Sanders pushes to give Americans a paid vacation

[orogenicman]

how about free ammo for a year?

I'll take the vacation.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

how about free ammo for a year?

I'll take the vacation.

actually I will take a years worth of my maintenance paid. god, i remember when the monthly maintenace was 117.00 a month in Florida. now? Holy Chit, I think my parents pay well over 1000 per quarter.

 

[Socialist]

Employers, as in other countries where people live a better quality of life than Americans do.

Would it shock you to consider that whether or not I get a paid vacation is between me and my employer, and none of the government's business?

And an employer might also claim that whether or not you get paid anything in compensation at all for your work is between you and he - except that it isn't. The government has an obligation to promote the general welfare of its people.

If a salary is agreed upon, the government should stay the hell out of it. If an employer doesn't pay enough, nobody will work for him/her. See how that works?

You're a moron, it's called wage slavery.

You're a moron, it's called the free market.

The free market does a great job then! /sarcasm. Sweatshops, reliance on third world dirt cheap labor, wow, 10/10, much amaze.

 

[Socialist]

Your infrastructure funds are now Obamacare funds. Your medicaid funds are now Obamacare funds, your tax dollars are now Obamacare funds, and it's still underfunded....

Bernie Sanders wants 90% of your paycheck. You're not going anywhere.

Phew, I thought I was stupid. Bernie never said he wants a 90% tax, he was referencing the past, to show his plans weren't that ridiculous, and they're not, considering americans are with him on many issues.

 

[Socialist]

Vacation is a fringe benefit. If you don't like the benefits offered by the job, don't take it

Oh my god, imagine if people used this as an argument against the minimum wage.. Oh wait, they did, and it's still as hilarious as ever.

 

[Spare_change]

Would it shock you to consider that whether or not I get a paid vacation is between me and my employer, and none of the government's business?

And an employer might also claim that whether or not you get paid anything in compensation at all for your work is between you and he - except that it isn't. The government has an obligation to promote the general welfare of its people.

If a salary is agreed upon, the government should stay the hell out of it. If an employer doesn't pay enough, nobody will work for him/her. See how that works?

You're a moron, it's called wage slavery.

You're a moron, it's called the free market.

The free market does a great job then! /sarcasm. Sweatshops, reliance on third world dirt cheap labor, wow, 10/10, much amaze.

And your answer to this is to take money from some, and give to the other - by force, if necessary??????????

 

[TemplarKormac]

Employers, as in other countries where people live a better quality of life than Americans do.

It's not up to the taxpayers to improve your quality of life.

 

[Socialist]

And an employer might also claim that whether or not you get paid anything in compensation at all for your work is between you and he - except that it isn't. The government has an obligation to promote the general welfare of its people.

If a salary is agreed upon, the government should stay the hell out of it. If an employer doesn't pay enough, nobody will work for him/her. See how that works?

You're a moron, it's called wage slavery.

You're a moron, it's called the free market.

The free market does a great job then! /sarcasm. Sweatshops, reliance on third world dirt cheap labor, wow, 10/10, much amaze.

And your answer to this is to take money from some, and give to the other - by force, if necessary??????????

You should read up on the goals of democratic socialism, I can't lay out 40,000 paragraphs.

 

[Socialist]

Employers, as in other countries where people live a better quality of life than Americans do.

It's not up to the taxpayers to improve your quality of life.

I love the pitiful rhetoric you use.

 

[S.J.]

If a salary is agreed upon, the government should stay the hell out of it. If an employer doesn't pay enough, nobody will work for him/her. See how that works?

You're a moron, it's called wage slavery.

You're a moron, it's called the free market.

The free market does a great job then! /sarcasm. Sweatshops, reliance on third world dirt cheap labor, wow, 10/10, much amaze.

And your answer to this is to take money from some, and give to the other - by force, if necessary??????????

You should read up on the goals of democratic socialism, I can't lay out 40,000 paragraphs.

Why?

 

[Socialist]

You're a moron, it's called wage slavery.

You're a moron, it's called the free market.

