Obama wants to raise the minimum wage when we're on the verge of a second recession?

[zeke]

Man I would hate to be a poor person today.

Condemned and ridiculed by the right wingers for needing food stamps to feed their family while making an entire 9 dollars an hour.

Condemned and ridiculed because Congress put the ETIC in the tax code and the poor person qualifies and takes advantage of it.

And when someone mentions an increase in wages that may reduce the need for food stamps and reduce the amount of ETIC refund, the poor person is told their labor is for shit and they ain't worth any more than what they are receiving now.

Don't want to help feed them and don't want to pay a wage they can live on. Being poor today is the hardest job in America.

Poor people really need a better lobbyist.

 

[dblack]

Man I would hate to be a poor person today.

Condemned and ridiculed by the right wingers for needing food stamps to feed their family while making an entire 9 dollars an hour.

Condemned and ridiculed because Congress put the ETIC in the tax code and the poor person qualifies and takes advantage of it.

And when someone mentions an increase in wages that may reduce the need for food stamps and reduce the amount of ETIC refund, the poor person is told their labor is for shit and they ain't worth any more than what they are receiving now.

Don't want to help feed them and don't want to pay a wage they can live on. Being poor today is the hardest job in America.

Poor people really need a better lobbyist.

Pretty much. Having our own lobbyists, or belonging to a group with that kind of influence, is the only way to protect our rights these days. The courts have given up on that job.

 

[Gadawg73]

No, but it is a reflection of the "I've got Mine- fuck you" economic philosophy of the GOP today.

Which is pretty much why I'll vote for Democrats until Republicans realize they work for the people and not the CEO's.

"I've got Mine-fuck you" has been the cry of the union worker for how long now?
And from those on social security "disability", a % of social security recipients and 47 year old government retirees with a life time pension.
Fuck you is the motto of the takers these days.

I'm not sure what the fuck you are talking about with Social Security. My sister's retina recently detached, rendering her effectively blind in one eye. Which means she can't work as a nurse anymore, what she's been doing for the last 30+ years.

However, because she earns a pittance teaching nursing school, Social Security has determined that's income enough to deny her disability claim, even though it barely covers the malpractice insurance she still has to carry to bring classes into hospital settings.

As for Union Workers- yeah, just not seeing how having good wages and decent benefits- which we all used to have when the workforce was mostly unionized- is really a bad thing.

A Koch Brother, a Tea Bagger and a Union guy walk into a resturant and find a plate of 12 cookies. The Koch Brother wolfs down 11 of them and says to the Teabagger- "That Union thug wants half your cookie!"

And you dumbfucks buy it.

Sorry to hear about your sister as I know that is hard, especially an eye. I am a member of the Lions Club and we raise $$$ for many programs with to help people with eye problems.
But there are many people that work a full time job with one eye. Good friend of mine does as he lost an eye years ago.
Used to be disabled meant you could not work, NOT that you could not work at what you wanted to work at.
We have no $$ to give out anymore to able bodied people that are not disabled and can work a full time job.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry to hear about your sister as I know that is hard, especially an eye. I am a member of the Lions Club and we raise $$$ for many programs with to help people with eye problems.
But there are many people that work a full time job with one eye. Good friend of mine does as he lost an eye years ago.
Used to be disabled meant you could not work, NOT that you could not work at what you wanted to work at.
We have no $$ to give out anymore to able bodied people that are not disabled and can work a full time job.

No one is going to hire a 57 year old woman who is blind in one eye to flip burgers, which is EXACTLY what I suspect you plutocrat fucks would want her to do.

Point is, she spent the last 40 years or so paying into social security exactly for this sort of contingency... but that money she paid in was used to give tax cuts to rich douchebags to buy dressage horsies and yatchs...

 

[Bern80]

BULLSHYTTE, and Pubcrappe, dupe. AND they don't start DEPRESSIONS or ruin the nonrich and the country like your greedy idiot masters.

No bullshit. The product we manufacturer here in the U.S. costs more in U.S. dollars in pretty much every foreign country it's sold in. When are you idiots going to get a grasp on basic economics. Pay increases don't happen in a vacuum. The market responds to them. When it sees that people have more money to spend it's a signal to them that they can now afford to pay more for goods and services so the cost of those things goes up.

Wrong.

Huh?. You're saying I don't know what the products my company makes cost in other countries?

 

[Bern80]

In part this economy is fibrilating because the working class is broke.

