To those saying flipping burgers or dunking fries deserves 15.00 per hour...

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree, it is our money and we have the only say of where we spend and where we invest. I like mom and pop stores and I try to stay away from the big box stores that send their deposits out of state or even the country. You pay more for mom and pop however, they offer some great human interchange.

I agree . I do this same .

As for my retirement . I don’t know exactly which companies im tied too since investments groups have all kinds of links . That’s the system that keeps ceos / boards rolling in obnoxious salaries .

If you don’t know where your money is going, that is your fault. Unite yourself from your groups and put in individual accounts. You are not a victim, neither is anyone else, when it comes to investing we all have choices and we all make choices.

Do you know the pay of the ceos where your money is at ?

I don't and I don't care either. The only thing I care about (or should care about) is my rate of growth. if a CEO is making five million a year and providing me with a good return, then I think it's great that he or she is making that kind of money.

But when a low level worker gets minimum wage you are all up in arms ?

Why would I be up in arms about a worker working for minimum wage?

 

[Humorme]

See my previous post.

I'm not "all over" any subject. If I describe the problem, people are yelling bleeding heart liberal and if I show the left where they are wrong, I'm a right winger.

In reality I'm neither. We have problems that are connected to a variety of issues. Some are social. Mommy lets her 20, 30, 40 year old and above to live in the basement rent free and draw some form of government assistance for most imaginary illnesses.

But, once these monsters are created, you can't fix the problem by kicking them off the welfare dole and later into prison for what is inevitable. We have millions of people that are really incapable of being "normal" due to things that they were born with. It is reported that 1 in 68 children today are born with autism:

How Many People Have Autism? | Achievement Center

This is only ONE disorder, among many, and a lot of those who have this disorder will not function to the level that they qualify for a regular job, but they can become self sufficient. Add this to the other disorders and handicaps that others have and we're talking a sizable amount of people.

The dead beat lazy asses that are 30 years old - and BTW, I know someone that fits this category... 30 years old, never finished high school, doesn't know how to drive and has never worked a job save of gigs like fast food and sandwich shops for minimum wage. The problem:

The kid's father was a freaking deadbeat. He rarely worked and lived off of the government and / or relatives. And now Mommy don't want her baby to do without. So she provides for him. Eventually he ends up in jail. Repeated visits to prison / jails aren't changing him.

So, my plan is to cut down on the drugs that doctors dispense. My plan is once a person goes to prison, we rehabilitate them. They get punished, but they get rehabilitated.

The only roads to early release is for accomplishing things... like getting a GED, some form of transferable job skills, drug / alcohol treatment while incarcerated, and getting rid of tattoos (eliminating the gang mentality.) Nobody leaves early without completion of these things.

The state could chip in as well, offering to give employers tax incentives to give those who got rehabilitated a second chance. There is much more to this, but I'll get strikethroughs to go into it on a thread.

I didn't mention left or right, I never said liberal or conservative, you did. So spare me your BS. I asked you what left or right talking points I was using and then you write a long long post that has nothing to do with you backing up what you accused me of. So again, what talking points left or right am I using? If you can't answer or you are wrong, that's okay, just be honest with me.

What is it, exactly, you want from me? Are you more interested in solving an issue or soothing your ego? Now, I have answered all of your questions. Do you have a problem with my stance on the issues?

I'm not here to play a personality game. I don't care who thinks they are right or wrong; the issue is, do you have any facts to back up your claims? I'm not going back and do your work for you.

What did you say that might lead anyone to piss you off to the point that you cannot focus on the issue? I'm going to make this easy for you. If you get offended because someone doesn't agree with you, ignore my posts. Just because we disagree and I don't participate in personality contests will never make you right. Ask around, when you get too childish, I can ignore you. Can you put on your big boy pants and ignore me if you don't have anything to carry your position with? ... I mean other than that childish you ignored me so I'm right bullshit???

It's very very simple, you stated

"Maybe you only see left v. right talking points and fail to see the big picture?" I am asking what left v. right talking points am I seeing and how am I failing to see the big picture?

I am not upset, I am not pissed, I am not disagreeing, for I don't understand what you mean by your statement. I am asking for you to clarify your statement. Can you clarify it?

You mentioned I "don't have anything to carry your position with?" What position am I carrying? Maybe I have missed big chunks of a conversation however I am not finding them. So all I am asking is to clarify your two statements. Is that okay that you clarify what you are saying? Thank you.

