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

[Dubya]

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?



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.

Why are you quoting me?

 

[Gadawg73]

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!

Not what he said so deal with what he said.

 

[Gadawg73]

Raise the minimum wage all it does is dumb down the American worker once again.
Makes them lazy, fat and unwilling to do anything to help themselves get a job that pays for their skills.
Minimum wage jobs are for unskilled, uneducated workers and the current pay is what the market demands in some cases.
Many on it are not worth $7 a hour.
Government has no business setting any wage.

 

[Dubya]

Raise the minimum wage all it does is dumb down the American worker once again.
Makes them lazy, fat and unwilling to do anything to help themselves get a job that pays for their skills.
Minimum wage jobs are for unskilled, uneducated workers and the current pay is what the market demands in some cases.
Many on it are not worth $7 a hour.
Government has no business setting any wage.

People were worth more before and I didn't think it was a fortune when I was paid it as a child.

 

[Gadawg73]

Raise the minimum wage all it does is dumb down the American worker once again.
Makes them lazy, fat and unwilling to do anything to help themselves get a job that pays for their skills.
Minimum wage jobs are for unskilled, uneducated workers and the current pay is what the market demands in some cases.
Many on it are not worth $7 a hour.
Government has no business setting any wage.

People were worth more before and I didn't think it was a fortune when I was paid it as a child.

You proved my point.
Thank you.
Children do not need to make a living wage and do not need a raise in the minimum wage.
Same with adults that ONLY have the skills and education OF A CHILD.

 

[JoeB131]

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. ?

I'm just cutting your Stockholm Sydrome Rant off here before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

CEO of GM. Got paid 12 million dollars. Ran the company into the ground, required a government bailout. The skills and hard work this guy had RUINED the company. Can't blame the unions, they made a shitload of concessions to keep the company afloat.

So the governmetn comes in, Saves GM, it's profitable again. But they guys running it want to get the government out so they can start paying those 8 figure salaries again.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

he's not about "giving" money.....conservatives are not about "giving" money.....captialists were never about "giving" money.......however top down rulers and fascists and socialists like your prez are ALL about "giving" money......in fact he can't print it fast enough.....but that money goes only to those they favor...

that money is mostly going to his buddies at the banks and wall street and the unions.....favored groups who are ripping off the United States.....NOT to the poor who he claims he is trying to help by raising the min wage....which will not really help anyone at all....and which is only a political sop to the poor....or haven't you realized yet that BO is all about political theater...?

large companies typically have better starting jobs with starting wages above the min wage so forget blaming "the rich" capitalists....those who will really be hurt by a min wage increase are the MIDDLE CLASS folks who hire a few people at their Main Street stores.....either they are going to have to raise prices which will result in lost business and/or they are going to have to lay off POOR people who otherwise could at least have some income while they study or hunt for a better job....which for most is VERY hard to find these days in this down economy.....

finally... when your BRILLIANT and CARING (gag) prez taxes and spends our country into financial RUIN......you can thank him for the people who will become TOTALLY destitute as government programs FAIL and jobs can't be found anywhere....and who most likely will wind up RIOTING in the streets for bread....of course then BO's real purpose will become apparent to even the blind like you...

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I guess you are some kind of special retard, aren't you?

Let's take the wayback machine back to 2000. We were posting 400 billion dollar surpluses, and people were saying, "Put that money in a lockbox for Social Security". and the idiots. You know, the stupid, evil people who run the GOP said, "No, no, the rich people are paying too much in taxes at 39%. We have to cut their taxes to 35%,the poor dears. And we turned 400 billion in surplus into a trillion in debt in 8 years.

Good job.

But the rich got their tax cuts. That's the important thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Raise the minimum wage all it does is dumb down the American worker once again.
Makes them lazy, fat and unwilling to do anything to help themselves get a job that pays for their skills.
Minimum wage jobs are for unskilled, uneducated workers and the current pay is what the market demands in some cases.
Many on it are not worth $7 a hour.
Government has no business setting any wage.

I agree.. Guys who make their living taking dirty pictures of cheating husbands need to get only 7 bucks an hour.

The rest of us who work for a living should get a fair wage.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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. ?

I'm just cutting your Stockholm Sydrome Rant off here before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

CEO of GM. Got paid 12 million dollars. Ran the company into the ground, required a government bailout. The skills and hard work this guy had RUINED the company. Can't blame the unions, they made a shitload of concessions to keep the company afloat.

So the governmetn comes in, Saves GM, it's profitable again. But they guys running it want to get the government out so they can start paying those 8 figure salaries again.

The union ran GM into the ground.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

I guess you are some kind of special retard, aren't you?

Let's take the wayback machine back to 2000. We were posting 400 billion dollar surpluses, and people were saying, "Put that money in a lockbox for Social Security". and the idiots. You know, the stupid, evil people who run the GOP said, "No, no, the rich people are paying too much in taxes at 39%. We have to cut their taxes to 35%,the poor dears. And we turned 400 billion in surplus into a trillion in debt in 8 years.

Good job.

But the rich got their tax cuts. That's the important thing.

EVERYONE got a tax cut ya blowhard.

Why are you such a partisan hack?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I guess you are some kind of special retard, aren't you?

