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

[Humorme]

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it.

False.

I stated the fact that labor is the commodity that workers sell.

If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

Synonyms are irrelevant. The definition of the word was supplied by Websters.

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

All men are free to trade to their advantage in a legal manner. If you wish to hire only black people, that is no one's business save your own. If you seek to hire illegal aliens, then you are violating the laws and engaged in a crime. I am not a Ricardian and I support the sovereignty of nations.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

Labor is a commodity that is sold by a worker.

Try again.

You are a liar. Post 893, you stated plain and simply in one sentence:

"Labor is a commodity."

With respect to the rest of your post, you feel that what is (i.e. hiring so - called "illegal aliens" is illegal) should carry weight, while calling me a socialist, primarily because I know what a lot of the statutes and case law says regarding welfare and the system's view about some perceived duty by government to keep people dependent on the government dole.

In other words, you like to have one set of measuring criteria and standards by which to judge yourself and another to judge me by.

You have all this education (SUPPOSEDLY) but you don't have enough common sense to avoid getting into pissing matches on the Internet with people you think are stupid. So, with your low opinion of me, what would it make you if you were starting arguments with idiots?

Your ignorance provides a canvas upon which I can and do illustrate the principles of liberty.

Simple as that.

Ever since your first post addressing me, you have tried to pretend that you have a monopoly on human virtue. You don't. Neither are you a fountain of knowledge. You are an angry little individual whose best hopes of becoming rich is to sue your brains for non-support.

You bitch about others being ignorant while you dedicate your life to derailing threads by picking board fights with people you've never met. You need to pull your head out of your ass. This notion that you have about saving people from ignorance is about as laughable as expecting the town drunk to bring his neighborhood to sobriety.

If you are so infantile that you cannot participate in a civil discussion, you should get the Hell off this forum. You're destroying a productive conversation. It is not necessary NOR is it educational or even entertaining to have to wade through your self promoting posts touting your imaginary superiority over the rest of us. I'm a little bit sick of it. What we're really seeing here is your childish inability to make a point without insulting other people. If you have a problem with me, I have a PM on this board.

There is no sense in you coming back, post after post, trying to assure posters that I'm an idiot and you can lead the rest of us to the promised land. What you're really saying is that you cannot make your points without denigrating others and you don't think that the rest of the people here are smart enough to discern what is worthy of being considered and what isn't. You don't have a point and you are deathly afraid to allow me to express mine. In other words, all of your bullshit is pure, outright, unadulterated fear that you would never utter in person. You fear that you don't have all the answers and you're right.

 

[beagle9]

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it. If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

This is true. It's what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can, so you go in the house and fetch that ham you planned on throwing out at the end of the week. The raccoon eats in delight knowing that you gave him the ham. But wait about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are quite aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give people something, it's rightfully theirs as far as they are concerned. Afterwards, nobody can take it away without getting their hand bit off.

You younger people on the left think that minimum wage was at one time something you could support yourself on. There is no truth to that. I'm pushing 60 now and I can tell you that was never the case. But back when I was younger, those who worked lower wage jobs just worked more hours, or worked two jobs to make ends meet. People back then had too much pride to go on a social program because doing so meant you were a failure in life. It also made people try harder to get themselves out of poverty conditions.

But we don't do that today, do we? If somebody can't make it on their own, there is no reason to try harder. Just go to Big Brother and demand they make up the difference of your failure. Never blame yourself, blame the employers instead.

. Where do you come up with some of the crap you spout Ray ?? No one and I mean no one has ever figured they could live on minimum wage. Everyone knows that a company has a right to start you working at minimum wage, and then place you on the ladder system in which you begin to climb. Now in some cases people can't climb the ladder because something is wrong, but you never hear a person like that complain because they haven't got the sense to complain about something they know nothing about, and are just glad to have the job. Everyone else in their right mind looks to move forward, and above minimum wage in a company that is worked for. The debate here is to determine if the minimum wage has fallen behind in most states, and then should governments step in to raise it or not ?

People that support government stepping in are talking about the minimum wage set high enough to "bring people out of poverty" and take them off of social programs. Others spout off about a "livable wage."

That's not what minimum wage is for and it's not supposed to "keep up" with the pace of other wages, inflation or cost of living. It's the lowest wage that an employer can pay.

In other words those who are complaining about how the MW fell behind are under some sort of delusion that MW in the past kept people off of social programs, out of poverty, and was a wage high enough to live on. It wasn't then and it isn't now.

MW people are about 3% of our workforce; most of them retirees, kids in school and people just looking to make extra money. The people who work minimum wage jobs that are trying to support themselves are a tiny fraction of that 3%, and there is no need to upset industry to cater to those few people.

. Ok Ray, so what you are saying is that minimum wage laws were created strictly for retirees, kids in school and people just looking to make extra money ? We needed laws created for that ?? If it was as simple as you put it Ray, then you would win the prize, but you won't win the prize today Ray. Now who is responsible for implementing minimum wage laws or enforcing them Ray ? You guessed it (state government does), so when you speak of someone stepping in, then aren't you being disengenuious at best here ? Now give us your idea of what the minimum wage in your state should be, and what is it now ? Does it need to be raised a little bit or lowered Ray ?

 

[beagle9]

Deflections are supposed to clear up your position? No.

You say workers are commodities and I'm following up on it. If you don't like the synonym, you try to put a definition of your own in there. AND you claim to be a Libertarian?

So, you should not have any objections to an employer hiring whomever they want... black, white, citizen, undocumented immigrant, atheist, or Christian fundamentalist. I'm simply working around your deflections and looking for some kind of consistency.

If a worker is a commodity (and I'm not making any judgements against you) then there should be no problem with hiring undocumented workers and / or ignoring anti-free market laws that exist under the pretext of civil rights forcing employers to hire people the employer don't want to hire for whatever reason.

If, on the other hand, you disagree with the above paragraph, it's up to you to straighten out the difference.

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

This is true. It's what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can, so you go in the house and fetch that ham you planned on throwing out at the end of the week. The raccoon eats in delight knowing that you gave him the ham. But wait about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are quite aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give people something, it's rightfully theirs as far as they are concerned. Afterwards, nobody can take it away without getting their hand bit off.

