So now that republicans have full control, HOW will they address the following issues?

[Billy000]

So how can a family of 3 live under 8 grand a year?

They can't. That's why you don't have a family of three if you can't afford to support them.

So are the kids supposed to just starve then?

How would they starve if you didn't have them because you couldn't afford them?

Dont be dumb.My obvious point is that when children are born to poor families, republicans don't give a shit.

 

[Billy000]

1) Wages in the lower classes being behind on inflation (hint: Trump wants to eliminate OT eligibility for 20 million workers)

2) A weakening middle class

3) Making healthcare more affordable for the poor (hint: people in poverty still couldn't afford it prior to ObamaCare).

4) Protecting our water supply from corporate fuck ups

5) Childhood poverty ranking among the worse of developed nations

6) Our crumbling infrastructure (hint: republicans in congress don't give a shit about this issue).

Don't even bother deflecting to "well the democrats derp, derp, derp!". Explain why having republicans in office is better. Don't be pussies about this.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slat..._going_to_nix_obama_s_overtime_pay_rules.html

What did the democrats do about it for the last 8 years? Besides make it worse that is.

Republican obstruction played a huge role obviously. Now quit deflecting and addrsss the OP.

 

[owebo]

So how can a family of 3 live under 8 grand a year?

They can't. That's why you don't have a family of three if you can't afford to support them.

So are the kids supposed to just starve then?

How would they starve if you didn't have them because you couldn't afford them?

Dont be dumb.My obvious point is that when children are born to poor families, republicans don't give a shit.

Don't be dumb, people who can't afford kids shouldn't have them.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1) Wages in the lower classes being behind on inflation (hint: Trump wants to eliminate OT eligibility for 20 million workers)

2) A weakening middle class

3) Making healthcare more affordable for the poor (hint: people in poverty still couldn't afford it prior to ObamaCare).

4) Protecting our water supply from corporate fuck ups

5) Childhood poverty ranking among the worse of developed nations

6) Our crumbling infrastructure (hint: republicans in congress don't give a shit about this issue).

Don't even bother deflecting to "well the democrats derp, derp, derp!". Explain why having republicans in office is better. Don't be pussies about this.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slat..._going_to_nix_obama_s_overtime_pay_rules.html

I don't know what the Republicans are going to do, but I know what I would do.

Yes, we have a weakening middle-class, maybe because of the fact that over one-third of our population of working age people are not working nor looking for work. Answer? Put them back to work by cutting social programs for those who are mentally and physically capable of working.

You make healthcare more affordable by figuring out how to lower the cost of care first, then figure out how to pay for it. This is one of the reasons Commie Care is such a failure. The cost of healthcare was never addressed. Much of the high costs are thanks to government, our social programs, and regulations.

Children in poverty: what do you expect when government rewards people for having kids they can't afford? What did you expect when the left promotes single-parent households for decades? You can't stop poverty by promoting more poverty. If you apply for government assistance, you don't get one red cent until you are fixed first--and that means women who can't support their kids along with the father of the children.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So are the kids supposed to just starve then?

No, they should be put up for adoption. These people have kids to get more government benefits most of the time. Take that reward away from them, they'll stop having poor children.

 

[Londoner]

Actually business owners don't have a choice, the cost of labor is dictated solely by the market. As the illegals file out and open up positions to unemployed Americans, the availability of low cost (min wage) labor will quickly dry up - which will necessarily require businesses to pay more in order to compete for employees.

This effect is exampled perfectly in Alaska, we are constantly hurting for employees up here - to example we have been short on our police force for like 10 years despite paying them well enough to live in my city (wealthy military suburb. In fact, I've got 7 police officers on my street heh) There are /always/ jobs available up here and as a direct result of lack of employees the vast majority of positions pay around $10/h and often more than that simply attempting to lure in employees. See also:

Well said.

Trump's position on trade and illegal labor are so contrary to Reagan's that I can't imagine him following through.

