Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't complain about taxes, whiners. I must be better at tax avoidance than Any whiner.well they can't give tax breaks to those who don't pay any. Exactly how is that done? whinerThe right wing wants tax breaks for those who can afford to hire professional nannies.The nanny state helps no one...No. I meant unconstitutional laws that oppress people. Like the war on drugs and how it has jailed millions and millions of people. Illegal wars that left families without a father. That kind of stuff.
Ah...I see and I agree! We definitely need to prioritize what is important to the welfare of the country.
Although i will say that this huge amount of taxes because half the govt shouldnt be there could very well be argued it is oppression.
Well, I mean sure...there's parts of government that are too big and massive, like the military. I wouldn't necessarily consider taxation as oppression...more like what that taxation pays for used to oppress people. I don't see health care as one of those things, though I do agree with you about our bloated military adventurism and the failed War on Drugs.
It helps nannies.
apples and oranges bubba kong.What to fuck are you rambling on about? The 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment. I've read it. It's fairly simple to understand - even for a brainwashed leftist as yourself.
But how do you stop state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment in their laws,
without a Supreme Court to declare those laws unconstitutional?no that isn't what happens.
Yes, it is precisely what happens. It's actually a very simple equation:
W = Welfare
S = Wage/salary
LW = Living Wage (A constant)
So let's say for the sake of argument, that a "living wage" is $14/hr. That is the constant. The more you increase "S", the more you decrease "W".
So, W + S = LW
If LW = $14/hr and if S = $10/hr, then W = $4/hr
If S = $12/hr, then W = $2/hr
Understand?
see when one raises minimum wages, one then redefines the work force and more are put out of work. it's a really simple concept and in play in Seattle today.
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T!
Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2015 (Start of MW hike) = 3.2%
Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2017 = 2.6%
So in what fucking world is Seattle losing jobs when the unemployment rate has declined by 0.6% since the MW hike started?
Now, what about wages? How have those been affected by the Seattle Minimum Wage Hike?
Over the last 12-month period, June 2016 to June 2017, Seattle's wages have grown by 3.6%, which is the second-highest wage growth rate in the country. The United States' wage growth over the same period is 2.4%
The problem is that you refuse to accept facts, choosing to buy into bullshit that confirms your narrow world view instead. I think you do that because you're an insecure person who is desperate to be taken seriously because you never have been before.
There's a thread about it in here. you should look it up. I love the left's unintelligent.
Threads only work if you actually read them instead of sloppily glossing over counter points to your already false argument.
If the only skills you have earn you a skill equivalent $8/hour, the W is irrelevant. It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to offset someone's inability. The living wage bullshit is nothing more than a bleeding heart program designed to give someone something they didn't or couldn't earn.
You left out one variable:
Y - YOU
If the LW is $14 and the low skilled person is only making $8, let the LW = S + Y and get rid of the W. Get to paying the $6 you think that person deserves. It's the ONLY way. If they can't get it from you or those like you that say they deserve it, tough shit.
Should the government deny public school to children whose parents do not pay a fair market value share of the cost of public education?
Not in response to what the other poster said:
"It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to offset someone's inability"
We 'offset' by millions of taxpayer dollars the inability of poor parents to pay the cost of their children's education.
Why do you think ending that 'offset' will make America a better place?
I don't complain about taxes, whiners. I must be better at tax avoidance than Any whiner.well they can't give tax breaks to those who don't pay any. Exactly how is that done? whinerThe right wing wants tax breaks for those who can afford to hire professional nannies.The nanny state helps no one...Ah...I see and I agree! We definitely need to prioritize what is important to the welfare of the country.
Well, I mean sure...there's parts of government that are too big and massive, like the military. I wouldn't necessarily consider taxation as oppression...more like what that taxation pays for used to oppress people. I don't see health care as one of those things, though I do agree with you about our bloated military adventurism and the failed War on Drugs.
It helps nannies.
so, keep whining, to "boost my ego".
What to fuck are you rambling on about? The 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment. I've read it. It's fairly simple to understand - even for a brainwashed leftist as yourself.I told you, it is an implied power justified by the Supremacy Clause.
Now you tell me how you prevent state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment without a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review.
...or you could just run away from the question again.
But how do you stop state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment in their laws,
without a Supreme Court to declare those laws unconstitutional?no that isn't what happens.
Yes, it is precisely what happens. It's actually a very simple equation:
W = Welfare
S = Wage/salary
LW = Living Wage (A constant)
So let's say for the sake of argument, that a "living wage" is $14/hr. That is the constant. The more you increase "S", the more you decrease "W".
So, W + S = LW
If LW = $14/hr and if S = $10/hr, then W = $4/hr
If S = $12/hr, then W = $2/hr
Understand?
see when one raises minimum wages, one then redefines the work force and more are put out of work. it's a really simple concept and in play in Seattle today.
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T!
Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2015 (Start of MW hike) = 3.2%
Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2017 = 2.6%
So in what fucking world is Seattle losing jobs when the unemployment rate has declined by 0.6% since the MW hike started?
Now, what about wages? How have those been affected by the Seattle Minimum Wage Hike?
Over the last 12-month period, June 2016 to June 2017, Seattle's wages have grown by 3.6%, which is the second-highest wage growth rate in the country. The United States' wage growth over the same period is 2.4%
The problem is that you refuse to accept facts, choosing to buy into bullshit that confirms your narrow world view instead. I think you do that because you're an insecure person who is desperate to be taken seriously because you never have been before.