You younger people on the left think that minimum wage was at one time something you could support yourself on. There is no truth to that. I'm pushing 60 now and I can tell you that was never the case. But back when I was younger, those who worked lower wage jobs just worked more hours, or worked two jobs to make ends meet. People back then had too much pride to go on a social program because doing so meant you were a failure in life. It also made people try harder to get themselves out of poverty conditions.

But we don't do that today, do we? If somebody can't make it on their own, there is no reason to try harder. Just go to Big Brother and demand they make up the difference of your failure. Never blame yourself, blame the employers instead.

I'd concur with that to a point. At 14, coming from a broken home, I realized that I would have to work like a dog or become like other kids in my situation. A lot of them became street people, underachievers, etc.

I worked full time in a restaurant and went to school. I worked construction jobs and lots of stuff that was either seasonal or minimum wage, working nights week-ends, holidays, etc.

The disadvantage today's youth have are that too many parents are willing to let their children live at home, rent free, with no responsibilities and obligations. Having a wife with a son (by a previous marriage of course) that has never held a full time job for more than two months, never had a driver's license, never finished high school, and has never had to work in order to live I have an idea about what I'm talking about.

That POS gets a government check, food stamps (nowadays it is an EBT card) and lives in a tent. Anything he needs above what Uncle Scam gives him, mommy is there to give it to him. I allowed him to stay with us for a few months, but he'd stay up til the wee hours of the morning, sleep until 2 o'clock and every now and then "look" for a job in a wrinkled t shirt, pants that came to his knees and Doc Marten boots. His mother was content that "at least he's trying."

He's never going to go to work. He was sentenced to eight years for domestic violence and child endangerment. He's yet to do six weeks in jail after half of that sentence time has passed... and he's been arrested for shoplifting twice and possession of pot on another occasion IN THE SAME COUNTY HE WAS SENTENCED FOR THE FELONY!!!! He's doing a couple of weeks now for violation of probation (the third time I know of.)

This guy is not an anomaly. Consequently, I do not blame employers. I blame our system. My wife's son is like hundreds, if not thousands, of people around here doing the same thing.

Even if somebody gets through to this guy, he'll be damn lucky if anyone ever does give him a job - and I'm satisfied that he will never get a job. Criminal records, the lack of any employment history, no credit, etc. will put this guy and hundreds of thousands more like him into their graves, having never made a worthwhile contribution to society.

Welfare IS. And, even if you stopped it, you could not resolve the problems we have in society. Those addicted to welfare do not have the skills necessary to overcome their disadvantage. So, we as a society, should begin to learn why people are lazy and not producing. The two biggest culprits are government with phony disabilities like ADD / ADHD, etc. and the "legal" drugs they are hooking society on AND really dumbass parents that mollycoddle their kids and don't allow them to fail.

You have to put an emphasis on that, but when you take care of that, people have to make some kind of wage that allows them an opportunity to be able to live, independently of Uncle Scam and not have to rely on welfare for the difference between the low wages and what it takes to realistically live.

Yep. It's a free market. I'm all for it. But when employers don't pay people enough to live on, people will resort to welfare or crime. Those arguing against looking for ways to get employers to raise wages (and I've offered NON-SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS) will have to settle for socialism, the ultimate POLICE STATE (with NO Rights for the citizenry) OR you are going to have to consider ways to give employers options to encourage (NOT FORCE) employers to raise their wages.

I have a friend like that who's son is totally worthless. Been in prison twice already not to mention local jails, doesn't want to work and doesn't care all that much. He's had excuses why he can't work since he was a teen.

The problem is that for him, there is always someplace to go. If not a family member, a friend or something.

It's like they say about drugs or alcohol. Many people have to hit rock bottom before they finally do something to resolve the problems in their life. Like your wife's son, that bottom will never be hit because she's going to make sure that doesn't happen.

And what can "society" do about that? Nothing. The more you give them, the less they will try and that's not helping the situation either.

. Ray, minimum wage isn't designed to solve life's problems, but it is there to make sure that a company doesn't try to exploit the bottom rungs of the start up ladder or to get government/taxpayers subsidizing the employees pay with welfare programs while a company takes advantage of the lack of responsibility on governments part to protect the citizens to some degree or in some small extent found in a not so intrusive way. I think the government has been good about keeping it small as far as not dictating to much in the forms of minimum wage expectations to be written into law.

 

[Humorme]

Sixty percent of households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes:

60% Of Households Get More Benefits Than They Pay In Taxes

So, the haves can pay more in taxes than they can pay in wages? And, if we cut entitlements completely out, the have nots still could not afford to live. Crime would go up and the people would petition for a bigger government (more gun control, more prisons, more lost Liberties - 24 - 7 - 365 womb to the tomb surveillance.)

I'd still rather to give employers more options to pay more in wages and less in taxes. At the end of the day, paying more in wages would be much more beneficial to society as a whole... unless wage increases were mandated by the government.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

So then I assume you object to patents just as stringently as you object to borders and national sovereignty? After all, why should Chinese counterfeiters be blocked from the "free" market by something as simple as a patent?


Reference back to my prior posts, which you lacked the intellect to grasp.

Governments are formed among free men to secure natural rights. Among the most important right is that of property. Obviously you don't believe in private property. Intellectual property is protected by patents, national property is protected by borders.

You advocate that borders be ignored, that all may trespass on the property of others at will.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

Borders protect the property rights of the legitimate inhabitants of a nation.

That you seek one world government is irrelevant to the need of a sovereign nation to secure the property rights of the citizens of that nation.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

If your concern is the transfer of American wealth to Mexico, why not advocate for direct payments rather than this convoluted scheme to displace American workers with third world peasants who accept a vastly lower standard of living?

Unless of course your goal is to retard the standard of living for American workers?

The left often decries the collapse of unions and blames Republicans. But of course it was open borders that destroyed the unions, it was hordes of illegal aliens who accept a dramatically lower standard of living that broke the back of organized labor and began to push down the standard of living for Americans.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

There is right and wrong. Your desire to destroy the property rights of Americans, to force a significant decline in the standard of living for the once middle, but now under-class is a prime example of "wrong."

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Sixty percent of households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes:

60% Of Households Get More Benefits Than They Pay In Taxes

So, the haves can pay more in taxes than they can pay in wages? And, if we cut entitlements completely out, the have nots still could not afford to live. Crime would go up and the people would petition for a bigger government (more gun control, more prisons, more lost Liberties - 24 - 7 - 365 womb to the tomb surveillance.)