The entire incentive structure of capitalism is based on giving investors the lowest possible costs and highest possible returns, which returns require unfettered access to the cheapest resources, wherever they may exist. Capitalism is genetically expansionist: when the host country runs out of resources (say the oil in Texas runs out), you need to go to the Middle East. When labor markets or environment regulations become inflexible in one region, you need to shift production to where you can better take care of your investors, otherwise the competition will eat your lunch.

This why Reagan passed the greatest Amnesty Bill in US History - to break the back of unionization, which was overtaking Southwestern agriculture, food service & construction.

Borders, Language and Culture are anathema to the flow of capital. To force American capitalists to pay higher labor costs, to impose limits on the free flow of capital to the cheapest markets is not only against the logic of capitalism but a globalist businessman like Trump, who has holdings and draws resources/labor from across the globe, would never do it.

He was simply cashing in on the strategically manipulated nativism of fly over country - the people who the GOP agitates through talk radio, etc.

 

[Billy000]

So are the kids supposed to just starve then?

No, they should be put up for adoption. These people have kids to get more government benefits most of the time. Take that reward away from them, they'll stop having poor children.

Okay that is just stupid. For one thing, people aren't lining up to adopt kids in this country. Also, these people get peanuts in benefits. Do you even know the cost to raise a child? Those benefits don't even come close to covering it.

 

[Billy000]

So how can a family of 3 live under 8 grand a year?

They can't. That's why you don't have a family of three if you can't afford to support them.

So are the kids supposed to just starve then?

How would they starve if you didn't have them because you couldn't afford them?

Dont be dumb.My obvious point is that when children are born to poor families, republicans don't give a shit.

Don't be dumb, people who can't afford kids shouldn't have them.....

No shit. Does that mean we should punish the kids then?

 

[owebo]

They can't. That's why you don't have a family of three if you can't afford to support them.

So are the kids supposed to just starve then?

How would they starve if you didn't have them because you couldn't afford them?

Dont be dumb.My obvious point is that when children are born to poor families, republicans don't give a shit.

Don't be dumb, people who can't afford kids shouldn't have them.....

No shit. Does that mean we should punish the kids then?

What kids?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually business owners don't have a choice, the cost of labor is dictated solely by the market. As the illegals file out and open up positions to unemployed Americans, the availability of low cost (min wage) labor will quickly dry up - which will necessarily require businesses to pay more in order to compete for employees.

This effect is exampled perfectly in Alaska, we are constantly hurting for employees up here - to example we have been short on our police force for like 10 years despite paying them well enough to live in my city (wealthy military suburb. In fact, I've got 7 police officers on my street heh) There are /always/ jobs available up here and as a direct result of lack of employees the vast majority of positions pay around $10/h and often more than that simply attempting to lure in employees. See also:

Well said.

Trump's position on trade and illegal labor are so contrary to Reagan's that I can't imagine him following through.

The entire incentive structure of capitalism is based on giving investors the lowest possible costs and highest possible returns, which returns require unfettered access to the cheapest resources, wherever they may exist. Capitalism is genetically expansionist: when the host country runs out of resources (say the oil in Texas runs out), you need to go to the Middle East. When labor markets or environment regulations become inflexible in one region, you need to shift production to where you can better take care of your investors, otherwise the competition will eat your lunch.

This why Reagan passed the greatest Amnesty Bill in US History - to break the back of unionization, which was overtaking Southwestern agriculture, food service & construction.

Borders, Language and Culture are anathema to the flow of capital. To force American capitalists to pay higher labor costs, to impose limits on the free flow of capital to the cheapest markets is not only against the logic of capitalism but a globalist businessman like Trump, who has holdings and draws resources/labor from across the globe, would never do it.

He was simply cashing in on the strategically manipulated nativism of fly over country - the people who the GOP agitates through talk radio, etc.

The best system that we know of for employment is supply and demand. It works almost perfectly until you throw a monkey wrench into the system like unions or immigrants.