Let's take the wayback machine back to 2000. We were posting 400 billion dollar surpluses, and people were saying, "Put that money in a lockbox for Social Security". and the idiots. You know, the stupid, evil people who run the GOP said, "No, no, the rich people are paying too much in taxes at 39%. We have to cut their taxes to 35%,the poor dears. And we turned 400 billion in surplus into a trillion in debt in 8 years.

Good job.

But the rich got their tax cuts. That's the important thing.

EVERYONE got a tax cut ya blowhard.

Why are you such a partisan hack?

1) The Majority of the Tax Cuts went to the rich.

2) They weren't really tax cuts in that we just had to borrow that money from someone to pay for wars and governmetn services, which we are NOW paying interest on on top of the original costs.

 

[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?

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.

It is NEVER a smart thing for government to further encourage an entitlement mentality. It is the people who have achieved no more than the most basic of skill sets that need to get off their asses to acquire the skills to earn more if they want more. It isn't someone elses responsibility to ensure them enough to live on.

 

[Bern80]

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.

I guess you are some kind of special retard, aren't you?

Let's take the wayback machine back to 2000. We were posting 400 billion dollar surpluses, and people were saying, "Put that money in a lockbox for Social Security". and the idiots. You know, the stupid, evil people who run the GOP said, "No, no, the rich people are paying too much in taxes at 39%. We have to cut their taxes to 35%,the poor dears. And we turned 400 billion in surplus into a trillion in debt in 8 years.

Good job.

But the rich got their tax cuts. That's the important thing.

Now you you're just twisting shit. You're the one who said that money from social security went to tax cuts for the rich. That is factually incorrect because of the maximum taxable by SS. Whatever taxes were cut for the wealthy would have had ZERO effect on Social Security revenue. That is different than what you're trying to claim now, which is that politicians have been borrowing from the SS trust fund. They have, but to pretend both sides aren't doing it is being conveniently obtuse.

 

[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. ?

I'm just cutting your Stockholm Sydrome Rant off here before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

CEO of GM. Got paid 12 million dollars. Ran the company into the ground, required a government bailout. The skills and hard work this guy had RUINED the company. Can't blame the unions, they made a shitload of concessions to keep the company afloat.

So the governmetn comes in, Saves GM, it's profitable again. But they guys running it want to get the government out so they can start paying those 8 figure salaries again.

That's one company dumb ass. In a country of thousands with thousands of owners that haven't made mistakes. The only one making a fool of themselves here is by pointing to single or even handful of instances and pretending that constitutes how business owners typically are.

 

[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.

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.

Well that was an intelligent counter argument. Never said I did not anything about you. What I do know for fact is that the choices in life people make have consequences. I know for a fact you libs don't really like self accountability because you avoid talking about it like the plague. You avoid admitting what we all know has to be true, that a lot of people are poor because of poor decisions. The FACT is you morons think the best thing to do for these people is for them to ignore the choices that got them where they are and just give them more money and you think that's a good solution to a problem. Those are the fucking facts.

 

[Dubya]

Raise the minimum wage all it does is dumb down the American worker once again.
Makes them lazy, fat and unwilling to do anything to help themselves get a job that pays for their skills.
Minimum wage jobs are for unskilled, uneducated workers and the current pay is what the market demands in some cases.
Many on it are not worth $7 a hour.
Government has no business setting any wage.

People were worth more before and I didn't think it was a fortune when I was paid it as a child.

You proved my point.
Thank you.
Children do not need to make a living wage and do not need a raise in the minimum wage.
Same with adults that ONLY have the skills and education OF A CHILD.

I gave you the stats on minimum wage and it isn't children receiving it. More than two thirds of minimum wage earners have a high school diploma or more. Setting a minimum wage is not setting any wage. There is no law requiring a business to pay people the minimum wage. You claim to have knowledge about these people not being worth $7 a hour and you don't even know who these people are. 55.6% of minimum wage workers are in the South (Table #2). The stereotype of the true minimum wage worker is a young unmarried woman and not a child. Why would a business keep someone on the payroll who wasn't worth what they paid them, when it's so easy to find a replacement?

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2009

Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2009

The next time you try to make shit up, be more creative in your fabrication.

 

[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.

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!

It's only low if your contention is that it's supposed to be enough for someone to live on. That isn't it's purpose. In fact it serves no purpose whatsoever. Deal with it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Well that was an intelligent counter argument. Never said I did not anything about you. What I do know for fact is that the choices in life people make have consequences. I know for a fact you libs don't really like self accountability because you avoid talking about it like the plague. You avoid admitting what we all know has to be true, that a lot of people are poor because of poor decisions. The FACT is you morons think the best thing to do for these people is for them to ignore the choices that got them where they are and just give them more money and you think that's a good solution to a problem. Those are the fucking facts.

"don't really like self accountability"

Bullshit.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Well that was an intelligent counter argument. Never said I did not anything about you. What I do know for fact is that the choices in life people make have consequences. I know for a fact you libs don't really like self accountability because you avoid talking about it like the plague. You avoid admitting what we all know has to be true, that a lot of people are poor because of poor decisions. The FACT is you morons think the best thing to do for these people is for them to ignore the choices that got them where they are and just give them more money and you think that's a good solution to a problem. Those are the fucking facts.

"don't really like self accountability"

Bullshit.

According the record of this thread at least and those of you arguing for a living wage. It apparently isn't. No argument any of you living wage advocates have made indicates you believe in that concept. If you did you wouldn't be arguing that someone else be responsible for providing enough for you to live on when you're perfectly capable of doing so on your own.