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

[Gadawg73]

The amount of money paid for welfare in America is just a little more than what is paid for farm subsidies and much of that money goes to millionaires to not grow crops. It's a myth that people are handed everything for free in America and you lying ass conservatives know it. You know the most people collecting disability are living in your fucked up red states and are your neighbors. You're a bunch of worthless con artists.

I've posted the census links for social services and it's your red states that get the most. If you don't believe it, here is the data, so prove it!

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/cffr-10.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

You are right. Welfare and farm subsidies ARE BAD IDEAS THAT MUST END

Great post.

What about the subsidy to the health care industry so people can get rich investing in it? What about handing out leases, instead of hiring the corporations to develop public resources that can be sold at market prices? What about paying oil refineries to blend ethanol, when it improves their octane rating and works as an anti-knock? You are worried about $21.9 billion going to people who need it, when hundreds of billions are going to people who don't. What about stop making poor people with stupid Republican policies and paying people enough so they can't qualify for government social programs?

Are you stupid or something?

 

[Dubya]

You are right. Welfare and farm subsidies ARE BAD IDEAS THAT MUST END

Great post.

What about the subsidy to the health care industry so people can get rich investing in it? What about handing out leases, instead of hiring the corporations to develop public resources that can be sold at market prices? What about paying oil refineries to blend ethanol, when it improves their octane rating and works as an anti-knock? You are worried about $21.9 billion going to people who need it, when hundreds of billions are going to people who don't. What about stop making poor people with stupid Republican policies and paying people enough so they can't qualify for government social programs?

Are you stupid or something?

Try saying something in your posts!

Welfare has block grants and temporary assistance to needy families and they totalled $21.9 billion in FY 2010, towards the end of the Great Recession. That is 0.62% of the FY 2010 budget. It is a little less than that purple slice at 0.67% on this image.

The U.S. Government's 150 Account funds the budgets of all International Affairs programs and operations for civilian agencies, including USAID. In FY 2009, the Bush Administration's request for the International Affairs Budget for the Department of State, USAID, and other foreign affairs agencies totaled approximately $39.5 billion, including $26.1 billion for Foreign Operations and Related Agencies, $11.2 billion for Department of State, and $2.2 billion for Other International Affairs.

The request under the FY2009 Foreign Operations budget, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies was:
$2.4 billion to improve responsiveness to humanitarian crises, including food emergencies and disasters, and the needs of refugees
$938 million to strengthen USAID’s operational capacity
$2.3 billion to help Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and West Bank/Gaza achieve economic, democratic, security and political stabilization and to advance their overall development
$2.1 billion for State Department and USAID programs in Africa to address non-HIV/AIDS health, economic growth and democratic governance needs and to help promote stability in Sudan, Liberia, Zimbabwe and Somalia in support of the President's 2005 commitment to double aid to Africa by 2010
$4.8 billion for the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative, which directly supports the first year of the President’s new five-year, $30 billion plan to treat 2.5 million people, prevent 12 million new infections, and care for 12 million afflicted people
$550 million to support the Mérida Initiative to combat the threats of drug trafficking, transnational crime, and terrorism in Mexico and Central America
$1.7 billion to promote democracy around the world, including support for the President’s Freedom Agenda
$385 million to support the President’s Malaria Initiative to reduce malaria-related deaths by 50 percent in 15 target African countries by 2010
$94 million for the President’s International Education Initiative to provide an additional 4 million students with access to quality basic education through 2012
$64 million for the State Department and USAID to support the President's Climate Change Initiative to promote the adoption of clean energy technology, help countries adapt to climate change, and encourage sustainable forest management
$4.8 billion for foreign military financing to the Middle East, Latin America, Europe and Eurasia, including $2.6 billion for Israel
$2.2 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation to improve agricultural productivity, modernize infrastructure, expand private land ownership, improve health systems, and improve access to credit for small business and farmers[34]

Source: United States Agency for International Development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush handed out nearly two times that amount for foreign projects in his budget the previous year.

That pie chart shows $454 billion for Medicare and $291 billion for Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program or $745 billion totally, calculated from a $3.55 trillion FY 2010 budget. All together health is costing us around $2.5 trillion and that's way overpriced. Nearly all our hospitals are tax exempt, non-profit organization, so you tell me where all that money goes! Why are we paying the highest prices in the world for drugs and Bush agreed to do that when he pushed the Medicare prescription drug benefit? We should be paying less due to the economics of scale. Eight and a half of the hottest selling drugs in America aren't from American corporations and no one else in the world has to pay that price. You could run a government funded health care system through a tax exempt non-profit organization at around half the cost of what we pay for health care. You could even allow it to purchase medical equipment and supply corporations and run them as tax exempt, non-profits. You could negotiate getting the cheapest drug prices.