Yes, these immigrants keep the cost of labor low, and in doing so, lowers wages for all American workers. It interrupts the supply and demand process.

What these people do is take low paying jobs, cram 20 people in a three bedroom home, then send back their earnings over the border to live a much better life. Works great for them, terrible for us.

Without illegals and immigrants, yes, employers would have to up their wage offers to attract American workers. They will pass that cost to their customers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay that is just stupid. For one thing, people aren't lining up to adopt kids in this country. Also, these people get peanuts in benefits. Do you even know the cost to raise a child? Those benefits don't even come close to covering it.

Having children is not an accident. It takes an initiative to have kids in the first place. Can you tell me why people are having kids they can't afford if not for government benefits? Think they just want to be poorer?

Don't tell me what these people have. I've been in their homes--thousands of them. I see them at my grocery store. I see what they purchase with and without their food stamps. A couple of times I seen what kind of vehicles they drive as well when they leave the store.

The more kids you have, the bigger the SNAP's card, the bigger HUD house in the suburbs, the larger your welfare check. Having kids you can't afford to support is the incentive.

 

[TheDude]

OP and those like it want to make believe nobody can answer. Ah the challenge, spare me:

1) Wages in the lower classes being behind on inflation (hint: Trump wants to eliminate OT eligibility for 20 million workers). By creating a business environment you create jobs and competition and wages follow. Add immigration control. Critical thought.

2) A weakening middle class. That's easy, you can reduce Obama Care for starters. See above.

3) Making healthcare more affordable for the poor (hint: people in poverty still couldn't afford it prior to ObamaCare). Competition and jobs. Don't want a job but you're capable? rot for all I care. You make your own bed. Add immigration control.

4) Protecting our water supply from corporate fuck ups. Regulations and enforcement. Was that supposed to be hard?

5) Childhood poverty ranking among the worse of developed nations See above, immigration control and put a stop to the liberal victim card. Hold teachers accountable and if you don't speak English in school, then learn the language outside of school, because there is no public school until you do. Liberal nation is holding people down. You know, reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator?

6) Our crumbling infrastructure (hint: republicans in congress don't give a shit about this issue). Other than you're a liar, see above.

Don't even bother deflecting to "well the democrats derp, derp, derp!". I read you're a hypocrite.

Explain why having republicans in office is better. By nature liberals are better equipped to exceed in the abstract, arts and music. This is why folks like yourself are so good at making stuff up. They're emotional responses. Conservatives build stuff and get shit done.

Don't be pussies about this. Nothing quite like a leftist calling his opponents pussies. It's projection.

 

[Contumacious]

1) Wages in the lower classes being behind on inflation (hint: Trump wants to eliminate OT eligibility for 20 million workers)

2) A weakening middle class

3) Making healthcare more affordable for the poor (hint: people in poverty still couldn't afford it prior to ObamaCare).

4) Protecting our water supply from corporate fuck ups

5) Childhood poverty ranking among the worse of developed nations

6) Our crumbling infrastructure (hint: republicans in congress don't give a shit about this issue).

Don't even bother deflecting to "well the democrats derp, derp, derp!". Explain why having republicans in office is better. Don't be pussies about this.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slat..._going_to_nix_obama_s_overtime_pay_rules.html

1- Mr. Trump will respect our right to bear arms

2- Mr. Trump will eliminate the ludditic - job killing - climate agreement

3- Mr. Trump will eliminate unnecessary - UNCONSTITUTIONAL - regulations of our businesses

4- Mr. Trump will prevent WWIII against Russia

5- Mr. Trump will abolish the Trans Pacific Partnership

 

[BuckToothMoron]

1) Wages in the lower classes being behind on inflation (hint: Trump wants to eliminate OT eligibility for 20 million workers)

2) A weakening middle class

3) Making healthcare more affordable for the poor (hint: people in poverty still couldn't afford it prior to ObamaCare).