I'd still rather to give employers more options to pay more in wages and less in taxes. At the end of the day, paying more in wages would be much more beneficial to society as a whole... unless wage increases were mandated by the government.

What liberties have you lost? And since you are part of that 60%, what will happen to you? Why not simply cut payroll taxes on the employees side instead? Why are you advocating govt mandated wages to begin with? What do you think tax breaks for employers is if not govt mandated?

You're all over the map and make zero since. When questioned you completely ignore any discussion.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

You can not get rid of poverty, it will be in each and every economic theory. Now what is a realistc wage? By mandating either a living wage/realistic wage, or thinking you are getting rid of poverty, where does inflation go? You rail about lesser govt, yet here you are trying to increase govt.

 

[Humorme]

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

So then I assume you object to patents just as stringently as you object to borders and national sovereignty? After all, why should Chinese counterfeiters be blocked from the "free" market by something as simple as a patent?


Reference back to my prior posts, which you lacked the intellect to grasp.

Governments are formed among free men to secure natural rights. Among the most important right is that of property. Obviously you don't believe in private property. Intellectual property is protected by patents, national property is protected by borders.

You advocate that borders be ignored, that all may trespass on the property of others at will.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

Borders protect the property rights of the legitimate inhabitants of a nation.

That you seek one world government is irrelevant to the need of a sovereign nation to secure the property rights of the citizens of that nation.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

If your concern is the transfer of American wealth to Mexico, why not advocate for direct payments rather than this convoluted scheme to displace American workers with third world peasants who accept a vastly lower standard of living?

Unless of course your goal is to retard the standard of living for American workers?

The left often decries the collapse of unions and blames Republicans. But of course it was open borders that destroyed the unions, it was hordes of illegal aliens who accept a dramatically lower standard of living that broke the back of organized labor and began to push down the standard of living for Americans.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

There is right and wrong. Your desire to destroy the property rights of Americans, to force a significant decline in the standard of living for the once middle, but now under-class is a prime example of "wrong."

Now we're going to make this a pissing contest about what I said and did not say???

Now you're going to LIE about what I advocated and turn this into an immigration thread? You mean you are so insecure at this juncture that you want to misrepresent me to the point that you think that load of horseshit deserves a serious response?

Oh Hell yeah, you're the only defender of Liberty on this board. You are Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, and Nathan Hale bundled into one package.

For those of you who have actually READ this thread, I posited the fact that the right wants to put a wall around the United States under the pretext of government saving jobs from so - called "illegal aliens." It does NOT have me advocating one way or another on the issue. I'm pointing out that this is their pretext. Uncensored is creating multiple straw man arguments.

Truly, if someone were libertarian in their thought process, they would not object to an employer giving a job to whomever they think can work the job and do what the employer wants to get done at the price the employer can or be willing to pay. Uncensored pretends he's your knight on shining armor, but he is too ignorant to realize that a job belongs to the employer that creates it. So much for him being a champion of private property rights. A job belongs to an employer for the same reason that a song belongs to the songwriter that creates it.

I'm not saying any of you should like that or agree with it, but once you have gotten into the realm of telling an employer who they can and cannot hire, you've run out of legitimate reasons that you can't tell the employer how much they have to pay their employees.

I'm not advocating either position and Uncensored's lack of reading skills doth testify against him. I'm saying that if you give the employer the leeway, the employer gets to choose whether to retain the Right to hire whomever they want OR get substantial breaks to hire Americans and pay them a realistic wage. I think that such a system would reveal in a few years which position is really the most profitable.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There are things society can do. When parents are enabling their kids and the taxpayers are left holding the bag, you have an addressable situation. Since we're both agreed, when parents are aiding in this kind of destructive behavior, we should put the proposal out there to make it a crime wherein we label it abuse of some sort or another.

At the other end of the spectrum, we can do something when people get incarcerated by taking that opportunity to give those dependent upon the system the ability to become self sufficient.

All that talk about losing liberties, yet here you are advocating more laws that will remove a parents liberty to help their own child and increase the size of govt. SMFH

You are nothing more than a libertarian socialist.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, the haves can pay more in taxes than they can pay in wages? And, if we cut entitlements completely out, the have nots still could not afford to live. Crime would go up and the people would petition for a bigger government (more gun control, more prisons, more lost Liberties - 24 - 7 - 365 womb to the tomb surveillance.)

You realize this was the exact same argument the left made after welfare reform was passed in the 90's, don't you? It never happened, So what did happen? People got jobs, the government provided some training for jobs, families stayed together longer, people said they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. Birth rate slowed down because people had to start providing some support for their children.

You don't have a lot of confidence in your fellow citizen, do you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

This is true. It's what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can, so you go in the house and fetch that ham you planned on throwing out at the end of the week. The raccoon eats in delight knowing that you gave him the ham. But wait about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are quite aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give people something, it's rightfully theirs as far as they are concerned. Afterwards, nobody can take it away without getting their hand bit off.

You younger people on the left think that minimum wage was at one time something you could support yourself on. There is no truth to that. I'm pushing 60 now and I can tell you that was never the case. But back when I was younger, those who worked lower wage jobs just worked more hours, or worked two jobs to make ends meet. People back then had too much pride to go on a social program because doing so meant you were a failure in life. It also made people try harder to get themselves out of poverty conditions.

But we don't do that today, do we? If somebody can't make it on their own, there is no reason to try harder. Just go to Big Brother and demand they make up the difference of your failure. Never blame yourself, blame the employers instead.

. Where do you come up with some of the crap you spout Ray ?? No one and I mean no one has ever figured they could live on minimum wage. Everyone knows that a company has a right to start you working at minimum wage, and then place you on the ladder system in which you begin to climb. Now in some cases people can't climb the ladder because something is wrong, but you never hear a person like that complain because they haven't got the sense to complain about something they know nothing about, and are just glad to have the job. Everyone else in their right mind looks to move forward, and above minimum wage in a company that is worked for. The debate here is to determine if the minimum wage has fallen behind in most states, and then should governments step in to raise it or not ?

People that support government stepping in are talking about the minimum wage set high enough to "bring people out of poverty" and take them off of social programs. Others spout off about a "livable wage."