So getting spending money into the hands of the people most likely to put it right back into the economy makes good sense.

Now as the NATIONAL minimum wage only effects businesses that are interstate (read major corporations) complaining that this law will negatively impact MOM & POP small businesses is either:1/ a great big fat lie, or 2) ignorant

Of course it would be helpful to the economy. But in the long run you don't society any favors by teaching people someone else will bail them out. We had a bail out for big business. We gave them taxpayer money instead of making them accountable for their mistakes. Raising the min wage 20% is no different. It's a bail out for the poor. It teaches people they are not responsible for their outcomes. It prevents them from learning from their mistakes. When these people who need to make money to survive yet have only gained enough skills in life for min wage jobs (and libs) start to grasp the concept of personal accountability, them you'll start to see things change for the better.

 

[Bern80]

If you are earning 7 or 8 figures, you are taking the wealth someone else earned. The need to pay their fair share.

Period.

Wrong. The compensation of a CEO's employee is based on the skill they are providing and how hard they work. They're getting their fair compensation. The CEO is responsible for that person doing they're job along with many more people at different levels. You can not imagine the work involved in making sure all of the components work they way they are supposed to make the company successful. The CEO's are the risk takers. The people with the vision for what the company must do to be successful. They are responsible for making sure ALL of the right people are in place to make that happen. If he/she is successful in accomplishing that then anything the company makes above and beyond what it needs to pay in compensation, capital improvements, operating expenses, etc. is theirs to do with as they see fit. Know why? BECAUSE IT'S THEIR COMPANY. It's something they built and own as a means of generating income for themselves. He and the people that work for him came up with an agreement on who gets paid what. Is it less then what the employee would like to make. Probably? Is it more in compensation and benefits than the CEO would like to provide? Probably? But, as I've asked before, why is the worker's position more valid than the CEO's? And since ultimately both parties agreed on the compensation what business is it of yours to tell him how to distribute compensation?

As for the middle class folks who pay taxes- yup, I like paved roads and clean air and clean water and the fact the fire department will come to my house quickly if it's on fire.

Not sure why you don't like these things.

You really want to get into the fair share debate? You libs wouldn't know fair if it bit you on the ass. We know you're not defining fair as those that use it pay for it because the poor certainly aren't paying for the social programs they're using. We know you aren't defining fair as in equitable distribution of the tax burden, because the top 5% of income earners already supply 80% of the fed's tax revenue. So how exactly are you people defining fair share? How close to 100% does the 5% need to get? And what definition of fair would that meet?

 

[Bern80]

Man I would hate to be a poor person today.

Condemned and ridiculed by the right wingers for needing food stamps to feed their family while making an entire 9 dollars an hour.

Condemned and ridiculed because Congress put the ETIC in the tax code and the poor person qualifies and takes advantage of it.

And when someone mentions an increase in wages that may reduce the need for food stamps and reduce the amount of ETIC refund, the poor person is told their labor is for shit and they ain't worth any more than what they are receiving now.

Don't want to help feed them and don't want to pay a wage they can live on. Being poor today is the hardest job in America.

Poor people really need a better lobbyist.

No they need better life coaches. They need to be rid of people like you that can't possibly fathom that where a person is in life is a result of their own choices.

 

[asterism]

Oh, so your position is that everyone in low paying jobs is there voluntarily because they prefer to be poor?

lol, you're retarded.

why would they be there "voluntarily" if they have the chops to get a better job....?

That's your position not mine.

Conservatives want a country filled with haves and have-nots and no one in between. We get it.

That's just a stupid statement. The disagreement is about whether raising the minimum wage actually helps people. Generally it does not help if it means fewer have basic entry-level jobs that pay more. Generally it does not help to have more money in a paycheck but have it buy less. Generally it does not help to get rid of low skill low margin jobs for people who need them but don't need a living wage (spouses, students, retirees, and people starting over).

 

[Bern80]

Sorry to hear about your sister as I know that is hard, especially an eye. I am a member of the Lions Club and we raise $$$ for many programs with to help people with eye problems.
But there are many people that work a full time job with one eye. Good friend of mine does as he lost an eye years ago.
Used to be disabled meant you could not work, NOT that you could not work at what you wanted to work at.
We have no $$ to give out anymore to able bodied people that are not disabled and can work a full time job.

No one is going to hire a 57 year old woman who is blind in one eye to flip burgers, which is EXACTLY what I suspect you plutocrat fucks would want her to do.