If you claim it isn't a subsidy, then why willfully waste all that money?

If you don't think Republicans make poor people look at a poverty chart and compare it to the administrations.

 

[Bern80]

Now you want to change the subject to Obama, which has nothing to do with what I posted. It's obviously better for an economy to not outsource the work.

Listen up Asshole! You Republicans aren't good at business, so stop pretending! You're just greedy people.

That just isn't true. There are very few actions that are all benefit and no negative. To cover the benefit of not outsourcing that would of course be more people in the U.S. employed than not.....maybe. The negatives would be things cost more for the consumer and that there are fewer minimum wage jobs available.

That doesn't make sense. If things are made in America then the consumer has more money to buy things made in America. That why a trade imbalance is subtracted from GDP, fool! You will always have minimum wage jobs, but we could get it back to those days when things were made in America and the minimum was equivalent to more than $10 today. Back then you could work during the summer and pay your way through a state university, including room and board. The tuition for our state university was around $12,000 the last time I checked. How many hours would you have to work a week to pay for tuition, room and board? They have added on to that university, but nearly all of it are buildings long paid for when I was there.

Britain offered us a free trade agreement shortly after America was founded and we rejected it to build our own industries. The Founders were smart and you people are stupid. You're assholes who think only caring about yourself works in a society and guess what, it comes back to fuck you too!

Guess what. Obligating your responsibilities to someone else is what doesn't work. The logistical problem with your position I would hope is fairly obvious. See you believe everyone is entitled to at least enough to live on. The neccessities of every individual are the responsibility of someone else to provide. See the problem yet?

As to jobs staying in America and this they have more money to buy things. Again, you're simply wrong. I've explained this to you in great detail using the real life example of the company I work for. It isn't just about wages going up. Wages going up have no net effect on buying power because it seems you at least agree on the notion that if employers have to pay more they will have to sell their products for more. So if at they end of the day buying power has not increase, what exactly have you accomplished by artificially raising wages?

 

[Bern80]

Now you want to change the subject to Obama, which has nothing to do with what I posted. It's obviously better for an economy to not outsource the work.

Listen up Asshole! You Republicans aren't good at business, so stop pretending! You're just greedy people.

I am not a Republican.
Asshole!

You parrot their platform and then claim to not be one. Where have we seen that before?

It does not require one to be a Republican to be against the concept of a minimum wage and raising it artificially. It only requires one have a modicum of economic intelligence.

 

[Agit8r]

The FLSA helped bring the US out of the great depression, so it would be a step in the right direction, albeit a modest one.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The FLSA helped bring the US out of the great depression, so it would be a step in the right direction, albeit a modest one.

WWII and the fact that every other nation was reduced to rubble is what brought us out of the depression. We were the only economic game in town so to speak.

 

[Dubya]

I am not a Republican.
Asshole!

You parrot their platform and then claim to not be one. Where have we seen that before?

It does not require one to be a Republican to be against the concept of a minimum wage and raising it artificially. It only requires one have a modicum of economic intelligence.

You don't have economic intelligence and the world does.

First enacted in New Zealand in 1894,[5][6] there is now legislation or binding collective bargaining regarding minimum wage in more than 90% of all countries.[7]

Source: Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consider moving to Somalia!

List of minimum wages by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dubya]

That just isn't true. There are very few actions that are all benefit and no negative. To cover the benefit of not outsourcing that would of course be more people in the U.S. employed than not.....maybe. The negatives would be things cost more for the consumer and that there are fewer minimum wage jobs available.

That doesn't make sense. If things are made in America then the consumer has more money to buy things made in America. That why a trade imbalance is subtracted from GDP, fool! You will always have minimum wage jobs, but we could get it back to those days when things were made in America and the minimum was equivalent to more than $10 today. Back then you could work during the summer and pay your way through a state university, including room and board. The tuition for our state university was around $12,000 the last time I checked. How many hours would you have to work a week to pay for tuition, room and board? They have added on to that university, but nearly all of it are buildings long paid for when I was there.