The free market does a great job then! /sarcasm. Sweatshops, reliance on third world dirt cheap labor, wow, 10/10, much amaze.

And your answer to this is to take money from some, and give to the other - by force, if necessary??????????

You should read up on the goals of democratic socialism, I can't lay out 40,000 paragraphs.

Why?

You should educate yourself so you don't keep spewing ridiculous rhetoric.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I love the pitiful rhetoric you use.

Really? What rhetoric is that?

 

[Socialist]

I love the pitiful rhetoric you use.

Really? What rhetoric is that?

That paid vacation would somehow be paid for by taxpayers, and not the employers, like it is in almost every other first world country.

 

[Spare_change]

Vacation is a fringe benefit. If you don't like the benefits offered by the job, don't take it

Oh my god, imagine if people used this as an argument against the minimum wage.. Oh wait, they did, and it's still as hilarious as ever.

You know, I've heard this wealth redistribution malarkey way too much lately - primarily promoted by those who can't even spell economics. I'm going to try to make this simple --

Let's assume the rules of football (American, of course) were changed. If you reached your opponent's 40 yard line, you were awarded 3 points - if you made it to the 30, you got 5 points, if you made it to the 20, you got 7 points - and if you scored, you were awarded 10 points. BUT - if you attained one score and tried to get more, you lost the points you already had. For instance, if you made the 40, you got 3 points - but you forfeited those points to try to make the 30. If you made the 30, you were awarded 5 points - which you forfeited if you tried to make the twenty yard line. If you only progressed to the 21, you came away with no points.

So, let's play a game -- the first team gets to the 40, gambles, and makes the 30 - and voluntarily stops. Score is 5-0. The second team drives the ball, makes the 40, and then the 30, and gambles, and makes it to the 20 --- score is 5-7. That score continues until the last 2 minutes --- the first team (the one with 5 points) drives to the 40, making the score 8-7, in their favor. Do they stop, or do they try to expand their lead? Do they give up the lead in order to try to get further ahead?

The point is simple - you have to consider the profit gained in order to justify the investment - are they willing to invest their potential win in order to cinch the win? Some will - some won't. Some will go for it - others will take what they got, and try to make it stand up.

The same applies in economics - the reason money is invested is for the potential of return. If you decrease the potential of return, and NOT reduce the risk, fewer and fewer are going to invest. If investments are fewer, new jobs are fewer, and more people are out of work.

In addition, if you narrow the gap between failure and success, you minimize the incentive to take the risk. I would not risk my retirement pay in a new company, if I knew that all I was going to get (if I were successful) is my retirement fund back. If, on the other hand, I knew that I could potentially become a multi-millionaire, I would be more willing to take the risk.

Workers need to be incentivized, undoubtedly - but, they don't need to be incentivized to do the job for which they are hired. THAT is what their paycheck is for --- ask yourself - would you accept a pay raise of $1 per hour if I told you that means that you will only receive two more $1 raises the rest of your life, or would you turn down the $1 per hour in order to compete for a $20/hour raise?

Socialism, by its definition, promotes mediocrity - pulling down high level performers and falsely rewarding non-performers. Mediocrity, on the other hand, significantly hampers growth, ingenuity, and expansion.

Which do you want? It's up to you -

 

[Spare_change]

I love the pitiful rhetoric you use.

Really? What rhetoric is that?

That paid vacation would somehow be paid for by taxpayers, and not the employers, like it is in almost every other first world country.

Just where does the government get its money to pay for these vacations? From workers, of course -- you want them to pay for their own vacations???? Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[S.J.]

You're a moron, it's called the free market.

The free market does a great job then! /sarcasm. Sweatshops, reliance on third world dirt cheap labor, wow, 10/10, much amaze.

And your answer to this is to take money from some, and give to the other - by force, if necessary??????????

You should read up on the goals of democratic socialism, I can't lay out 40,000 paragraphs.

Why?

You should educate yourself so you don't keep spewing ridiculous rhetoric.

When you learn the difference between "then and than", and "to and too", you can talk to me about being educated.

