Republican top priority.....Raise taxes on the poor

[TooTall]

I see you are still suffering from The Dumbass Disease. I'm really not surprised.

Obama has made more slaves to government by greatly increasing food stamp usage unnecessarily. That needs to be reduced. Corporate tax cuts will give more jobs so those "poor" people can buy their own damn steaks! Illegals should be deported!

Why does feeding the needy need to be reduced?

We gave Corporate Tax Cuts under Bush with the promise of more jobs. Rather than create more jobs, they just kept the money

Fool me once....

We have spent trillions on the war on poverty to eliminate hunger and deprivation from American life. What we have today is approximately the same percentage of Americans in poverty as existed at the time the programs started.

Fool me once . . .

We have spent trillions on the military yet still have wars

We have the same threats as we had before we dumped trillions into the military

Fool me once.....

When the word food stamps appears in the Consitution like the word army and navy, a.k.a the military, you'll have a point.

Congress is responsible for the General Welfare of the Nation

There are no provisions for a standing Army or Air Force in the Constitution. Only a Navy

Provide for the common defense in the Preamble pretty much covers the military.

 

[BlackSand]

None of that matters. Tie job growth and job wages to corporate welfare.

Eliminate corporate welfare ... And encourage low wage earners to acquire more skills and improve their own well being.

.

what corporate welfare would you eliminate? be specific.

Tax breaks for corporations (wrought with abuse due to fact the official agencies are poor negotiators) in regards to establishing new facilities.

Equipment Subsidies for corporations to secure more resources and drive corporate initiatives.

Government funding and policy decisions that support corporate activity for political purposes.

Manufacturing subsidies to control market conditions that would be better controlled by the market with less abuse in regards to political corruption.

.

Ok, lets review

tax breaks for new facilities-----------are you speaking about depreciation deductions? energy development deductions? These were put in place by federal and local govts to encourage job growth, how is that bad?

Equipment subsidies-----------------what corporate equipment is subsidized? you do know what the word 'subsidy' means don't you?

political paybacks i.e. legal bribery---------we agree

manufacturing subsidies--------------like farm subsidies? paying farmers to let their land sit idle? if thats what you are talking about we agree.

I stated tax breaks for corporations are wrought with abuse because corporations are more skilled in corporate law than the official agencies are skilled at negotiating.

It is a cost balance in many cases ... A company can acquire existing facilities ... Re-man the facilities to suit their needs ... And manufacture products tax free for ten years. At the end of that period they can relocate and receive like tax breaks from a different municipality in a different state ... And still experience an overall cost reduction.

The problem exists when government officials do not put safeguards or penalties against that behavior. There are better ways to develop positive environments for corporations that are not subject to same abuse.

Equipment subsidies are involved when the government either outright pays for equipment or applies tax breaks in regards to equipment purchases for the purpose of stimulating corporate activity.

Subsidies have been applied to assist corporations by selecting specific equipment from specific manufacturers not allowing for open market decisions. Tax breaks can be applied with the intention of spurring activities that are more consistent with policy initiatives than the corporation's own initiatives. Using money and tax breaks to drive corporate activity where the government wants to go.

We kind of agreed on the rest.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Instead of cutting corporate taxes by $440 billion, why don't Republicans dedicate that money to paying down the $18 trillion debt?

That is what they have been screaming about the last six years

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth. Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth.

What tax cuts for corporations? Rates are 35%. Highest in the world.

Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Of course it is, everyone knows that raising taxes creates jobs and growth.
If we don't have enough of either, it just means our taxes aren't high enough. LOL!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

a. How does a corporate tax cut increase taxes on the poor?

A tax cut for one group means another group is going to have to pay more to make up the difference, or a deficit.

That only works in a zero-sum world where there is a finite amount of wealth and no new wealth can be generated. Better put, there is only, and will only ever be x amount of $$. So, if you give Bob $1, Charles loses $1.