Britain offered us a free trade agreement shortly after America was founded and we rejected it to build our own industries. The Founders were smart and you people are stupid. You're assholes who think only caring about yourself works in a society and guess what, it comes back to fuck you too!

Guess what. Obligating your responsibilities to someone else is what doesn't work. The logistical problem with your position I would hope is fairly obvious. See you believe everyone is entitled to at least enough to live on. The neccessities of every individual are the responsibility of someone else to provide. See the problem yet?

As to jobs staying in America and this they have more money to buy things. Again, you're simply wrong. I've explained this to you in great detail using the real life example of the company I work for. It isn't just about wages going up. Wages going up have no net effect on buying power because it seems you at least agree on the notion that if employers have to pay more they will have to sell their products for more. So if at they end of the day buying power has not increase, what exactly have you accomplished by artificially raising wages?

If your business can't pay it's employees enough to live on, then you shouldn't have a business. Why should the whole of society suffer because someone wants to run a failed business model?

Minimum wage was historically about half again what it is now and the times were good, so that proves people were allowed to earn more on minimum wage without prices taking away the buying power.

Your excuses are bullshit and only prove if something doesn't benefit you in a way your pea brain can fathom, then you are against it. You're afraid your burger will cost a quarter more and want the taxpayer to subsidize your eating habits.

 

[Dubya]

The FLSA helped bring the US out of the great depression, so it would be a step in the right direction, albeit a modest one.

WWII and the fact that every other nation was reduced to rubble is what brought us out of the depression. We were the only economic game in town so to speak.

Why couldn't Hoover stop unemployment and why did he allow it to get to 25%. Roosevelt dropped it down to 9% in less than 4 years. Has it ever occurred to you conservatives that you are only good at making depressions and not fixing them?

 

[Gadawg73]

The FLSA helped bring the US out of the great depression, so it would be a step in the right direction, albeit a modest one.

WWII and the fact that every other nation was reduced to rubble is what brought us out of the depression. We were the only economic game in town so to speak.

Why couldn't Hoover stop unemployment and why did he allow it to get to 25%. Roosevelt dropped it down to 9% in less than 4 years. Has it ever occurred to you conservatives that you are only good at making depressions and not fixing them?

FDR's first thing in office was a bill that Congress passed that cut spending and veterans benefits.

 

[Bern80]

If your business can't pay it's employees enough to live on, then you shouldn't have a business. Why should the whole of society suffer because someone wants to run a failed business model?

What utter bullshit. You idiots always resort to this stupid uninfomred refrain 'if you can't pay people enough to live then you're not running your business right'? Nothing could be more factually incorrect. I'll ask again and see if you have the balls to answer this time. If I am entitled to enough to live, and you are entitled to enough to live on, and we are all entitled to enough to live on. Meaning none of us should have to do much of anything to attain that outcome, who does that leave left to provide it? How is it at all moral to say you're entitled to something with out any effort when obviously someone else has to do that for themselves before they can do it for you?

Your excuses are bullshit and only prove if something doesn't benefit you in a way your pea brain can fathom, then you are against it. You're afraid your burger will cost a quarter more and want the taxpayer to subsidize your eating habits.

No. In my position, raising the min wage doesn't effect me one way or the other. I'm exactly the opposite actually. It is you that is for the immoral if it benefits you and that is really how you judge somone's moral character. If your moral compass happens to change depending on whether does or doesn't benefit you, your morals are obviously pretty lacking. The concept of the minimum wage is completely immoral. It is immoral to suggest that your entitled to that which someone else must first earn on their own to provide for you. It is immoral to pay two equally meritous employees different wages for the same work. It is immoral to transfer responsibility for taking care of yourself on to other people.

 

[JoeNormal]

If your business can't pay it's employees enough to live on, then you shouldn't have a business. Why should the whole of society suffer because someone wants to run a failed business model?

What utter bullshit. You idiots always resort to this stupid uninfomred refrain 'if you can't pay people enough to live then you're not running your business right'? Nothing could be more factually incorrect. I'll ask again and see if you have the balls to answer this time. If I am entitled to enough to live, and you are entitled to enough to live on, and we are all entitled to enough to live on. Meaning none of us should have to do much of anything to attain that outcome, who does that leave left to provide it? How is it at all moral to say you're entitled to something with out any effort when obviously someone else has to do that for themselves before they can do it for you?