4) Protecting our water supply from corporate fuck ups

5) Childhood poverty ranking among the worse of developed nations

6) Our crumbling infrastructure (hint: republicans in congress don't give a shit about this issue).

Don't even bother deflecting to "well the democrats derp, derp, derp!". Explain why having republicans in office is better. Don't be pussies about this.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slat..._going_to_nix_obama_s_overtime_pay_rules.html

That's funny. Don't be pussies about this said the boi who buys tampons by the pallet.

1- I don't know, but kudos to you for mentioning the wealth gap as the biggest issue, because it is. And it has been getting worse for the last 35 years under all presidents

2- see above

3- the poor can't afford healthcare now or ever will. Obamacare put 300 million people into a plan that only 30 million people needed.

4- I don't know, ask the democrats that have been in charge in Flint Michigan.

5- childhood poverty- do you know the definition of poverty in the USA? It has nothing to do with how much food you have, the house you live in, the clothes you wear or the flat screen tv hanging on the wall. There is really little or no poverty problem in the USA. If you want to know what poverty looks like, go to South America, Central American Africa, India, parts of China where some people really don't know where their next meal is coming from. Poverty should not be defined by income, it should be defined by standard of living.

6- Another winner for you. The infrastructure, specifically the power grid needs to be addressed. We can't begin to move from fossil fuels to renewables without upgrading the power grid. If Trump is good at anything, he is good at building. He hates inefficiency and has a reputation of building on time and under budget. Those are things government projects could desperately is lacking.

 

[Billy000]

Okay that is just stupid. For one thing, people aren't lining up to adopt kids in this country. Also, these people get peanuts in benefits. Do you even know the cost to raise a child? Those benefits don't even come close to covering it.

Having children is not an accident. It takes an initiative to have kids in the first place. Can you tell me why people are having kids they can't afford if not for government benefits? Think they just want to be poorer?

Don't tell me what these people have. I've been in their homes--thousands of them. I see them at my grocery store. I see what they purchase with and without their food stamps. A couple of times I seen what kind of vehicles they drive as well when they leave the store.

The more kids you have, the bigger the SNAP's card, the bigger HUD house in the suburbs, the larger your welfare check. Having kids you can't afford to support is the incentive.

You just see what you want to see with anecdotes. The statistics are what matter. The average household on food stamps makes $766 per MONTH in total income. These people get $133 per month in food stamps on average per person. That is peanuts.

 

[TheDude]

I have a bit of bad news for everyone. It's likely we'll never see the standard of living level off to what we once were. The reasons are simple:

1. Globalization. We're no longer the only game in town.

2. Too many people. Too many rats in the cage fuckers.

3. Loose immigration policy. Fact is immigration reduces the standard of living in the USA.

4. Technology.

5. Entitlements. Entitlements reduce the standard of living. People are less responsible.

6. Reduction in accountability. Look at our politicians for starters. What's the natural impact?

7. Divided country. Seriously, what would expect to happen?

8. Lack of resources, see #2.


Sure far too much $ is at the top, only a fool would deny that. I'm interested to hear how that can naturally trickle down considering 1 through 6 above.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You just see what you want to see with anecdotes. The statistics are what matter. The average household on food stamps makes $766 per MONTH in total income. These people get $133 per month in food stamps on average per person. That is peanuts.

So they say they make $766.00 per month.

I'm a local truck driver, and a few years ago, a guy who works where I deliver to moved in a few doors down. I thought it was great having a new neighbor that I personally knew.

What I didn't know is that the house he was renting was not his. It was a HUD house. Now, he works and doesn't make a bad buck, so there is no way he could get a house with HUD. But his girlfriend didn't work, and she did. She has several children.

So yes, she gets the food stamps, welfare, Obama Care and all that, but she also gets rent from her boyfriend. Between what she gets from government and what her boyfriend gives her, she's not living too bad of a life for not working.