Dude, really? Okay, tell me your post number and I'll go back and read it. Look, I lead by example.

Did your see the guy that called me names and implied I was some kind of left wing, bleeding heart liberal - Hell, I don't recall what all of it was. I didn't my boxers in a bunch. I responded factually and let it go.

But, Dude for real if you let me get under your skin that easily, tell me what was said and I'll look at it. Nobody wants to ruin your Christmas.

I quoted exactly what you posted in my last post.

I didn't see the post calling you anything, nor is it relevant to me.

People have no ability to ruin a second of my life let alone a day or season, only I am responsible for that. I'm not sure why you think it bothers me, I just don't understand what you are saying and need a clarification. Pretty simple and easy, you seem to think it is a difficult thing to back up your statements.

I'm going to say this once again - rephrased - I know what I said. I don't know what YOU said as you did not reference YOUR post; therefore, I cannot clarify it any better than I did. Furthermore, I'm not motivated to search out 600 + posts.

If it don't apply to you, say so. Then move on. If you want something more, tell what post YOU said something in that I disagreed with.

 

[Humorme]

Explain why someone HAS to work for min wage. Your type say its all about choices. So make the choice not to apply. With barely a work ethic one can do better. Those co panies are awful places to work.

. Every company in America should be a place that any American wouldn't mind working for temporarily or even full time. Every company in America ought to treat their employees decent and fair. Companies stop with the lying already.

Companies don't open up to provide a livable wage and good benefits. Companies open up to provide a product or service for a profit. Opening up a business is not a social obligation. Opening up a business is for business.

The right always has a talking point until you put them on the spot. If you saw a Mexican behind the counter, you'd be advocating putting the owner in jail as if they had a duty to provide jobs for Americans only.

And, no, I'm not a liberal, so don't give me yet another pre-approved message from Richard Spencer.

You're not a liberal, but I'd bet you ARE a Communist.

What you Bolsheviks have done by deciding that YOU can set labor rates, rather than business owners, is priced the illegals out of the market.

What do you plan to do, outlaw automation?

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

 

[Humorme]

If someone came to a county and wanted a business license, I think that the county commission could say no if the business were not willing to pay their workers.

If the employer creates a job, but isn't going to pay people enough to maintain that area's standard of living, they should not be granted a business permit.

Then those businesses go to the next county that stays the hell out of their business and that county reaps in the tax revenue.

A few years ago our city was considering a huge minimum wage increase. They wanted it $15.00 an hour. Even the liberal council realized what a grave mistake that would have been. They voted it down because they knew businesses would flee Cleveland and reopen in the suburbs.

Since that was a failure, they tried to get the county to have a $15.00 an hour minimum wage. They too refused to go along with the idea for the same reason.

Asked and answered. If people cannot make a realistic wage, they will qualify for welfare, housing subsidies, AFDC, etc. Taxpayers will either pay higher taxes or 15 cents more a meal for a Big Mac.

You speak from an assumption that taxpayers have a responsibility to provide a certain lifestyle to others. That attitude is increasingly being questioned, and circumstances may well change.

I don't make any assumptions. The reality is there is no "right to welfare." That is the de jure / lawful / constitutional view. Liberals and Democrats think differently.

There is something else I want to say to you about this as well. I paid many tens of thousands of dollars into Socialist Security. The feds called it "contributions" though they took every dime by fraud, deceit and outright force. Now, they inform the American people that after they conned you out of all that money, you do not have any right to a plug nickel of it.

In my way of thinking, if you are so worried about some guy making a few more dollars for slaving his ass off in a low wage job, you should be concerned about the TRILLIONS the government is stealing via the fraudulent 16th Amendment.

Personally, I'm not "for" government welfare, but until the right learns a few things about what Rights are and where they come from, they will play games with the liberals until the Constitution won't be worth the paper it's written on - if that isn't the case already.

But, we cannot use the prisons for mental institutions. We cannot ignore the status quo and our part in creating what exists. AND, if you could take welfare off the table and think the people that can't make it without it would somehow blend into mainstream, then you should sue your brains for non-support.

We got here incrementally. Unless you know some group willing to do a Hell of a lot of ethnic cleansing and getting rid of the non-productive via mass hangings, you're pissing in the wind to think that mere cutting of welfare and related benefits is going to change the bottom line.