That's not what minimum wage is for and it's not supposed to "keep up" with the pace of other wages, inflation or cost of living. It's the lowest wage that an employer can pay.

In other words those who are complaining about how the MW fell behind are under some sort of delusion that MW in the past kept people off of social programs, out of poverty, and was a wage high enough to live on. It wasn't then and it isn't now.

MW people are about 3% of our workforce; most of them retirees, kids in school and people just looking to make extra money. The people who work minimum wage jobs that are trying to support themselves are a tiny fraction of that 3%, and there is no need to upset industry to cater to those few people.

. Ok Ray, so what you are saying is that minimum wage laws were created strictly for retirees, kids in school and people just looking to make extra money ? We needed laws created for that ?? If it was as simple as you put it Ray, then you would win the prize, but you won't win the prize today Ray. Now who is responsible for implementing minimum wage laws or enforcing them Ray ? You guessed it (state government does), so when you speak of someone stepping in, then aren't you being disengenuious at best here ? Now give us your idea of what the minimum wage in your state should be, and what is it now ? Does it need to be raised a little bit or lowered Ray ?

I'm for leaving it alone and let the market decide.

We didn't always have these generous social programs you know. We didn't have such an educated society. We didn't always have options especially when jobs were scarce and YOU DID take anything that paid something.

So back in the late 30's, they came up with MW so that employers could not exploit people during bad times. That was at a time when the only source of income was a job.

Fast forward to today, and industrial areas are loaded with HELP WANTED signs. Restaurants like McDonald's got so desperate that they made applications out of their tray mats so everybody could see they are looking for help. Fields of work (such as mine) are dying because they can't find Americans to do the job. And while some may not be in the position to afford college, trade schools are reasonably priced and government will help out with a loan if needed.

Minimum wage is of no more use today than the horse and carriage. It was good for it's time and had a target in mind. Today, it's just a political tool and is pretty much useless since most places pay above minimum wage even for a young person that never worked in their life.

What I get irritated with is that this country has to turn everything upside down for a tiny group of our society. One-seventh of our society didn't have health insurance, so the government screwed that up for the entire country, and we still have uninsured people. Transgender people represent one sixth of 1% of our society, so DumBama tried to force schools into letting weirdos into our daughters bathrooms and showers, and even extended that to our military.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's as ridiculous as saying people should be able to sell coke and heroin because they too are commodities. There are legal commodities and illegal commodities. Illegal aliens are not part of our society. They shouldn't be working here, living here, getting medical treatment here, or going to our schools here. They are not commodities, they are invaders.

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

This is true. It's what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can, so you go in the house and fetch that ham you planned on throwing out at the end of the week. The raccoon eats in delight knowing that you gave him the ham. But wait about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are quite aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give people something, it's rightfully theirs as far as they are concerned. Afterwards, nobody can take it away without getting their hand bit off.

You younger people on the left think that minimum wage was at one time something you could support yourself on. There is no truth to that. I'm pushing 60 now and I can tell you that was never the case. But back when I was younger, those who worked lower wage jobs just worked more hours, or worked two jobs to make ends meet. People back then had too much pride to go on a social program because doing so meant you were a failure in life. It also made people try harder to get themselves out of poverty conditions.

But we don't do that today, do we? If somebody can't make it on their own, there is no reason to try harder. Just go to Big Brother and demand they make up the difference of your failure. Never blame yourself, blame the employers instead.

I'd concur with that to a point. At 14, coming from a broken home, I realized that I would have to work like a dog or become like other kids in my situation. A lot of them became street people, underachievers, etc.

I worked full time in a restaurant and went to school. I worked construction jobs and lots of stuff that was either seasonal or minimum wage, working nights week-ends, holidays, etc.

The disadvantage today's youth have are that too many parents are willing to let their children live at home, rent free, with no responsibilities and obligations. Having a wife with a son (by a previous marriage of course) that has never held a full time job for more than two months, never had a driver's license, never finished high school, and has never had to work in order to live I have an idea about what I'm talking about.

That POS gets a government check, food stamps (nowadays it is an EBT card) and lives in a tent. Anything he needs above what Uncle Scam gives him, mommy is there to give it to him. I allowed him to stay with us for a few months, but he'd stay up til the wee hours of the morning, sleep until 2 o'clock and every now and then "look" for a job in a wrinkled t shirt, pants that came to his knees and Doc Marten boots. His mother was content that "at least he's trying."

He's never going to go to work. He was sentenced to eight years for domestic violence and child endangerment. He's yet to do six weeks in jail after half of that sentence time has passed... and he's been arrested for shoplifting twice and possession of pot on another occasion IN THE SAME COUNTY HE WAS SENTENCED FOR THE FELONY!!!! He's doing a couple of weeks now for violation of probation (the third time I know of.)

This guy is not an anomaly. Consequently, I do not blame employers. I blame our system. My wife's son is like hundreds, if not thousands, of people around here doing the same thing.

Even if somebody gets through to this guy, he'll be damn lucky if anyone ever does give him a job - and I'm satisfied that he will never get a job. Criminal records, the lack of any employment history, no credit, etc. will put this guy and hundreds of thousands more like him into their graves, having never made a worthwhile contribution to society.

Welfare IS. And, even if you stopped it, you could not resolve the problems we have in society. Those addicted to welfare do not have the skills necessary to overcome their disadvantage. So, we as a society, should begin to learn why people are lazy and not producing. The two biggest culprits are government with phony disabilities like ADD / ADHD, etc. and the "legal" drugs they are hooking society on AND really dumbass parents that mollycoddle their kids and don't allow them to fail.

You have to put an emphasis on that, but when you take care of that, people have to make some kind of wage that allows them an opportunity to be able to live, independently of Uncle Scam and not have to rely on welfare for the difference between the low wages and what it takes to realistically live.

Yep. It's a free market. I'm all for it. But when employers don't pay people enough to live on, people will resort to welfare or crime. Those arguing against looking for ways to get employers to raise wages (and I've offered NON-SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS) will have to settle for socialism, the ultimate POLICE STATE (with NO Rights for the citizenry) OR you are going to have to consider ways to give employers options to encourage (NOT FORCE) employers to raise their wages.