Then one day they moved. When I seen him at work, I asked him about it. Her concern was that they lived on a main street, and she didn't like it very much because of the kids. So HUD got her a new and bigger home in the same suburb on a nice quiet side street. Imagine that?

I worked with one guy who's wife worked at a convenience store. His wife was complaining about working all the time and struggling to make the bills and get ahead. Her coworker gave her some advice: she told his wife that she contacted social services and made claim her husband up and left. Of course, he didn't go anywhere. He made great money working at the auto plant. So he brought home a great income and benefits, she worked part-time, and government gave her all kinds of goodies because of her claim he left her with the kids. Between his income, her income, and government goodies, they are probably doing about $80,000 a year. But of course, government never checks into these things.

 

[TheDude]

Really Ray, you should turn their asses in. Government can't catch everything, and we have a responsibility to snitch. I hate snitching myself, but sometimes it's called for. Still doesn't mean the govt. will do anything. Here's a question, how come our LIBERAL govt. allows people to purchase junk on food stamps?

 

[Billy000]

You just see what you want to see with anecdotes. The statistics are what matter. The average household on food stamps makes $766 per MONTH in total income. These people get $133 per month in food stamps on average per person. That is peanuts.

So they say they make $766.00 per month.

I'm a local truck driver, and a few years ago, a guy who works where I deliver to moved in a few doors down. I thought it was great having a new neighbor that I personally knew.

What I didn't know is that the house he was renting was not his. It was a HUD house. Now, he works and doesn't make a bad buck, so there is no way he could get a house with HUD. But his girlfriend didn't work, and she did. She has several children.

So yes, she gets the food stamps, welfare, Obama Care and all that, but she also gets rent from her boyfriend. Between what she gets from government and what her boyfriend gives her, she's not living too bad of a life for not working.

Then one day they moved. When I seen him at work, I asked him about it. Her concern was that they lived on a main street, and she didn't like it very much because of the kids. So HUD got her a new and bigger home in the same suburb on a nice quiet side street. Imagine that?

I worked with one guy who's wife worked at a convenience store. His wife was complaining about working all the time and struggling to make the bills and get ahead. Her coworker gave her some advice: she told his wife that she contacted social services and made claim her husband up and left. Of course, he didn't go anywhere. He made great money working at the auto plant. So he brought home a great income and benefits, she worked part-time, and government gave her all kinds of goodies because of her claim he left her with the kids. Between his income, her income, and government goodies, they are probably doing about $80,000 a year. But of course, government never checks into these things.

These accounts seem like bullshit. The government definitely does investigate fraud. I don't understand why you would assume they wouldn't. About 4% of food stamp funding is misused per year. 2% of the 4 is because of fraud. The other is casework error.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

These accounts seem like bullshit. The government definitely does investigate fraud. I don't understand why you would assume they wouldn't. About 4% of food stamp funding is misused per year. 2% of the 4 is because of fraud. The other is casework error.

Can I ask you something? How would you know this? I mean, unless the government posts an agent outside of each home to monitor activities, they have no idea. And given the tens of millions we have on these programs, do you know how many government workers it would take to investigate each one???

They have no choice but to accept the applicants claims.

I pickup and deliver to many companies around my area. Several of them use temporary services. They do this for two reasons: one is to adjust their workforce according to companies activity, and two is to tryout workers before they actually give them a full-time job.

When these places get busy, they ask their temporary help to work more hours. In most cases they refuse. Why? Because working more hours increases their yearly income, and doing that interferes with their government handouts. So they stay below their maximum income limit to continue getting SNAP's cards.

Of course the company never considers those people to offer a full-time job to, but a few do work even if it means losing benefits. Those are the people the company eventually offers full-time jobs to if available.

I'm sure there are all kinds of scams we don't know about, but they are there. Some of those temporary workers actually live together. They all collect SNAP's cards, and because they are so generous, they sell the ones they don't need. Five people living in an apartment can easily manage using only three SNAP's cards, so they sell the other two and split the profit.