 

[Nosmo King]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

 

[Humorme]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

Conservatives may cry foul, but I'd say that is a critical, but (in a strict lawyerly way) semi-accurate portrayal of what the conservative position is.

The problem is, Democrats / left wingers don't have a better solution. Just today Ted Cruz was on the radio reminiscing about a conversation with Bernie Sanders. Cruz asked Sanders what the difference was between Democrats and Socialists on economic issues. Bernie is reputed to not have an answer.

Socialism is not the answer either and has failed every time it's been tried. Even communist China is adopting some free market principles. All we need is a position not yet considered.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

Nice straw man, Dawn Quixote.

Opposition to monopoly organizations such as the AFL-CIO who utterly corrupt the market is no more opposition to unions than opposing the government created and enforce monopoly of the Bell System in the 70's was opposition to commerce. Trusts and monopolies are destructive. You of the left decry monopolies in corporations but defend them in unions. It's just part of the ignorance and hypocrisy that defines the left.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives do want people to enjoy a livable wage. What we conservatives do not want is making all jobs a livable wage. Conservatives want people to make themselves worth more money--not government making them worth more money. As long as taxpayers subsidize people who don't want to try harder, why would they try harder??

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Labor is a commodity, and like all commodities, has a value. Forcing increased payment of labor does not make that labor more valuable, it's still worth the same, only you are paying more for it.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Of course not, but that was at a time when consumers supported unions. They don't today, and we are now in a global market. The American consumer is obsessed with "cheap." The cheaper the product, the more that product sells. You can't produce a cheap product with union labor. It just isn't possible.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

The current tax bill provides lower taxation for the lower middle-class, and more taxation for the higher middle-class. As FactCheck noted, middle-class is considered anywhere from above poverty to six figure incomes. In that class, 63% of those people will see a reduction in taxes on the lower end of that scale.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

It adds child credits, it keeps mortgage deductions for all that currently hold them, and those who buy homes in the future with under 500K loans will still receive those deductions. Those who purchase a home more than 500K (yes, those upper-class people) will no longer be able to write them off beyond 500K.

 

[Humorme]

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

 

[Humorme]

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives do want people to enjoy a livable wage. What we conservatives do not want is making all jobs a livable wage. Conservatives want people to make themselves worth more money--not government making them worth more money. As long as taxpayers subsidize people who don't want to try harder, why would they try harder??

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Labor is a commodity, and like all commodities, has a value. Forcing increased payment of labor does not make that labor more valuable, it's still worth the same, only you are paying more for it.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Of course not, but that was at a time when consumers supported unions. They don't today, and we are now in a global market. The American consumer is obsessed with "cheap." The cheaper the product, the more that product sells. You can't produce a cheap product with union labor. It just isn't possible.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

The current tax bill provides lower taxation for the lower middle-class, and more taxation for the higher middle-class. As FactCheck noted, middle-class is considered anywhere from above poverty to six figure incomes. In that class, 63% of those people will see a reduction in taxes on the lower end of that scale.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

It adds child credits, it keeps mortgage deductions for all that currently hold them, and those who buy homes in the future with under 500K loans will still receive those deductions. Those who purchase a home more than 500K (yes, those upper-class people) will no longer be able to write them off beyond 500K.

Have you actually read the tax bills yourself?

 

[Nosmo King]

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives do want people to enjoy a livable wage. What we conservatives do not want is making all jobs a livable wage. Conservatives want people to make themselves worth more money--not government making them worth more money. As long as taxpayers subsidize people who don't want to try harder, why would they try harder??

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Labor is a commodity, and like all commodities, has a value. Forcing increased payment of labor does not make that labor more valuable, it's still worth the same, only you are paying more for it.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Of course not, but that was at a time when consumers supported unions. They don't today, and we are now in a global market. The American consumer is obsessed with "cheap." The cheaper the product, the more that product sells. You can't produce a cheap product with union labor. It just isn't possible.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

The current tax bill provides lower taxation for the lower middle-class, and more taxation for the higher middle-class. As FactCheck noted, middle-class is considered anywhere from above poverty to six figure incomes. In that class, 63% of those people will see a reduction in taxes on the lower end of that scale.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

It adds child credits, it keeps mortgage deductions for all that currently hold them, and those who buy homes in the future with under 500K loans will still receive those deductions. Those who purchase a home more than 500K (yes, those upper-class people) will no longer be able to write them off beyond 500K.

