at any particular timeYes, Labor has a higher worth than the purchase price. The "dividend" is equal protection of the law, as a capital gain, in modern times.no it is notcapital gain is the gain value for our economy; trickle down can apply.
you can't just make up definitions
Capital gains
Capital gain is an increase in the value of a capital asset (investment or real estate) that gives it a higher worth than the purchase price. The gain is not realized until the asset is sold. A capital gain may be short-term (one year or less) or long-term (more than one year) and must be claimed on income taxes.
If what you said was true then the best buggy whip makers labor would be worth more today than it was 200 years ago
Some commodities can be assets but not all assets are commodities
A person's labor is not a real asset as it can be purchased but once it has been purchased it is then gone. It is a consumable commodity that is valued only in reference to the worth the market places on it.
If I pay you X dollars to do something today that does not mean tomorrow , next week, next month or next year that I will have to pay you more to do the same thing. I might in fact pay you less based on the demand for that labor.
I can't buy your labor today and sell it for a profit tomorrow therefore it is not an asset and it does not appreciate and does not produce capital ggains
No, idiot. It's a win-win. People without jobs can get jobs and work their way up, instead of being priced out of the market. People already working can command higher wages because companies are saving money on taxes.My suggestion would do both. Raising the min wage hurts poor people, pricing them out of the job market. Without an entry level job they cannot rise any higher.How about eliminate both? SOunds like my kind of compromise.Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. We can have compromise.
Give both the rich and poor a break. It can be done.
Corporate taxes hurt workers because there is less money available to pay them.
Seems too much like a Catch 22 Lose-Lose for poor folks. I support raising our Minimum Wage. It's long overdue. Our current Minimum Wage is an embarrassment compared to the rest of the world. The richest nation on earth can certainly do better. I hope Trump considers it.
Who said anything about social services? Only you.Why? So the rich can get richer faster?How about the real minimum wage is zero.a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation.
the right wing, has no better offer.
Why complain about social services.
No, idiot. It's a win-win. People without jobs can get jobs and work their way up, instead of being priced out of the market. People already working can command higher wages because companies are saving money on taxes.My suggestion would do both. Raising the min wage hurts poor people, pricing them out of the job market. Without an entry level job they cannot rise any higher.How about eliminate both? SOunds like my kind of compromise.Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. We can have compromise.
Give both the rich and poor a break. It can be done.
Corporate taxes hurt workers because there is less money available to pay them.
Seems too much like a Catch 22 Lose-Lose for poor folks. I support raising our Minimum Wage. It's long overdue. Our current Minimum Wage is an embarrassment compared to the rest of the world. The richest nation on earth can certainly do better. I hope Trump considers it.
It isnt brain surgery to understand basic econ, but it is beyond most libs.
No, idiot. It's a win-win. People without jobs can get jobs and work their way up, instead of being priced out of the market. People already working can command higher wages because companies are saving money on taxes.My suggestion would do both. Raising the min wage hurts poor people, pricing them out of the job market. Without an entry level job they cannot rise any higher.How about eliminate both? SOunds like my kind of compromise.
Give both the rich and poor a break. It can be done.
Corporate taxes hurt workers because there is less money available to pay them.
Seems too much like a Catch 22 Lose-Lose for poor folks. I support raising our Minimum Wage. It's long overdue. Our current Minimum Wage is an embarrassment compared to the rest of the world. The richest nation on earth can certainly do better. I hope Trump considers it.
It isnt brain surgery to understand basic econ, but it is beyond most libs.
Come on, calm down. I feel we can have some compromise. Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. Rich folks get a little something, and poor folks get a little something. Hopefully Trump will be open to it. He has indicated in the past, that he would be willing to consider raising the Minimum Wage.
You're not getting it. When you raise the min wage, you hurt poor people. When you lower the corporate tax rate you help poor people. Why is this tough to understand?No, idiot. It's a win-win. People without jobs can get jobs and work their way up, instead of being priced out of the market. People already working can command higher wages because companies are saving money on taxes.My suggestion would do both. Raising the min wage hurts poor people, pricing them out of the job market. Without an entry level job they cannot rise any higher.How about eliminate both? SOunds like my kind of compromise.
Give both the rich and poor a break. It can be done.
Corporate taxes hurt workers because there is less money available to pay them.
Seems too much like a Catch 22 Lose-Lose for poor folks. I support raising our Minimum Wage. It's long overdue. Our current Minimum Wage is an embarrassment compared to the rest of the world. The richest nation on earth can certainly do better. I hope Trump considers it.
It isnt brain surgery to understand basic econ, but it is beyond most libs.
Come on, calm down. I feel we can have some compromise. Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. Rich folks get a little something, and poor folks get a little something. Hopefully Trump will be open to it. He has indicated in the past, that he would be willing to consider raising the Minimum Wage.
You're not getting it. When you raise the min wage, you hurt poor people. When you lower the corporate tax rate you help poor people. Why is this tough to understand?No, idiot. It's a win-win. People without jobs can get jobs and work their way up, instead of being priced out of the market. People already working can command higher wages because companies are saving money on taxes.My suggestion would do both. Raising the min wage hurts poor people, pricing them out of the job market. Without an entry level job they cannot rise any higher.Give both the rich and poor a break. It can be done.
Corporate taxes hurt workers because there is less money available to pay them.
Seems too much like a Catch 22 Lose-Lose for poor folks. I support raising our Minimum Wage. It's long overdue. Our current Minimum Wage is an embarrassment compared to the rest of the world. The richest nation on earth can certainly do better. I hope Trump considers it.
It isnt brain surgery to understand basic econ, but it is beyond most libs.
Come on, calm down. I feel we can have some compromise. Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. Rich folks get a little something, and poor folks get a little something. Hopefully Trump will be open to it. He has indicated in the past, that he would be willing to consider raising the Minimum Wage.
Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.
Clearly min wage isn't supposed to support people......it's for teenagers and second jobs.