 

[Socialist]

Vacation is a fringe benefit. If you don't like the benefits offered by the job, don't take it

Oh my god, imagine if people used this as an argument against the minimum wage.. Oh wait, they did, and it's still as hilarious as ever.

You know, I've heard this wealth redistribution malarkey way too much lately - primarily promoted by those who can't even spell economics. I'm going to try to make this simple --

Let's assume the rules of football (American, of course) were changed. If you reached your opponent's 40 yard line, you were awarded 3 points - if you made it to the 30, you got 5 points, if you made it to the 20, you got 7 points - and if you scored, you were awarded 10 points. BUT - if you attained one score and tried to get more, you lost the points you already had. For instance, if you made the 40, you got 3 points - but you forfeited those points to try to make the 30. If you made the 30, you were awarded 5 points - which you forfeited if you tried to make the twenty yard line. If you only progressed to the 21, you came away with no points.

So, let's play a game -- the first team gets to the 40, gambles, and makes the 30 - and voluntarily stops. Score is 5-0. The second team drives the ball, makes the 40, and then the 30, and gambles, and makes it to the 20 --- score is 5-7. That score continues until the last 2 minutes --- the first team (the one with 5 points) drives to the 40, making the score 8-7, in their favor. Do they stop, or do they try to expand their lead? Do they give up the lead in order to try to get further ahead?

The point is simple - you have to consider the profit gained in order to justify the investment - are they willing to invest their potential win in order to cinch the win? Some will - some won't. Some will go for it - others will take what they got, and try to make it stand up.

The same applies in economics - the reason money is invested is for the potential of return. If you decrease the potential of return, and NOT reduce the risk, fewer and fewer are going to invest. If investments are fewer, new jobs are fewer, and more people are out of work.

In addition, if you narrow the gap between failure and success, you minimize the incentive to take the risk. I would not risk my retirement pay in a new company, if I knew that all I was going to get (if I were successful) is my retirement fund back. If, on the other hand, I knew that I could potentially become a multi-millionaire, I would be more willing to take the risk.

Workers need to be incentivized, undoubtedly - but, they don't need to be incentivized to do the job for which they are hired. THAT is what their paycheck is for --- ask yourself - would you accept a pay raise of $1 per hour if I told you that means that you will only receive two more $1 raises the rest of your life, or would you turn down the $1 per hour in order to compete for a $20/hour raise?

Socialism, by its definition, promotes mediocrity - pulling down high level performers and falsely rewarding non-performers. Mediocrity, on the other hand, significantly hampers growth, ingenuity, and expansion.

Which do you want? It's up to you -

Empirical evidence goes against your argumentation against socialism, and quite frankly, it's hilarious hogwash, As socialism is simply collective ownership of production. We've had wealth redistribution for centuries, it's wealth being redistributed to the top. Guess you love the rich.

"Socialism, by its definition, promotes mediocrity" This tells me all I need to know about your bullshit.
"

1. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

"

 

[Socialist]

I love the pitiful rhetoric you use.

Really? What rhetoric is that?

That paid vacation would somehow be paid for by taxpayers, and not the employers, like it is in almost every other first world country.

Just where does the government get its money to pay for these vacations? From workers, of course -- you want them to pay for their own vacations???? Makes no sense whatsoever.

Employers pay for the vacations you moron.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That paid vacation would somehow be paid for by taxpayers, and not the employers, like it is in almost every other first world country.

Eh, with liberals like you, taxpayers always foot the bill... you know, like pensions for example...

 

[Socialist]

The free market does a great job then! /sarcasm. Sweatshops, reliance on third world dirt cheap labor, wow, 10/10, much amaze.

And your answer to this is to take money from some, and give to the other - by force, if necessary??????????

You should read up on the goals of democratic socialism, I can't lay out 40,000 paragraphs.

Why?

You should educate yourself so you don't keep spewing ridiculous rhetoric.

When you learn the difference between "then and than", and "to and too", you can talk to me about being educated.

Oh no, you've got me, all my points are suddenly invalid because of spelling mistakes, LOOK OUT GUYS, WE'VE GOT A WINNER.