Your excuses are bullshit and only prove if something doesn't benefit you in a way your pea brain can fathom, then you are against it. You're afraid your burger will cost a quarter more and want the taxpayer to subsidize your eating habits.

No. In my position, raising the min wage doesn't effect me one way or the other. I'm exactly the opposite actually. It is you that is for the immoral if it benefits you and that is really how you judge somone's moral character. If your moral compass happens to change depending on whether does or doesn't benefit you, your morals are obviously pretty lacking. The concept of the minimum wage is completely immoral. It is immoral to suggest that your entitled to that which someone else must first earn on their own to provide for you. It is immoral to pay to equally meritous employees different wages for the same work. It is immoral to transfer responsibility for taking care of yourself on to other people.

So in your mind, having a liveable minimum wage equates with nobody having to do anything to survive? Not even close. If an employee isn't doing what needs to be done then fire them. If you don't need his services, don't hire him in the first place. If you do need him and he's doing what you need him to do, pay him enough to survive.

Companies, especially large corporations have streamlined and automated their operations to eliminate as many people as possible yet still, they need these pesky human beings to get things done. They deserve to be paid a leveable wage.

 

[Bern80]

So in your mind, having a liveable minimum wage equates with nobody having to do anything to survive? Not even close. If an employee isn't doing what needs to be done then fire them. If you don't need his services, don't hire him in the first place. If you do need him and he's doing what you need him to do, pay him enough to survive.

Companies, especially large corporations have streamlined and automated their operations to eliminate as many people as possible yet still, they need these pesky human beings to get things done. They deserve to be paid a leveable wage.

You just don't get it. When you say you deserve something that means it shouldn't require any effort on your part to obtain. But let's say we at least expect the bare minimum; show up on time, fulfill your job requirements etc. You still have a moral dilemma on your hands. Someone else has to the work themselves to obtain what you claim they 'deserve' before they can provide it to you.

You seem to think labor is some type of exception to economic rules of supply and demand. It isn't. It is a commodity like everything else. Thus its value is determined by supply and demand, NOT what you think you need to live on.

I really don't get it. Do libs just have low expectations of people? Are you just lazy? Obviously there are actions that a person can take on their own to improve their income stream. Why do you idiots keep insisting it is someone elses job to do for you what you can do for yourself?

 

[JoeNormal]

So in your mind, having a liveable minimum wage equates with nobody having to do anything to survive? Not even close. If an employee isn't doing what needs to be done then fire them. If you don't need his services, don't hire him in the first place. If you do need him and he's doing what you need him to do, pay him enough to survive.

Companies, especially large corporations have streamlined and automated their operations to eliminate as many people as possible yet still, they need these pesky human beings to get things done. They deserve to be paid a leveable wage.

You just don't get it. When you say you deserve something that means it shouldn't require any effort on your part to obtain. But let's say we at least expect the bare minimum; show up on time, fulfill your job requirements etc. You still have a moral dilemma on your hands. Someone else has to the work themselves to obtain what you claim they 'deserve' before they can provide it to you.

You seem to think labor is some type of exception to economic rules of supply and demand. It isn't. It is a commodity like everything else. Thus its value is determined by supply and demand, NOT what you think you need to live on.

I really don't get it. Do libs just have low expectations of people? Are you just lazy? Obviously there are actions that a person can take on their own to improve their income stream. Why do you idiots keep insisting it is someone elses job to do for you what you can do for yourself?

I'll never understand the conservative facination with semantics.

Read this definition from Webster's.

Deserve - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It's about reward, not entitlement (that's a whole different argument).

Exception to economic rules of supply and demand? The workers in this country produce plenty for everyone to make a decent living (and at the same time provide ample reward to those who strive for more). Why are you so gung ho for the people who hold all the cards to dictate that some have to go without the basics so that they can have 100 times what any reasonable person would be happy with?

 

[Bern80]

Exception to economic rules of supply and demand? The workers in this country produce plenty for everyone to make a decent living (and at the same time provide ample reward to those who strive for more). Why are you so gung ho for the people who hold all the cards to dictate that some have to go without the basics so that they can have 100 times what any reasonable person would be happy with?

The only one playing semantics is you. If you deserve something you are owed it. You are entitled to it. It is you that is playing word games because you don't want to admit to your own entitlement mentality. It's just plain a bad idea to instill that idea in people. An entitlement mind set is completely detrimental to one's self. You expect from others that which you should and can do for yourself and results in less productivity. Besides even by that defintion no has explained why simply working deserves enough to live on.