I have a friend like that who's son is totally worthless. Been in prison twice already not to mention local jails, doesn't want to work and doesn't care all that much. He's had excuses why he can't work since he was a teen.

The problem is that for him, there is always someplace to go. If not a family member, a friend or something.

It's like they say about drugs or alcohol. Many people have to hit rock bottom before they finally do something to resolve the problems in their life. Like your wife's son, that bottom will never be hit because she's going to make sure that doesn't happen.

And what can "society" do about that? Nothing. The more you give them, the less they will try and that's not helping the situation either.

There are things society can do. When parents are enabling their kids and the taxpayers are left holding the bag, you have an addressable situation. Since we're both agreed, when parents are aiding in this kind of destructive behavior, we should put the proposal out there to make it a crime wherein we label it abuse of some sort or another.

At the other end of the spectrum, we can do something when people get incarcerated by taking that opportunity to give those dependent upon the system the ability to become self sufficient.

And how do you propose we do that, by forcing employers to hire ex-cons?

I rented to ex-cons twice since I became a landlord almost 25 years ago. One almost burned down one of my houses to the ground. Over 80K in damages. My insurance company dropped my policies on all my rental units and I couldn't get insurance for 3 years. I had to use a state program during that time.

Another one was a remodeler who was locked up because of drugs. A very talented man who wanted to do some remodeling in his rental unit. He ripped down a wall, tore the plumbing out of the bathroom, went back on drugs and left it that way until I evicted him because of non-payment of rent. That was a pricy problem to fix.

So now because of experience, I won't rent to a convicted felon. They are nothing but problems I don't need in my life. I'm sure employers who gave jobs to convicted felons had the same results.

 

[Humorme]

So, the haves can pay more in taxes than they can pay in wages? And, if we cut entitlements completely out, the have nots still could not afford to live. Crime would go up and the people would petition for a bigger government (more gun control, more prisons, more lost Liberties - 24 - 7 - 365 womb to the tomb surveillance.)

You realize this was the exact same argument the left made after welfare reform was passed in the 90's, don't you? It never happened, So what did happen? People got jobs, the government provided some training for jobs, families stayed together longer, people said they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. Birth rate slowed down because people had to start providing some support for their children.

You don't have a lot of confidence in your fellow citizen, do you?

Do you live in a vacuum? Our prison population has increased every year for a long time. Let's take the time period you cited:

Between 1990 and 2002 the federal prison population increased 153%! I won't even began to tell you what was going on at the local and state levels.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/1044.pdf


What really happened? More people started going to prison; the numbers of people on drugs went up. The recidivism rate in prisons went up.

Again, nice try at misrepresenting my position. I'm for reducing welfare. I'm also for taking steps to make sure people, including employers have options. Under my proposal, after a couple of years, you could see how many employers are paying the current rate of taxes and which ones opt for paying less taxes in exchange for helping Americans get jobs that pay a realistic wage.

Then you would have the real answer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, the haves can pay more in taxes than they can pay in wages? And, if we cut entitlements completely out, the have nots still could not afford to live. Crime would go up and the people would petition for a bigger government (more gun control, more prisons, more lost Liberties - 24 - 7 - 365 womb to the tomb surveillance.)

You realize this was the exact same argument the left made after welfare reform was passed in the 90's, don't you? It never happened, So what did happen? People got jobs, the government provided some training for jobs, families stayed together longer, people said they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. Birth rate slowed down because people had to start providing some support for their children.

You don't have a lot of confidence in your fellow citizen, do you?

Do you live in a vacuum? Our prison population has increased every year for a long time. Let's take the time period you cited:

Between 1990 and 2002 the federal prison population increased 153%! I won't even began to tell you what was going on at the local and state levels.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/1044.pdf


What really happened? More people started going to prison; the numbers of people on drugs went up. The recidivism rate in prisons went up.

Again, nice try at misrepresenting my position. I'm for reducing welfare. I'm also for taking steps to make sure people, including employers have options. Under my proposal, after a couple of years, you could see how many employers are paying the current rate of taxes and which ones opt for paying less taxes in exchange for helping Americans get jobs that pay a realistic wage.

Then you would have the real answer.

Your theory holds no water. Welfare reform was signed in August of 1996 which means the program didn't even get into swing until around late 1997 to 1998. Our prison population was already increasing at rapid levels before anything with welfare reform happened:

 

[Humorme]

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

This is true. It's what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can, so you go in the house and fetch that ham you planned on throwing out at the end of the week. The raccoon eats in delight knowing that you gave him the ham. But wait about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are quite aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give people something, it's rightfully theirs as far as they are concerned. Afterwards, nobody can take it away without getting their hand bit off.

You younger people on the left think that minimum wage was at one time something you could support yourself on. There is no truth to that. I'm pushing 60 now and I can tell you that was never the case. But back when I was younger, those who worked lower wage jobs just worked more hours, or worked two jobs to make ends meet. People back then had too much pride to go on a social program because doing so meant you were a failure in life. It also made people try harder to get themselves out of poverty conditions.

But we don't do that today, do we? If somebody can't make it on their own, there is no reason to try harder. Just go to Big Brother and demand they make up the difference of your failure. Never blame yourself, blame the employers instead.

I'd concur with that to a point. At 14, coming from a broken home, I realized that I would have to work like a dog or become like other kids in my situation. A lot of them became street people, underachievers, etc.

I worked full time in a restaurant and went to school. I worked construction jobs and lots of stuff that was either seasonal or minimum wage, working nights week-ends, holidays, etc.

The disadvantage today's youth have are that too many parents are willing to let their children live at home, rent free, with no responsibilities and obligations. Having a wife with a son (by a previous marriage of course) that has never held a full time job for more than two months, never had a driver's license, never finished high school, and has never had to work in order to live I have an idea about what I'm talking about.

That POS gets a government check, food stamps (nowadays it is an EBT card) and lives in a tent. Anything he needs above what Uncle Scam gives him, mommy is there to give it to him. I allowed him to stay with us for a few months, but he'd stay up til the wee hours of the morning, sleep until 2 o'clock and every now and then "look" for a job in a wrinkled t shirt, pants that came to his knees and Doc Marten boots. His mother was content that "at least he's trying."