Point is, she spent the last 40 years or so paying into social security exactly for this sort of contingency... but that money she paid in was used to give tax cuts to rich douchebags to buy dressage horsies and yatchs...

Actually no it wasn't. Social Security is only taxable up to a certain amount of income per year. I believe about 114,000 per year. That's about an upper middle class income. As such, a tax cut to the rich would not have effected how much they pay into social security.

 

[asterism]

If you are earning 7 or 8 figures, you are taking the wealth someone else earned. The need to pay their fair share.

Period.

Not necessarily. It's possible to make lots of money without relying on government favors. It doesn't happen often these days, and that's something we should fix. But punishing everyone who makes a lot of money is wrong. Find the people who are actually doing wrong and punish them.

Name someone who gets 8 figures who really deserves it.

Thanks.

Obama? How is he stealing just because you idiots buy his books?

Warren Buffet made billions for himself by making millionaires out of other people.

Bill Gates revolutionized computing, made LOTS of others rich, even secretaries that worked for his company early on.

Erin Brockovich got restitution for thousands of aggrieved victims.

 

[Dubya]

If you are earning 7 or 8 figures, you are taking the wealth someone else earned. The need to pay their fair share.

Period.

Wrong. The compensation of a CEO's employee is based on the skill they are providing and how hard they work. They're getting their fair compensation. The CEO is responsible for that person doing they're job along with many more people at different levels. You can not imagine the work involved in making sure all of the components work they way they are supposed to make the company successful. The CEO's are the risk takers. The people with the vision for what the company must do to be successful. They are responsible for making sure ALL of the right people are in place to make that happen. If he/she is successful in accomplishing that then anything the company makes above and beyond what it needs to pay in compensation, capital improvements, operating expenses, etc. is theirs to do with as they see fit. Know why? BECAUSE IT'S THEIR COMPANY. It's something they built and own as a means of generating income for themselves. He and the people that work for him came up with an agreement on who gets paid what. Is it less then what the employee would like to make. Probably? Is it more in compensation and benefits than the CEO would like to provide? Probably? But, as I've asked before, why is the worker's position more valid than the CEO's? And since ultimately both parties agreed on the compensation what business is it of yours to tell him how to distribute compensation?

As for the middle class folks who pay taxes- yup, I like paved roads and clean air and clean water and the fact the fire department will come to my house quickly if it's on fire.

Not sure why you don't like these things.

You really want to get into the fair share debate? You libs wouldn't know fair if it bit you on the ass. We know you're not defining fair as those that use it pay for it because the poor certainly aren't paying for the social programs they're using. We know you aren't defining fair as in equitable distribution of the tax burden, because the top 5% of income earners already supply 80% of the fed's tax revenue. So how exactly are you people defining fair share? How close to 100% does the 5% need to get? And what definition of fair would that meet?

You are all about giving money to the elite and never about giving money to the drivers of an economy. What you want is a country to use it's economic system so it preserves the value of wealth and doesn't have a good economy. Money doesn't disappear when it's spent, it changes hands. The rich can make their money off of that and don't need the government working to preserve their wealth. People who have wealth need to get off their lazy asses and make money, and don't get me wrong, I've loved money since I was a child.

Raising the minimum wage is a smart thing for our government to do.

 

[Gadawg73]

To my knowledge Apple doesn't build any of their phones here. Apple sucks anyway.

Labor unions and regulations drove manufacturing jobs away.

Apple stock is very high now.
They have a plant in California and are bringing more jobs back to the US.

"Labor unions, regulations, Apple stock is very high"...
Its always the labor unions.... Isn't it?

Its slave labor that puts those little things together... bottom line, its a hell of a huge profit margin for Apple, and the investors love a huge profit line.

In the meantime... Apple, and all of the high tech companies who outsourced to China... have not only given the Chinese government the technological where with all to create high tech weapons, its given the Chinese the capital to fund their military.

It will be ironic if the ones who gave the Chinese the ability to forge chains... are bound by them. Some how... pre WW2 Japan comes to mind.

Without America and their American consumers China would not be shit.
They need us more than we need them.

 

[asterism]

Apple stock is very high now.
They have a plant in California and are bringing more jobs back to the US.

"Labor unions, regulations, Apple stock is very high"...
Its always the labor unions.... Isn't it?

Its slave labor that puts those little things together... bottom line, its a hell of a huge profit margin for Apple, and the investors love a huge profit line.