It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Stephanie]

so we FINALLY get a break on gas prices and lookie here who IS calling to raise taxes on the POOR. We are so lucky to have the WashingtonCompost in our lives aren't we?

snip;
The gas tax has been fixed at 18 cents for two decades. Now would be a great time to raise it
.hideText{position:absolute;left:-10000px}
Share via Email

Comments 60
By Chris Mooney December 3 at 12:22 PM
$2.75 per gallon. They're now more than 50 cents lower than they were a year ago. So no wonder, at a time like this, the murmur is growing: Maybe Congress ought to think about raising the national gasoline tax.
It was last raised, in the year 1993, to 18.4 cents per gallon. That's over 20 years ago, and gas prices at the time were close to the now unimaginable $1.00 per gallon mark. Yet the amount of the gas tax was fixed and not tied to inflation -- so it has not changed since. (U.S. states also charge gasoline taxes; the national average is about 23.5 cents.)
"It’s been a generation since gas taxes were increased at all," says Paul Bledsoe, a senior fellow on energy at the German Marshall Fund. "So they are incredibly low by historic levels."
Meanwhile, the Highway Trust Fund, which depends on these federal gas tax revenues, has seen its revenues fail to match its level of spending for 13 years straight. Not only has the gas tax been fixed for two decades, but vehicles also have become a lot more fuel efficient. That has led to less gasoline use and less gas tax paid per mile driven -- even as alternative fuel vehicles like hybrids have also hit the road.


"You’re ending up with serious reductions in highway fund revenues, and that’s sort of the fundamental reason why we’re having all these infrastructure problems," says Alan Krupnick, co-director of the Center for Energy and Climate Economics at Resources for the Future.


Timing a gas tax increase for a time like right now -- when gas prices have been plunging, and may have further to fall -- would surely be the easiest on consumers. It "would be kind of in the noise," says Krupnick. But it could help address at least three different problems: inadequate highway funding, American's energy habits, and even, perhaps, bipartisan tax reform.

ALL of it here:
The gas tax has been fixed at 18 cents for two decades. Now would be a great time to raise it - The Washington Post

 

[Redfish]

None of that matters. Tie job growth and job wages to corporate welfare.

Eliminate corporate welfare ... And encourage low wage earners to acquire more skills and improve their own well being.

.

what corporate welfare would you eliminate? be specific.

Tax breaks for corporations (wrought with abuse due to fact the official agencies are poor negotiators) in regards to establishing new facilities.

Equipment Subsidies for corporations to secure more resources and drive corporate initiatives.

Government funding and policy decisions that support corporate activity for political purposes.

Manufacturing subsidies to control market conditions that would be better controlled by the market with less abuse in regards to political corruption.

.

Ok, lets review

tax breaks for new facilities-----------are you speaking about depreciation deductions? energy development deductions? These were put in place by federal and local govts to encourage job growth, how is that bad?

Equipment subsidies-----------------what corporate equipment is subsidized? you do know what the word 'subsidy' means don't you?

political paybacks i.e. legal bribery---------we agree

manufacturing subsidies--------------like farm subsidies? paying farmers to let their land sit idle? if thats what you are talking about we agree.

I stated tax breaks for corporations are wrought with abuse because corporations are more skilled in corporate law than the official agencies are skilled at negotiating.

It is a cost balance in many cases ... A company can acquire existing facilities ... Re-man the facilities to suit their needs ... And manufacture products tax free for ten years. At the end of that period they can relocate and receive like tax breaks from a different municipality in a different state ... And still experience an overall cost reduction.

The problem exists when government officials do not put safeguards or penalties against that behavior. There are better ways to develop positive environments for corporations that are not subject to same abuse.

Equipment subsidies are involved when the government either outright pays for equipment or applies tax breaks in regards to equipment purchases for the purpose of stimulating corporate activity.

Subsidies have been applied to assist corporations by selecting specific equipment from specific manufacturers not allowing for open market decisions. Tax breaks can be applied with the intention of spurring activities that are more consistent with policy initiatives than the corporation's own initiatives. Using money and tax breaks to drive corporate activity where the government wants to go.

We kind of agreed on the rest.