He's never going to go to work. He was sentenced to eight years for domestic violence and child endangerment. He's yet to do six weeks in jail after half of that sentence time has passed... and he's been arrested for shoplifting twice and possession of pot on another occasion IN THE SAME COUNTY HE WAS SENTENCED FOR THE FELONY!!!! He's doing a couple of weeks now for violation of probation (the third time I know of.)

This guy is not an anomaly. Consequently, I do not blame employers. I blame our system. My wife's son is like hundreds, if not thousands, of people around here doing the same thing.

Even if somebody gets through to this guy, he'll be damn lucky if anyone ever does give him a job - and I'm satisfied that he will never get a job. Criminal records, the lack of any employment history, no credit, etc. will put this guy and hundreds of thousands more like him into their graves, having never made a worthwhile contribution to society.

Welfare IS. And, even if you stopped it, you could not resolve the problems we have in society. Those addicted to welfare do not have the skills necessary to overcome their disadvantage. So, we as a society, should begin to learn why people are lazy and not producing. The two biggest culprits are government with phony disabilities like ADD / ADHD, etc. and the "legal" drugs they are hooking society on AND really dumbass parents that mollycoddle their kids and don't allow them to fail.

You have to put an emphasis on that, but when you take care of that, people have to make some kind of wage that allows them an opportunity to be able to live, independently of Uncle Scam and not have to rely on welfare for the difference between the low wages and what it takes to realistically live.

Yep. It's a free market. I'm all for it. But when employers don't pay people enough to live on, people will resort to welfare or crime. Those arguing against looking for ways to get employers to raise wages (and I've offered NON-SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS) will have to settle for socialism, the ultimate POLICE STATE (with NO Rights for the citizenry) OR you are going to have to consider ways to give employers options to encourage (NOT FORCE) employers to raise their wages.

I have a friend like that who's son is totally worthless. Been in prison twice already not to mention local jails, doesn't want to work and doesn't care all that much. He's had excuses why he can't work since he was a teen.

The problem is that for him, there is always someplace to go. If not a family member, a friend or something.

It's like they say about drugs or alcohol. Many people have to hit rock bottom before they finally do something to resolve the problems in their life. Like your wife's son, that bottom will never be hit because she's going to make sure that doesn't happen.

And what can "society" do about that? Nothing. The more you give them, the less they will try and that's not helping the situation either.

There are things society can do. When parents are enabling their kids and the taxpayers are left holding the bag, you have an addressable situation. Since we're both agreed, when parents are aiding in this kind of destructive behavior, we should put the proposal out there to make it a crime wherein we label it abuse of some sort or another.

At the other end of the spectrum, we can do something when people get incarcerated by taking that opportunity to give those dependent upon the system the ability to become self sufficient.

And how do you propose we do that, by forcing employers to hire ex-cons?

I rented to ex-cons twice since I became a landlord almost 25 years ago. One almost burned down one of my houses to the ground. Over 80K in damages. My insurance company dropped my policies on all my rental units and I couldn't get insurance for 3 years. I had to use a state program during that time.

Another one was a remodeler who was locked up because of drugs. A very talented man who wanted to do some remodeling in his rental unit. He ripped down a wall, tore the plumbing out of the bathroom, went back on drugs and left it that way until I evicted him because of non-payment of rent. That was a pricy problem to fix.

So now because of experience, I won't rent to a convicted felon. They are nothing but problems I don't need in my life. I'm sure employers who gave jobs to convicted felons had the same results.

If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?

I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING

I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)

Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is true. It's what I call my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can, so you go in the house and fetch that ham you planned on throwing out at the end of the week. The raccoon eats in delight knowing that you gave him the ham. But wait about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are quite aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give people something, it's rightfully theirs as far as they are concerned. Afterwards, nobody can take it away without getting their hand bit off.

You younger people on the left think that minimum wage was at one time something you could support yourself on. There is no truth to that. I'm pushing 60 now and I can tell you that was never the case. But back when I was younger, those who worked lower wage jobs just worked more hours, or worked two jobs to make ends meet. People back then had too much pride to go on a social program because doing so meant you were a failure in life. It also made people try harder to get themselves out of poverty conditions.

But we don't do that today, do we? If somebody can't make it on their own, there is no reason to try harder. Just go to Big Brother and demand they make up the difference of your failure. Never blame yourself, blame the employers instead.

I'd concur with that to a point. At 14, coming from a broken home, I realized that I would have to work like a dog or become like other kids in my situation. A lot of them became street people, underachievers, etc.

I worked full time in a restaurant and went to school. I worked construction jobs and lots of stuff that was either seasonal or minimum wage, working nights week-ends, holidays, etc.

The disadvantage today's youth have are that too many parents are willing to let their children live at home, rent free, with no responsibilities and obligations. Having a wife with a son (by a previous marriage of course) that has never held a full time job for more than two months, never had a driver's license, never finished high school, and has never had to work in order to live I have an idea about what I'm talking about.

That POS gets a government check, food stamps (nowadays it is an EBT card) and lives in a tent. Anything he needs above what Uncle Scam gives him, mommy is there to give it to him. I allowed him to stay with us for a few months, but he'd stay up til the wee hours of the morning, sleep until 2 o'clock and every now and then "look" for a job in a wrinkled t shirt, pants that came to his knees and Doc Marten boots. His mother was content that "at least he's trying."

He's never going to go to work. He was sentenced to eight years for domestic violence and child endangerment. He's yet to do six weeks in jail after half of that sentence time has passed... and he's been arrested for shoplifting twice and possession of pot on another occasion IN THE SAME COUNTY HE WAS SENTENCED FOR THE FELONY!!!! He's doing a couple of weeks now for violation of probation (the third time I know of.)

This guy is not an anomaly. Consequently, I do not blame employers. I blame our system. My wife's son is like hundreds, if not thousands, of people around here doing the same thing.

Even if somebody gets through to this guy, he'll be damn lucky if anyone ever does give him a job - and I'm satisfied that he will never get a job. Criminal records, the lack of any employment history, no credit, etc. will put this guy and hundreds of thousands more like him into their graves, having never made a worthwhile contribution to society.

Welfare IS. And, even if you stopped it, you could not resolve the problems we have in society. Those addicted to welfare do not have the skills necessary to overcome their disadvantage. So, we as a society, should begin to learn why people are lazy and not producing. The two biggest culprits are government with phony disabilities like ADD / ADHD, etc. and the "legal" drugs they are hooking society on AND really dumbass parents that mollycoddle their kids and don't allow them to fail.