That commodity, labor, does something no other commodity can possibly do. Namely, drive the economy. When there is more disposable capital in the hands of the most people, consumer spending drives demand.

How long have we been told the myth of supply side economics? When is the trickle supposed to start coming down?

Consumer spending drives the economy. Economics is defined by the exchange of capital for good and services. The rich can't possibly spend our economy into overdrive. The middle class can.

And what has resulted since the demonization of the unions? Some would argue the inevitable. Namely the greatest disparity in wages and incomes in our history.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

 

[Papageorgio]

I didn't mention left or right, I never said liberal or conservative, you did. So spare me your BS. I asked you what left or right talking points I was using and then you write a long long post that has nothing to do with you backing up what you accused me of. So again, what talking points left or right am I using? If you can't answer or you are wrong, that's okay, just be honest with me.

What is it, exactly, you want from me? Are you more interested in solving an issue or soothing your ego? Now, I have answered all of your questions. Do you have a problem with my stance on the issues?

I'm not here to play a personality game. I don't care who thinks they are right or wrong; the issue is, do you have any facts to back up your claims? I'm not going back and do your work for you.

What did you say that might lead anyone to piss you off to the point that you cannot focus on the issue? I'm going to make this easy for you. If you get offended because someone doesn't agree with you, ignore my posts. Just because we disagree and I don't participate in personality contests will never make you right. Ask around, when you get too childish, I can ignore you. Can you put on your big boy pants and ignore me if you don't have anything to carry your position with? ... I mean other than that childish you ignored me so I'm right bullshit???

It's very very simple, you stated

"Maybe you only see left v. right talking points and fail to see the big picture?" I am asking what left v. right talking points am I seeing and how am I failing to see the big picture?

I am not upset, I am not pissed, I am not disagreeing, for I don't understand what you mean by your statement. I am asking for you to clarify your statement. Can you clarify it?

You mentioned I "don't have anything to carry your position with?" What position am I carrying? Maybe I have missed big chunks of a conversation however I am not finding them. So all I am asking is to clarify your two statements. Is that okay that you clarify what you are saying? Thank you.

Dude, really? Okay, tell me your post number and I'll go back and read it. Look, I lead by example.

Did your see the guy that called me names and implied I was some kind of left wing, bleeding heart liberal - Hell, I don't recall what all of it was. I didn't my boxers in a bunch. I responded factually and let it go.

But, Dude for real if you let me get under your skin that easily, tell me what was said and I'll look at it. Nobody wants to ruin your Christmas.

I quoted exactly what you posted in my last post.

I didn't see the post calling you anything, nor is it relevant to me.

People have no ability to ruin a second of my life let alone a day or season, only I am responsible for that. I'm not sure why you think it bothers me, I just don't understand what you are saying and need a clarification. Pretty simple and easy, you seem to think it is a difficult thing to back up your statements.

I'm going to say this once again - rephrased - I know what I said. I don't know what YOU said as you did not reference YOUR post; therefore, I cannot clarify it any better than I did. Furthermore, I'm not motivated to search out 600 + posts.

If it don't apply to you, say so. Then move on. If you want something more, tell what post YOU said something in that I disagreed with.

I don’t know if applied to me since you won’t expound on the answer. You are the one that said it applied to me. I would think if you made the statement you would know what you meant. I guess not.

 

[Humorme]

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

Go fuck yourself. You're a smart ass and this thread was progressing right along until you came here with your asinine childishness. You can disagree without the name calling. And Heil Hitler to you too.

 

[Humorme]

What is it, exactly, you want from me? Are you more interested in solving an issue or soothing your ego? Now, I have answered all of your questions. Do you have a problem with my stance on the issues?

I'm not here to play a personality game. I don't care who thinks they are right or wrong; the issue is, do you have any facts to back up your claims? I'm not going back and do your work for you.

What did you say that might lead anyone to piss you off to the point that you cannot focus on the issue? I'm going to make this easy for you. If you get offended because someone doesn't agree with you, ignore my posts. Just because we disagree and I don't participate in personality contests will never make you right. Ask around, when you get too childish, I can ignore you. Can you put on your big boy pants and ignore me if you don't have anything to carry your position with? ... I mean other than that childish you ignored me so I'm right bullshit???