In the meantime... Apple, and all of the high tech companies who outsourced to China... have not only given the Chinese government the technological where with all to create high tech weapons, its given the Chinese the capital to fund their military.

It will be ironic if the ones who gave the Chinese the ability to forge chains... are bound by them. Some how... pre WW2 Japan comes to mind.

Without America and their American consumers China would not be shit.
They need us more than we need them.

More than that, they'd have no place to invest their money and no safe currency reserve.

 

[Gadawg73]

No, but it is a reflection of the "I've got Mine- fuck you" economic philosophy of the GOP today.

Which is pretty much why I'll vote for Democrats until Republicans realize they work for the people and not the CEO's.

That isn't the mndset of the GOP. The mind set is you are not entitled to what I've earned so FUCK YOU.

If you are earning 7 or 8 figures, you are taking the wealth someone else earned. The need to pay their fair share.

Period.

As for the middle class folks who pay taxes- yup, I like paved roads and clean air and clean water and the fact the fire department will come to my house quickly if it's on fire.

Not sure why you don't like these things.

So only a select few under a certain earnings level actually earn their wealth and there is a set figure that one penny above that all of their wealth was stolen from someone else.

You are just fucking stupid. Do you even read the dumb shit you post?

 

[Dubya]

That isn't the mndset of the GOP. The mind set is you are not entitled to what I've earned so FUCK YOU.

If you are earning 7 or 8 figures, you are taking the wealth someone else earned. The need to pay their fair share.

Period.

As for the middle class folks who pay taxes- yup, I like paved roads and clean air and clean water and the fact the fire department will come to my house quickly if it's on fire.

Not sure why you don't like these things.

So only a select few under a certain earnings level actually earn their wealth and there is a set figure that one penny above that all of their wealth was stolen from someone else.

You are just fucking stupid. Do you even read the dumb shit you post?

The minimum wage is too damned low, so deal with it!

 

[zeke]

Man I would hate to be a poor person today.

Condemned and ridiculed by the right wingers for needing food stamps to feed their family while making an entire 9 dollars an hour.

Condemned and ridiculed because Congress put the ETIC in the tax code and the poor person qualifies and takes advantage of it.

And when someone mentions an increase in wages that may reduce the need for food stamps and reduce the amount of ETIC refund, the poor person is told their labor is for shit and they ain't worth any more than what they are receiving now.

Don't want to help feed them and don't want to pay a wage they can live on. Being poor today is the hardest job in America.

Poor people really need a better lobbyist.

No they need better life coaches. They need to be rid of people like you that can't possibly fathom that where a person is in life is a result of their own choices.

Hey, where did the fuking know it all come from? Better life coaches eh? What, and you are the dude to be the coach I bet. How many poor people are you helping out coach?

Just what the fuk have you done in your life that would seem to make you think your shit don't stink? Just curious on that one.

But fuk you and your horse if you think you know anything about me.

Or poor people for that matter.

And keep in mind, rethugs NEED poor people. They're the ones you all like to ridicule and denigrate. Just part of your Christian calling I guess.

 

[zeke]

If you are earning 7 or 8 figures, you are taking the wealth someone else earned. The need to pay their fair share.

Period.

Wrong. The compensation of a CEO's employee is based on the skill they are providing and how hard they work. They're getting their fair compensation. The CEO is responsible for that person doing they're job along with many more people at different levels. You can not imagine the work involved in making sure all of the components work they way they are supposed to make the company successful. The CEO's are the risk takers. The people with the vision for what the company must do to be successful. They are responsible for making sure ALL of the right people are in place to make that happen. If he/she is successful in accomplishing that then anything the company makes above and beyond what it needs to pay in compensation, capital improvements, operating expenses, etc. is theirs to do with as they see fit. Know why? BECAUSE IT'S THEIR COMPANY. It's something they built and own as a means of generating income for themselves. He and the people that work for him came up with an agreement on who gets paid what. Is it less then what the employee would like to make. Probably? Is it more in compensation and benefits than the CEO would like to provide? Probably? But, as I've asked before, why is the worker's position more valid than the CEO's? And since ultimately both parties agreed on the compensation what business is it of yours to tell him how to distribute compensation?

As for the middle class folks who pay taxes- yup, I like paved roads and clean air and clean water and the fact the fire department will come to my house quickly if it's on fire.

Not sure why you don't like these things.