You have to put an emphasis on that, but when you take care of that, people have to make some kind of wage that allows them an opportunity to be able to live, independently of Uncle Scam and not have to rely on welfare for the difference between the low wages and what it takes to realistically live.

Yep. It's a free market. I'm all for it. But when employers don't pay people enough to live on, people will resort to welfare or crime. Those arguing against looking for ways to get employers to raise wages (and I've offered NON-SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS) will have to settle for socialism, the ultimate POLICE STATE (with NO Rights for the citizenry) OR you are going to have to consider ways to give employers options to encourage (NOT FORCE) employers to raise their wages.

I have a friend like that who's son is totally worthless. Been in prison twice already not to mention local jails, doesn't want to work and doesn't care all that much. He's had excuses why he can't work since he was a teen.

The problem is that for him, there is always someplace to go. If not a family member, a friend or something.

It's like they say about drugs or alcohol. Many people have to hit rock bottom before they finally do something to resolve the problems in their life. Like your wife's son, that bottom will never be hit because she's going to make sure that doesn't happen.

And what can "society" do about that? Nothing. The more you give them, the less they will try and that's not helping the situation either.

There are things society can do. When parents are enabling their kids and the taxpayers are left holding the bag, you have an addressable situation. Since we're both agreed, when parents are aiding in this kind of destructive behavior, we should put the proposal out there to make it a crime wherein we label it abuse of some sort or another.

At the other end of the spectrum, we can do something when people get incarcerated by taking that opportunity to give those dependent upon the system the ability to become self sufficient.

And how do you propose we do that, by forcing employers to hire ex-cons?

I rented to ex-cons twice since I became a landlord almost 25 years ago. One almost burned down one of my houses to the ground. Over 80K in damages. My insurance company dropped my policies on all my rental units and I couldn't get insurance for 3 years. I had to use a state program during that time.

Another one was a remodeler who was locked up because of drugs. A very talented man who wanted to do some remodeling in his rental unit. He ripped down a wall, tore the plumbing out of the bathroom, went back on drugs and left it that way until I evicted him because of non-payment of rent. That was a pricy problem to fix.

So now because of experience, I won't rent to a convicted felon. They are nothing but problems I don't need in my life. I'm sure employers who gave jobs to convicted felons had the same results.

If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?

I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING

I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)

Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.

That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.

It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.

 

[Humorme]

So, the haves can pay more in taxes than they can pay in wages? And, if we cut entitlements completely out, the have nots still could not afford to live. Crime would go up and the people would petition for a bigger government (more gun control, more prisons, more lost Liberties - 24 - 7 - 365 womb to the tomb surveillance.)

You realize this was the exact same argument the left made after welfare reform was passed in the 90's, don't you? It never happened, So what did happen? People got jobs, the government provided some training for jobs, families stayed together longer, people said they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. Birth rate slowed down because people had to start providing some support for their children.

You don't have a lot of confidence in your fellow citizen, do you?

Do you live in a vacuum? Our prison population has increased every year for a long time. Let's take the time period you cited:

Between 1990 and 2002 the federal prison population increased 153%! I won't even began to tell you what was going on at the local and state levels.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/1044.pdf


What really happened? More people started going to prison; the numbers of people on drugs went up. The recidivism rate in prisons went up.

Again, nice try at misrepresenting my position. I'm for reducing welfare. I'm also for taking steps to make sure people, including employers have options. Under my proposal, after a couple of years, you could see how many employers are paying the current rate of taxes and which ones opt for paying less taxes in exchange for helping Americans get jobs that pay a realistic wage.

Then you would have the real answer.

Your theory holds no water. Welfare reform was signed in August of 1996 which means the program didn't even get into swing until around late 1997 to 1998. Our prison population was already increasing at rapid levels before anything with welfare reform happened:

View attachment 165296

OMG, I cited the 1990s because YOU brought them up. Now you want to change the parameters?

Look, dude, let's make this simple. If you're right, then your side controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They will pass the requisite bills and in the next election, Trump will be re-elected.

But, the reality is, whether you're talking Bush administrations, Clinton administrations, Obama or Trump, the situation has gotten worse and worse. I don't offer a theory. What I offer is a plan to see which position will increase the pay of American workers.

 

[Humorme]

I'd concur with that to a point. At 14, coming from a broken home, I realized that I would have to work like a dog or become like other kids in my situation. A lot of them became street people, underachievers, etc.

I worked full time in a restaurant and went to school. I worked construction jobs and lots of stuff that was either seasonal or minimum wage, working nights week-ends, holidays, etc.

The disadvantage today's youth have are that too many parents are willing to let their children live at home, rent free, with no responsibilities and obligations. Having a wife with a son (by a previous marriage of course) that has never held a full time job for more than two months, never had a driver's license, never finished high school, and has never had to work in order to live I have an idea about what I'm talking about.

That POS gets a government check, food stamps (nowadays it is an EBT card) and lives in a tent. Anything he needs above what Uncle Scam gives him, mommy is there to give it to him. I allowed him to stay with us for a few months, but he'd stay up til the wee hours of the morning, sleep until 2 o'clock and every now and then "look" for a job in a wrinkled t shirt, pants that came to his knees and Doc Marten boots. His mother was content that "at least he's trying."

He's never going to go to work. He was sentenced to eight years for domestic violence and child endangerment. He's yet to do six weeks in jail after half of that sentence time has passed... and he's been arrested for shoplifting twice and possession of pot on another occasion IN THE SAME COUNTY HE WAS SENTENCED FOR THE FELONY!!!! He's doing a couple of weeks now for violation of probation (the third time I know of.)

This guy is not an anomaly. Consequently, I do not blame employers. I blame our system. My wife's son is like hundreds, if not thousands, of people around here doing the same thing.

Even if somebody gets through to this guy, he'll be damn lucky if anyone ever does give him a job - and I'm satisfied that he will never get a job. Criminal records, the lack of any employment history, no credit, etc. will put this guy and hundreds of thousands more like him into their graves, having never made a worthwhile contribution to society.