.

how about subsidies and grants to solar and wind companies? Why not let the free market decide when a new technology is viable and profitable?

I think we are on the same page, just trying to get one of the libs to weigh in

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Republican Party s top priority is to raise taxes on the poor. Literally. - The Week

Following their convincing victory in the 2014 elections, everyone is wondering what Republicans will do with their new majority in the Senate and House. Well, their policy agenda is becoming clear. It will be unrestrained class warfare against the poor.
This priority was made apparent over the last week during the negotiation of a colossal tax cut package. Senate Democrats and Republicans had been doing some low-key negotiations to renew a slew of tax cuts for corporations and lower- and middle-income Americans, according to reporting from Brian Faler and Rachel Bade at Politico.
Then President Obama announced his executive action on immigration. Enraged Republicans promptly took vengeance on all the goodies for the working poor (as well as for clean energy), cutting them out of the deal and proposing a raft of permanent tax cuts for corporations alone worth $440 billion over 10 years.

I see you are still suffering from The Dumbass Disease. I'm really not surprised.

Obama has made more slaves to government by greatly increasing food stamp usage unnecessarily. That needs to be reduced. Corporate tax cuts will give more jobs so those "poor" people can buy their own damn steaks! Illegals should be deported!

Why does feeding the needy need to be reduced?

We gave Corporate Tax Cuts under Bush with the promise of more jobs. Rather than create more jobs, they just kept the money

Fool me once....

We gave Corporate Tax Cuts under Bush with the promise of more jobs.

Really? What was the corporate rate under Clinton?
What was the rate after Bush was done cutting?

 

[Conservative65]

Why does feeding the needy need to be reduced?

We gave Corporate Tax Cuts under Bush with the promise of more jobs. Rather than create more jobs, they just kept the money

Fool me once....

We have spent trillions on the war on poverty to eliminate hunger and deprivation from American life. What we have today is approximately the same percentage of Americans in poverty as existed at the time the programs started.

Fool me once . . .

We have spent trillions on the military yet still have wars

We have the same threats as we had before we dumped trillions into the military

Fool me once.....

When the word food stamps appears in the Consitution like the word army and navy, a.k.a the military, you'll have a point.

Congress is responsible for the General Welfare of the Nation

There are no provisions for a standing Army or Air Force in the Constitution. Only a Navy

Provide for the common defense in the Preamble pretty much covers the military.

You claimed Obama created 3 million jobs himself. Bullshit. That's why I say people like you would rather lick his asshole than look at what he hasn't done. You give him credit on the same level as the SEALS who killed bin Laden as if he was on the raid.

If the low wage jobs outnumber the higher wage jobs and you give Obama credit for having created those jobs, then he is to blame. You can't give him credit for having done the jobs then blame the employers for them being low wage.

The investment class is doing better because returns on investments provides more than a return on low skills.

How is it fair to force an emloyer to pay a wage higher than the job provides in revenue? Your problem is you think those of us with higher level skills should be paid on our skills but want to pay someone who is the cause of their low skills level based on breathing and a heartbeat. If they want a wage they can live off of, get the skills you think the rest of us should be paid on. If a person with $7.25 skills is getting paid $7.25/hour that is a decent wage based on their skills. That it isn't enough is their problem and often their fault.

It's easy to tell you've never owned a business. Try doing what you say needs to be done voluntarily and tell me how quickly your business ends. You haven't nor likely ever will be in business but you think you're an expert on it. Bleeding heart isn't a business model moron.

Onswipe

I know you cons have trouble with factual information but it is what it is.

Regardless of WHY the investment class is doing so well, why don't you put any blame on them for the low wage job creation?

My logic is based on inflation. If you're dumb enough to believe these people should be borderline slaves then so be it but get out of the way of progress.

1% of the US workforce makes minimum wage. the vast majority of them are part time teens working for pocket money. This is a non-issue that the left has created to further divide the country.

How many times must I explain this to you? 17 million people make less than 10.10. Obviously that's a problem. Raising it to that would boost the wages for all who are below it. God think.