The rich aren't dictating to anyone how much they can earn. They are not preventing anyone from obtaining skills that earn more than minimum wage. And besides it appears to me our min wage. is right about where it needs to be for someone to live on. If a family of four can do it, certainly one person can. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-a...-well-on-just--14-000-per-year-174803218.html

We've never really talked about actual numbers for a living wage. You might be surprised how little you really need. You guys just aren't seeing the logistical issues here. How are you going to make such a system fair and still provide people enough to live on? As I have mentioned obviously those costs aren't going to be the same for everyone and you can't morally justify paying two employees of equal merit different wages for the same work. And enough for who to live on exactly? A single mother who needs to provide for two or more children? The only way to make it fair would be to assume enough for one person to live on which is little consolation to a single mother trying to raise children. When you start taking away the luxuries we take for granted that you don't really need (cable, internet, cell phone), you probably don't need that much to truly survive. Doing some quick math in my head, where I live, if it came down to just necessities I could probably do it on less than our states current min. wage.

 

[Gadawg73]

What is the minimum wage of the unemployed?

ZERO

 

[Dubya]

WWII and the fact that every other nation was reduced to rubble is what brought us out of the depression. We were the only economic game in town so to speak.

Why couldn't Hoover stop unemployment and why did he allow it to get to 25%. Roosevelt dropped it down to 9% in less than 4 years. Has it ever occurred to you conservatives that you are only good at making depressions and not fixing them?

FDR's first thing in office was a bill that Congress passed that cut spending and veterans benefits.

There is no evidence on the budget, so post a reliable source where you recieved that information. FDR became President in 1933, but the 1933 budget of $4,598,000,000 started Oct 1, 1932 and was a Hoover budget. FDR's first budget was $6,541,000,000 which is a 43.2% increase over the Hoover budget.

Table 1.1: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2011-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2011-TAB.pdf

 

[Dubya]

If your business can't pay it's employees enough to live on, then you shouldn't have a business. Why should the whole of society suffer because someone wants to run a failed business model?

What utter bullshit. You idiots always resort to this stupid uninfomred refrain 'if you can't pay people enough to live then you're not running your business right'? Nothing could be more factually incorrect. I'll ask again and see if you have the balls to answer this time. If I am entitled to enough to live, and you are entitled to enough to live on, and we are all entitled to enough to live on. Meaning none of us should have to do much of anything to attain that outcome, who does that leave left to provide it? How is it at all moral to say you're entitled to something with out any effort when obviously someone else has to do that for themselves before they can do it for you?

Your excuses are bullshit and only prove if something doesn't benefit you in a way your pea brain can fathom, then you are against it. You're afraid your burger will cost a quarter more and want the taxpayer to subsidize your eating habits.

No. In my position, raising the min wage doesn't effect me one way or the other. I'm exactly the opposite actually. It is you that is for the immoral if it benefits you and that is really how you judge somone's moral character. If your moral compass happens to change depending on whether does or doesn't benefit you, your morals are obviously pretty lacking. The concept of the minimum wage is completely immoral. It is immoral to suggest that your entitled to that which someone else must first earn on their own to provide for you. It is immoral to pay two equally meritous employees different wages for the same work. It is immoral to transfer responsibility for taking care of yourself on to other people.

We are talking about paying someone for their work, so how did it get to them being entitled and not willing to work for it? If someone will work for poor wages, they'll work for better wages.

Over 90% of the countries in the world have minimum wage laws, so why don't you move to Somalia and take your friends with you? That's how backward a country has to be to not have minimum wage laws, with few exceptions were wages are naturally high. Raising the minimum wage would have to cause some inflation, so it will affect everyone, but the reality is, it will stop the social programs subsidizing those businesses that don't pay enough. It's also the way to treat people who are needed doing that job in society. People should have to work 3,500 hours per year just to get by. Overall, the economy would benefit from a minimum wage increase.

 

[editec]

FYI

Social security is NOT an expenditure.

It is a repayment of loans made to the government by the workers.

 

[depotoo]

FYI

Social security is NOT an expenditure.

It is a repayment of loans made to the government by the workers.

ex·pend/ɪkˈspɛnd/ Show Spelled [ik-spend] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to use up: She expended energy, time, and care on her work.
2. to pay out; disburse; spend.