Welfare IS. And, even if you stopped it, you could not resolve the problems we have in society. Those addicted to welfare do not have the skills necessary to overcome their disadvantage. So, we as a society, should begin to learn why people are lazy and not producing. The two biggest culprits are government with phony disabilities like ADD / ADHD, etc. and the "legal" drugs they are hooking society on AND really dumbass parents that mollycoddle their kids and don't allow them to fail.

You have to put an emphasis on that, but when you take care of that, people have to make some kind of wage that allows them an opportunity to be able to live, independently of Uncle Scam and not have to rely on welfare for the difference between the low wages and what it takes to realistically live.

Yep. It's a free market. I'm all for it. But when employers don't pay people enough to live on, people will resort to welfare or crime. Those arguing against looking for ways to get employers to raise wages (and I've offered NON-SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS) will have to settle for socialism, the ultimate POLICE STATE (with NO Rights for the citizenry) OR you are going to have to consider ways to give employers options to encourage (NOT FORCE) employers to raise their wages.

I have a friend like that who's son is totally worthless. Been in prison twice already not to mention local jails, doesn't want to work and doesn't care all that much. He's had excuses why he can't work since he was a teen.

The problem is that for him, there is always someplace to go. If not a family member, a friend or something.

It's like they say about drugs or alcohol. Many people have to hit rock bottom before they finally do something to resolve the problems in their life. Like your wife's son, that bottom will never be hit because she's going to make sure that doesn't happen.

And what can "society" do about that? Nothing. The more you give them, the less they will try and that's not helping the situation either.

There are things society can do. When parents are enabling their kids and the taxpayers are left holding the bag, you have an addressable situation. Since we're both agreed, when parents are aiding in this kind of destructive behavior, we should put the proposal out there to make it a crime wherein we label it abuse of some sort or another.

At the other end of the spectrum, we can do something when people get incarcerated by taking that opportunity to give those dependent upon the system the ability to become self sufficient.

And how do you propose we do that, by forcing employers to hire ex-cons?

I rented to ex-cons twice since I became a landlord almost 25 years ago. One almost burned down one of my houses to the ground. Over 80K in damages. My insurance company dropped my policies on all my rental units and I couldn't get insurance for 3 years. I had to use a state program during that time.

Another one was a remodeler who was locked up because of drugs. A very talented man who wanted to do some remodeling in his rental unit. He ripped down a wall, tore the plumbing out of the bathroom, went back on drugs and left it that way until I evicted him because of non-payment of rent. That was a pricy problem to fix.

So now because of experience, I won't rent to a convicted felon. They are nothing but problems I don't need in my life. I'm sure employers who gave jobs to convicted felons had the same results.

If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?

I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING

I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)

Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.

That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.

It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.

You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.

You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.

Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have a friend like that who's son is totally worthless. Been in prison twice already not to mention local jails, doesn't want to work and doesn't care all that much. He's had excuses why he can't work since he was a teen.

The problem is that for him, there is always someplace to go. If not a family member, a friend or something.

It's like they say about drugs or alcohol. Many people have to hit rock bottom before they finally do something to resolve the problems in their life. Like your wife's son, that bottom will never be hit because she's going to make sure that doesn't happen.

And what can "society" do about that? Nothing. The more you give them, the less they will try and that's not helping the situation either.

There are things society can do. When parents are enabling their kids and the taxpayers are left holding the bag, you have an addressable situation. Since we're both agreed, when parents are aiding in this kind of destructive behavior, we should put the proposal out there to make it a crime wherein we label it abuse of some sort or another.

At the other end of the spectrum, we can do something when people get incarcerated by taking that opportunity to give those dependent upon the system the ability to become self sufficient.

And how do you propose we do that, by forcing employers to hire ex-cons?

I rented to ex-cons twice since I became a landlord almost 25 years ago. One almost burned down one of my houses to the ground. Over 80K in damages. My insurance company dropped my policies on all my rental units and I couldn't get insurance for 3 years. I had to use a state program during that time.

Another one was a remodeler who was locked up because of drugs. A very talented man who wanted to do some remodeling in his rental unit. He ripped down a wall, tore the plumbing out of the bathroom, went back on drugs and left it that way until I evicted him because of non-payment of rent. That was a pricy problem to fix.

So now because of experience, I won't rent to a convicted felon. They are nothing but problems I don't need in my life. I'm sure employers who gave jobs to convicted felons had the same results.

If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?

I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING

I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)

Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.

That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.

It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.

You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.

You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.

Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.

Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.

Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, the haves can pay more in taxes than they can pay in wages? And, if we cut entitlements completely out, the have nots still could not afford to live. Crime would go up and the people would petition for a bigger government (more gun control, more prisons, more lost Liberties - 24 - 7 - 365 womb to the tomb surveillance.)

You realize this was the exact same argument the left made after welfare reform was passed in the 90's, don't you? It never happened, So what did happen? People got jobs, the government provided some training for jobs, families stayed together longer, people said they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. Birth rate slowed down because people had to start providing some support for their children.

You don't have a lot of confidence in your fellow citizen, do you?

Do you live in a vacuum? Our prison population has increased every year for a long time. Let's take the time period you cited:

Between 1990 and 2002 the federal prison population increased 153%! I won't even began to tell you what was going on at the local and state levels.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/1044.pdf


What really happened? More people started going to prison; the numbers of people on drugs went up. The recidivism rate in prisons went up.

Again, nice try at misrepresenting my position. I'm for reducing welfare. I'm also for taking steps to make sure people, including employers have options. Under my proposal, after a couple of years, you could see how many employers are paying the current rate of taxes and which ones opt for paying less taxes in exchange for helping Americans get jobs that pay a realistic wage.

Then you would have the real answer.

Your theory holds no water. Welfare reform was signed in August of 1996 which means the program didn't even get into swing until around late 1997 to 1998. Our prison population was already increasing at rapid levels before anything with welfare reform happened:

View attachment 165296

OMG, I cited the 1990s because YOU brought them up. Now you want to change the parameters?

Look, dude, let's make this simple. If you're right, then your side controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They will pass the requisite bills and in the next election, Trump will be re-elected.

But, the reality is, whether you're talking Bush administrations, Clinton administrations, Obama or Trump, the situation has gotten worse and worse. I don't offer a theory. What I offer is a plan to see which position will increase the pay of American workers.

How did I change the parameters? I said welfare reform, and welfare reform passed in 1996.