1% of the workforce is NOT 17 million. there are not 17 million americans making minimum wage. its much closer to 3 million and 2.9 million are part time teens.

you are FOS

Are you really this retarded dude? 17 million people make LESS THAN 10.10 per hour. You do know there are numbers in between 7.25 and 10 right?

So what? If the skills required to do the job are low they are being paid equivalent to those skills, what the problem? Provide me with one non-emotional, non bleeding heart reason as to why an employer should be forced to pay a wage beyond what that wage brings to the business.

 

[Billy000]

Instead of cutting corporate taxes by $440 billion, why don't Republicans dedicate that money to paying down the $18 trillion debt?

That is what they have been screaming about the last six years

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth. Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth.

What tax cuts for corporations? Rates are 35%. Highest in the world.

Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Of course it is, everyone knows that raising taxes creates jobs and growth.
If we don't have enough of either, it just means our taxes aren't high enough. LOL!

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. What we lack is the demand to meet it. Low wages is what feeds it.

 

[Billy000]

We have spent trillions on the war on poverty to eliminate hunger and deprivation from American life. What we have today is approximately the same percentage of Americans in poverty as existed at the time the programs started.

Fool me once . . .

We have spent trillions on the military yet still have wars

We have the same threats as we had before we dumped trillions into the military

Fool me once.....

When the word food stamps appears in the Consitution like the word army and navy, a.k.a the military, you'll have a point.

Congress is responsible for the General Welfare of the Nation

There are no provisions for a standing Army or Air Force in the Constitution. Only a Navy

Provide for the common defense in the Preamble pretty much covers the military.

Onswipe

I know you cons have trouble with factual information but it is what it is.

Regardless of WHY the investment class is doing so well, why don't you put any blame on them for the low wage job creation?

My logic is based on inflation. If you're dumb enough to believe these people should be borderline slaves then so be it but get out of the way of progress.

1% of the US workforce makes minimum wage. the vast majority of them are part time teens working for pocket money. This is a non-issue that the left has created to further divide the country.

How many times must I explain this to you? 17 million people make less than 10.10. Obviously that's a problem. Raising it to that would boost the wages for all who are below it. God think.

1% of the workforce is NOT 17 million. there are not 17 million americans making minimum wage. its much closer to 3 million and 2.9 million are part time teens.

you are FOS

Are you really this retarded dude? 17 million people make LESS THAN 10.10 per hour. You do know there are numbers in between 7.25 and 10 right?

So what? If the skills required to do the job are low they are being paid equivalent to those skills, what the problem? Provide me with one non-emotional, non bleeding heart reason as to why an employer should be forced to pay a wage beyond what that wage brings to the business.

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

 

[BlackSand]

how about subsidies and grants to solar and wind companies? Why not let the free market decide when a new technology is viable and profitable?

I think we are on the same page, just trying to get one of the libs to weigh in

Green initiatives and associated subsidies or tax breaks are certainly included in my description of subsidies. I am just not the type Conservative that is willing to support one like subsidy over another. Big oil subsidies, farm subsidies and the likes are all open to abuse.


.

 

[Conservative65]

There are people who have no choice but to accept low wage jobs because they have low level skills. Interesting you say there aren't decent wage jobs yet Obama has claimed to have created so many and lowered the unemployment percentage. Does that mean you are saying he's done nothing but create low wage jobs? You already did.

There will always be jobs like fast food that require low level skills and plenty of low skilled people to fill them. That means they get a low wage. If you expect those of us who have higher level skills to be paid based on skills, then those working in low level skill jobs should be based on the same thing, skills required to do the job.

I have some numbers on poverty related to high school dropouts. It's far from a minority of them making a lower income.