You really want to get into the fair share debate? You libs wouldn't know fair if it bit you on the ass. We know you're not defining fair as those that use it pay for it because the poor certainly aren't paying for the social programs they're using. We know you aren't defining fair as in equitable distribution of the tax burden, because the top 5% of income earners already supply 80% of the fed's tax revenue. So how exactly are you people defining fair share? How close to 100% does the 5% need to get? And what definition of fair would that meet?

Dude, I really knew how fuking stupid you are after reading the highlighted sentence.

You are claiming that the CEO's of the major banks that collapsed the economy, that they earned their millions of dollars of salary and bonus because of their skill and hard work.

Unbelievalble. You are nuts.

 

[asterism]

Man I would hate to be a poor person today.

Condemned and ridiculed by the right wingers for needing food stamps to feed their family while making an entire 9 dollars an hour.

Condemned and ridiculed because Congress put the ETIC in the tax code and the poor person qualifies and takes advantage of it.

And when someone mentions an increase in wages that may reduce the need for food stamps and reduce the amount of ETIC refund, the poor person is told their labor is for shit and they ain't worth any more than what they are receiving now.

Don't want to help feed them and don't want to pay a wage they can live on. Being poor today is the hardest job in America.

Poor people really need a better lobbyist.

No they need better life coaches. They need to be rid of people like you that can't possibly fathom that where a person is in life is a result of their own choices.

Hey, where did the fuking know it all come from? Better life coaches eh? What, and you are the dude to be the coach I bet. How many poor people are you helping out coach?

Just what the fuk have you done in your life that would seem to make you think your shit don't stink? Just curious on that one.

But fuk you and your horse if you think you know anything about me.

Or poor people for that matter.

And keep in mind, rethugs NEED poor people. They're the ones you all like to ridicule and denigrate. Just part of your Christian calling I guess.

I submit that the opposite is true. Liberals NEED poor people. They are the ones who get sucked into the cycle of dependency and then vote for more of it.

“I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”—Lyndon B. Johnson

 

[zeke]

If you are earning 7 or 8 figures, you are taking the wealth someone else earned. The need to pay their fair share.

Period.

Wrong. The compensation of a CEO's employee is based on the skill they are providing and how hard they work. They're getting their fair compensation. The CEO is responsible for that person doing they're job along with many more people at different levels. You can not imagine the work involved in making sure all of the components work they way they are supposed to make the company successful. The CEO's are the risk takers. The people with the vision for what the company must do to be successful. They are responsible for making sure ALL of the right people are in place to make that happen. If he/she is successful in accomplishing that then anything the company makes above and beyond what it needs to pay in compensation, capital improvements, operating expenses, etc. is theirs to do with as they see fit. Know why? BECAUSE IT'S THEIR COMPANY. It's something they built and own as a means of generating income for themselves. He and the people that work for him came up with an agreement on who gets paid what. Is it less then what the employee would like to make. Probably? Is it more in compensation and benefits than the CEO would like to provide? Probably? But, as I've asked before, why is the worker's position more valid than the CEO's? And since ultimately both parties agreed on the compensation what business is it of yours to tell him how to distribute compensation?

As for the middle class folks who pay taxes- yup, I like paved roads and clean air and clean water and the fact the fire department will come to my house quickly if it's on fire.

Not sure why you don't like these things.

You really want to get into the fair share debate? You libs wouldn't know fair if it bit you on the ass. We know you're not defining fair as those that use it pay for it because the poor certainly aren't paying for the social programs they're using. We know you aren't defining fair as in equitable distribution of the tax burden, because the top 5% of income earners already supply 80% of the fed's tax revenue. So how exactly are you people defining fair share? How close to 100% does the 5% need to get? And what definition of fair would that meet?

You are all about giving money to the elite and never about giving money to the drivers of an economy. What you want is a country to use it's economic system so it preserves the value of wealth and doesn't have a good economy. Money doesn't disappear when it's spent, it changes hands. The rich can make their money off of that and don't need the government working to preserve their wealth. People who have wealth need to get off their lazy asses and make money, and don't get me wrong, I've loved money since I was a child.

Raising the minimum wage is a smart thing for our government to do.

Hey dude, who you think wrote the tax code? Poor people?

You need to be bitching to your Congressperson about the give aways they wrote into the tax code for poor people. You act like a poor person went to Congress and made them write in the EITC.

You do know that Congress writes the tax legislation don't you? Not poor people.