It's very very simple, you stated

"Maybe you only see left v. right talking points and fail to see the big picture?" I am asking what left v. right talking points am I seeing and how am I failing to see the big picture?

I am not upset, I am not pissed, I am not disagreeing, for I don't understand what you mean by your statement. I am asking for you to clarify your statement. Can you clarify it?

You mentioned I "don't have anything to carry your position with?" What position am I carrying? Maybe I have missed big chunks of a conversation however I am not finding them. So all I am asking is to clarify your two statements. Is that okay that you clarify what you are saying? Thank you.

Dude, really? Okay, tell me your post number and I'll go back and read it. Look, I lead by example.

Did your see the guy that called me names and implied I was some kind of left wing, bleeding heart liberal - Hell, I don't recall what all of it was. I didn't my boxers in a bunch. I responded factually and let it go.

But, Dude for real if you let me get under your skin that easily, tell me what was said and I'll look at it. Nobody wants to ruin your Christmas.

I quoted exactly what you posted in my last post.

I didn't see the post calling you anything, nor is it relevant to me.

People have no ability to ruin a second of my life let alone a day or season, only I am responsible for that. I'm not sure why you think it bothers me, I just don't understand what you are saying and need a clarification. Pretty simple and easy, you seem to think it is a difficult thing to back up your statements.

I'm going to say this once again - rephrased - I know what I said. I don't know what YOU said as you did not reference YOUR post; therefore, I cannot clarify it any better than I did. Furthermore, I'm not motivated to search out 600 + posts.

If it don't apply to you, say so. Then move on. If you want something more, tell what post YOU said something in that I disagreed with.

I don’t know if applied to me since you won’t expound on the answer. You are the one that said it applied to me. I would think if you made the statement you would know what you meant. I guess not.

You kept saying I said it to you and you've been acting like you're offended. Now you're backpedaling. What, exactly did you say?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

Go fuck yourself. You're a smart ass and this thread was progressing right along until you came here with your asinine childishness. You can disagree without the name calling. And Heil Hitler to you too.

So that would be "no" you are not interested in educating yourself with actual fact?

I'm shocked.....

 

[Liquid Reigns]

So that would be "no" you are not interested in educating yourself with actual fact?

I'm shocked.....

Ol'Humorme is a Libertarian Socialist, White Nationalist, Sovereign Citizen/Tax Protestor. He'll claim to have "Law experience", and could have won the Cheek Tax Protester case. In reality he doesn't have any education beyond his High School.

 

[Humorme]

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

Go fuck yourself. You're a smart ass and this thread was progressing right along until you came here with your asinine childishness. You can disagree without the name calling. And Heil Hitler to you too.

So that would be "no" you are not interested in educating yourself with actual fact?

I'm shocked.....

I doubt you have any facts. When you start out calling me a communist, it shows you are so far from reality you probably don't have a clue about anything.

Those of you claiming to have ALL the facts usually have none. So, do your strawman thing and move on. Got a problem with me personally? Take it up in PM. We're done here.

 

[Markle]

Did you know that the United States Supreme Court never reversed Dred Scott v Sanford?

That, as you know, was not necessary.

Brown vs The Board of Education reversed that decision.

First, that is a presumption. Secondly, a future court could determine that the 14th Amendment never met constitutional muster as it was illegally ratified.

According to one writer:

"It was never (Dred Scott)overturned. It was argued in appeals for 11 years. The decision actually unified the Northern states even more against slavery than before, and had the opposite effect of what the court thought would happen. The galvanization of the North lead directly to the Civil War. The aftermath of which, rendered the decision a moot point, with the passing of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Mr Scott died in 1857, just 1 year after the ruling of tuberculosis and never saw the effect of the case."

Was the Dred Scott decision overturned as a matter of law or just on an unimportant procedural ground?

Wear yourself out. I am extremely familiar with the Dred Scott decision and the Brown vs Board of Education decision. Obviously, you are not. I taught real estate for new licensees, new brokers, Fair Housing and Diversity for my local association, the State Association and the National Association.

I have no clue as to what point you are trying to make.

Once again....

Why are you afraid to answer my simple question? For your convenience, allow me to repost here:

Other than money, what is the single most important difference between a child being raised in poverty and a child being raised above the poverty level?