See #6 factor - 11 Facts About Education and Poverty in America DoSomething.org America s largest organization for youth volunteering opportunities with 2 700 000 members and counting

See the second group of percentages under "Higher education leads to higher earning" - NCCP Parents rsquo Low Education Leads to Low Income Despite Full-Time Employment

Poverty and high school dropouts

Lol I love how you cons think liberals are going to defend Obama no matter what. Yes the low wage jobs do outnumber the higher wage jobs under Obama. However that still means the unemployment rate is the lowest its been since the recession hit. 10.3 million jobs in total under Obama have been created and Obama himself is directly responsible for 3 million from his stimulus package. It's interesting you cons blame Obama for the low wage jobs yet won't put any blame on the job creators themselves lol. I will never understand that. The investment class is doing better now more than ever. What we need is more demand side economic policies like the stimulus to create better jobs. Well anyway, enough about him.

Again I am all for paying skilled workers more, but because low wage jobs like fast food are so common, it is only fair to pay these millions of people a decent wage. A wage they can live off of.

31% is a small minority. I will admit it is higher than I thought. I would have guessed 20%.

There are people who have no choice but to accept low wage jobs because they have low level skills. Interesting you say there aren't decent wage jobs yet Obama has claimed to have created so many and lowered the unemployment percentage. Does that mean you are saying he's done nothing but create low wage jobs? You already did.

There will always be jobs like fast food that require low level skills and plenty of low skilled people to fill them. That means they get a low wage. If you expect those of us who have higher level skills to be paid based on skills, then those working in low level skill jobs should be based on the same thing, skills required to do the job.

I have some numbers on poverty related to high school dropouts. It's far from a minority of them making a lower income.

See #6 factor - 11 Facts About Education and Poverty in America DoSomething.org America s largest organization for youth volunteering opportunities with 2 700 000 members and counting

See the second group of percentages under "Higher education leads to higher earning" - NCCP Parents rsquo Low Education Leads to Low Income Despite Full-Time Employment

Poverty and high school dropouts

Lol I love how you cons think liberals are going to defend Obama no matter what. Yes the low wage jobs do outnumber the higher wage jobs under Obama. However that still means the unemployment rate is the lowest its been since the recession hit. 10.3 million jobs in total under Obama have been created and Obama himself is directly responsible for 3 million from his stimulus package. It's interesting you cons blame Obama for the low wage jobs yet won't put any blame on the job creators themselves lol. I will never understand that. The investment class is doing better now more than ever. What we need is more demand side economic policies like the stimulus to create better jobs. Well anyway, enough about him.

Again I am all for paying skilled workers more, but because low wage jobs like fast food are so common, it is only fair to pay these millions of people a decent wage. A wage they can live off of.

31% is a small minority. I will admit it is higher than I thought. I would have guessed 20%.

You claimed Obama created 3 million jobs himself. Bullshit. That's why I say people like you would rather lick his asshole than look at what he hasn't done. You give him credit on the same level as the SEALS who killed bin Laden as if he was on the raid.

If the low wage jobs outnumber the higher wage jobs and you give Obama credit for having created those jobs, then he is to blame. You can't give him credit for having done the jobs then blame the employers for them being low wage.

The investment class is doing better because returns on investments provides more than a return on low skills.

How is it fair to force an emloyer to pay a wage higher than the job provides in revenue? Your problem is you think those of us with higher level skills should be paid on our skills but want to pay someone who is the cause of their low skills level based on breathing and a heartbeat. If they want a wage they can live off of, get the skills you think the rest of us should be paid on. If a person with $7.25 skills is getting paid $7.25/hour that is a decent wage based on their skills. That it isn't enough is their problem and often their fault.

It's easy to tell you've never owned a business. Try doing what you say needs to be done voluntarily and tell me how quickly your business ends. You haven't nor likely ever will be in business but you think you're an expert on it. Bleeding heart isn't a business model moron.

Onswipe

I know you cons have trouble with factual information but it is what it is.

Regardless of WHY the investment class is doing so well, why don't you put any blame on them for the low wage job creation?

My logic is based on inflation. If you're dumb enough to believe these people should be borderline slaves then so be it but get out of the way of progress.

1% of the US workforce makes minimum wage. the vast majority of them are part time teens working for pocket money. This is a non-issue that the left has created to further divide the country.

How many times must I explain this to you? 17 million people make less than 10.10. Obviously that's a problem. Raising it to that would boost the wages for all who are below it. God think.

How many times do you have to be told that if a person has skills worth less than that, getting paid less than that is OK. It's not a problem with me if someone having $8/hour skills gets paid $8/hour. That's fair unless you base fair on forcing an employer to pay an employee that isn't yours what you think the employee should get paid.

 

[Redfish]

We have spent trillions on the military yet still have wars

We have the same threats as we had before we dumped trillions into the military

Fool me once.....

When the word food stamps appears in the Consitution like the word army and navy, a.k.a the military, you'll have a point.

Congress is responsible for the General Welfare of the Nation

There are no provisions for a standing Army or Air Force in the Constitution. Only a Navy

Provide for the common defense in the Preamble pretty much covers the military.

1% of the US workforce makes minimum wage. the vast majority of them are part time teens working for pocket money. This is a non-issue that the left has created to further divide the country.

How many times must I explain this to you? 17 million people make less than 10.10. Obviously that's a problem. Raising it to that would boost the wages for all who are below it. God think.

1% of the workforce is NOT 17 million. there are not 17 million americans making minimum wage. its much closer to 3 million and 2.9 million are part time teens.

you are FOS

Are you really this retarded dude? 17 million people make LESS THAN 10.10 per hour. You do know there are numbers in between 7.25 and 10 right?

So what? If the skills required to do the job are low they are being paid equivalent to those skills, what the problem? Provide me with one non-emotional, non bleeding heart reason as to why an employer should be forced to pay a wage beyond what that wage brings to the business.

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

why do they charge less for a burger and fries than for a filet mignon and champayne? same reason they pay unskilled workers less than skilled workers. same reason a brain surgeon makes more than a garbage collector------------supply and demand.

 

[Redfish]

how about subsidies and grants to solar and wind companies? Why not let the free market decide when a new technology is viable and profitable?

I think we are on the same page, just trying to get one of the libs to weigh in

Green initiatives and associated subsidies or tax breaks are certainly included in my description of subsidies. I am just not the type Conservative that is willing to support one like subsidy over another. Big oil subsidies, farm subsidies and the likes are all open to abuse.


.

for the record, big oil does not get subsidies. Tax deductions for exploration and development are not subsidies. Subsidies are direct payments for either doing something or not doing something.

people misuse the word 'subsidy' every day.

 

[Conservative65]

We have spent trillions on the military yet still have wars

We have the same threats as we had before we dumped trillions into the military

Fool me once.....

When the word food stamps appears in the Consitution like the word army and navy, a.k.a the military, you'll have a point.

Congress is responsible for the General Welfare of the Nation

There are no provisions for a standing Army or Air Force in the Constitution. Only a Navy

Provide for the common defense in the Preamble pretty much covers the military.

1% of the US workforce makes minimum wage. the vast majority of them are part time teens working for pocket money. This is a non-issue that the left has created to further divide the country.

How many times must I explain this to you? 17 million people make less than 10.10. Obviously that's a problem. Raising it to that would boost the wages for all who are below it. God think.

1% of the workforce is NOT 17 million. there are not 17 million americans making minimum wage. its much closer to 3 million and 2.9 million are part time teens.

you are FOS

Are you really this retarded dude? 17 million people make LESS THAN 10.10 per hour. You do know there are numbers in between 7.25 and 10 right?

So what? If the skills required to do the job are low they are being paid equivalent to those skills, what the problem? Provide me with one non-emotional, non bleeding heart reason as to why an employer should be forced to pay a wage beyond what that wage brings to the business.

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

However the one doing the paying measures it. Since it's not your business, it's not your place to tele else what they should pay their employees. If you want to make that determination for someone, start your own business, pay what you want, and no one will tell you otherwise.

Do you know why businesses go into business?

 

[Redfish]

When the word food stamps appears in the Consitution like the word army and navy, a.k.a the military, you'll have a point.

Congress is responsible for the General Welfare of the Nation

There are no provisions for a standing Army or Air Force in the Constitution. Only a Navy

Provide for the common defense in the Preamble pretty much covers the military.

How many times must I explain this to you? 17 million people make less than 10.10. Obviously that's a problem. Raising it to that would boost the wages for all who are below it. God think.

1% of the workforce is NOT 17 million. there are not 17 million americans making minimum wage. its much closer to 3 million and 2.9 million are part time teens.

you are FOS

Are you really this retarded dude? 17 million people make LESS THAN 10.10 per hour. You do know there are numbers in between 7.25 and 10 right?

So what? If the skills required to do the job are low they are being paid equivalent to those skills, what the problem? Provide me with one non-emotional, non bleeding heart reason as to why an employer should be forced to pay a wage beyond what that wage brings to the business.

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

However the one doing the paying measures it. Since it's not your business, it's not your place to tele else what they should pay their employees. If you want to make that determination for someone, start your own business, pay what you want, and no one will tell you otherwise.

Do you know why businesses go into business?

LOL. just wait for him to say something like "for the common good" LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Instead of cutting corporate taxes by $440 billion, why don't Republicans dedicate that money to paying down the $18 trillion debt?

That is what they have been screaming about the last six years

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth. Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth.

What tax cuts for corporations? Rates are 35%. Highest in the world.

Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Of course it is, everyone knows that raising taxes creates jobs and growth.
If we don't have enough of either, it just means our taxes aren't high enough. LOL!

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. There is no problem with supply in today's economy. Low wages is what feeds it.

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why?

Because you're wrong.

Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business

Say that taxes are too high and they stop you from opening your shoe business in the first place.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy.

Sure there is, my shoe business is on the drawing board, not creating jobs and sales.

Low wages is what feeds it.

You can raise the minimum wage, but the employees in the store I never opened won't benefit.

You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month.

Excellent! This will encourage me to expand from 2 stores to 3. More jobs, more sales, more profits!

 

[Claudette]

The Republican Party s top priority is to raise taxes on the poor. Literally. - The Week

How can you "raise" taxes on those who pay none?

I was wondering the same thing.

Those poor have no problem grabbing everything they can thats payed for by someone else but the poor paying taxes??

Doubt the fuck outa that.

 

[BlackSand]

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

why do they charge less for a burger and fries than for a filet mignon and champayne? same reason they pay unskilled workers less than skilled workers. same reason a brain surgeon makes more than a garbage collector------------supply and demand.

He is not able to understand the bare minimum equation ... Or corporate desires.

If you want quality skilled employees you will pay more for their services ... If you want low skilled minimum everything employees then you will pay them accordingly.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have spent trillions on the military yet still have wars

We have the same threats as we had before we dumped trillions into the military

Fool me once.....

When the word food stamps appears in the Consitution like the word army and navy, a.k.a the military, you'll have a point.

Congress is responsible for the General Welfare of the Nation

There are no provisions for a standing Army or Air Force in the Constitution. Only a Navy

Provide for the common defense in the Preamble pretty much covers the military.

1% of the US workforce makes minimum wage. the vast majority of them are part time teens working for pocket money. This is a non-issue that the left has created to further divide the country.

How many times must I explain this to you? 17 million people make less than 10.10. Obviously that's a problem. Raising it to that would boost the wages for all who are below it. God think.

1% of the workforce is NOT 17 million. there are not 17 million americans making minimum wage. its much closer to 3 million and 2.9 million are part time teens.

you are FOS

Are you really this retarded dude? 17 million people make LESS THAN 10.10 per hour. You do know there are numbers in between 7.25 and 10 right?

So what? If the skills required to do the job are low they are being paid equivalent to those skills, what the problem? Provide me with one non-emotional, non bleeding heart reason as to why an employer should be forced to pay a wage beyond what that wage brings to the business.

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

If you encourage economic growth by cutting taxes and eliminating idiotic red tape and regulations, there will be more competition for those workers. Hint: legalizing 15 million low-skilled illegals will reduce the bargaining power of these workers and suppress their wages.