There's a thread about it in here. you should look it up. I love the left's unintelligent.
Threads only work if you actually read them instead of sloppily glossing over counter points to your already false argument.
If the only skills you have earn you a skill equivalent $8/hour, the W is irrelevant. It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to offset someone's inability. The living wage bullshit is nothing more than a bleeding heart program designed to give someone something they didn't or couldn't earn.
You left out one variable:
Y - YOU
If the LW is $14 and the low skilled person is only making $8, let the LW = S + Y and get rid of the W. Get to paying the $6 you think that person deserves. It's the ONLY way. If they can't get it from you or those like you that say they deserve it, tough shit.
Should the government deny public school to children whose parents do not pay a fair market value share of the cost of public education?
If the State in which the schools exist decides that, yes. Education, since it's not a specifically delegated power to the federal government belongs as a power to the STATES. What about the 10th Amendment is hard to understand for you big government leftists?
you don't? hmmmm didn't you write this: The right wing wants tax breaks for those who can afford to hire professional nanniesI don't complain about taxes, whiners. I must be better at tax avoidance than Any whiner.well they can't give tax breaks to those who don't pay any. Exactly how is that done? whinerThe right wing wants tax breaks for those who can afford to hire professional nannies.The nanny state helps no one...Ah...I see and I agree! We definitely need to prioritize what is important to the welfare of the country.
Well, I mean sure...there's parts of government that are too big and massive, like the military. I wouldn't necessarily consider taxation as oppression...more like what that taxation pays for used to oppress people. I don't see health care as one of those things, though I do agree with you about our bloated military adventurism and the failed War on Drugs.
It helps nannies.
so, keep whining, to "boost my ego".
apples and oranges bubba kong.But how do you stop state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment in their laws,
without a Supreme Court to declare those laws unconstitutional?Yes, it is precisely what happens. It's actually a very simple equation:
W = Welfare
S = Wage/salary
LW = Living Wage (A constant)
So let's say for the sake of argument, that a "living wage" is $14/hr. That is the constant. The more you increase "S", the more you decrease "W".
So, W + S = LW
If LW = $14/hr and if S = $10/hr, then W = $4/hr
If S = $12/hr, then W = $2/hr
Understand?
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T!
Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2015 (Start of MW hike) = 3.2%
Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2017 = 2.6%
So in what fucking world is Seattle losing jobs when the unemployment rate has declined by 0.6% since the MW hike started?
Now, what about wages? How have those been affected by the Seattle Minimum Wage Hike?
Over the last 12-month period, June 2016 to June 2017, Seattle's wages have grown by 3.6%, which is the second-highest wage growth rate in the country. The United States' wage growth over the same period is 2.4%
The problem is that you refuse to accept facts, choosing to buy into bullshit that confirms your narrow world view instead. I think you do that because you're an insecure person who is desperate to be taken seriously because you never have been before.
Threads only work if you actually read them instead of sloppily glossing over counter points to your already false argument.
If the only skills you have earn you a skill equivalent $8/hour, the W is irrelevant. It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to offset someone's inability. The living wage bullshit is nothing more than a bleeding heart program designed to give someone something they didn't or couldn't earn.
You left out one variable:
Y - YOU
If the LW is $14 and the low skilled person is only making $8, let the LW = S + Y and get rid of the W. Get to paying the $6 you think that person deserves. It's the ONLY way. If they can't get it from you or those like you that say they deserve it, tough shit.
Should the government deny public school to children whose parents do not pay a fair market value share of the cost of public education?
Not in response to what the other poster said:
"It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to offset someone's inability"
We 'offset' by millions of taxpayer dollars the inability of poor parents to pay the cost of their children's education.
Why do you think ending that 'offset' will make America a better place?
The inability to which I refer was to skill level. When it comes to a parent not paying the cost of their children's education, it's an unwillingness.
Why do you think continuing to enable people that are freeloaders is ever going to motivate them to do better? $22 trillion wasted on social welfare over 50 years only to have over 40 million on food stamps, no telling how many living in taxpayer funded housing, school free lunch programs where, in some schools, is over 50% and the household is using food stamps, and all sort of other programs where those that aren't meeting their responsibilities continue to refuse to do so. The poverty rate is still what it was prior to the $22 trillion being wasted.
So, in typical Conservative fashion, you neglect key pieces of text from the article you're citing, specifically this:
And critics of the research pointed out what they saw as serious shortcomings. In particular, to avoid confusing establishments that were subject to the minimum with those that were not, the authors did not include large employers with locations both inside and outside of Seattle in their calculations. Skeptics argued that omission could explain the unusual results.
...
Indeed, while employment overall did not change, that was because employers replaced low-paying jobs with high-paying jobs. The number of workers making over $19 an hour increased abruptly, while the number making less than that amount declined, Vigdor and his colleagues found.So the decline in employment for low wage workers is because those low-wage workers are now getting more. So they're not "low-wage" workers anymore.
So you did rushed, sloppy work on this when you posted a link that includes information that refutes how you're characterizing the situation.
It's also hard to argue with the facts:
Seattle's unemployment rate is 0.6% below what it was when the MW hike started, and wages grew 3.6% which is 1.2% above the national average.
If the State in which the schools exist decides that, yes. Education, since it's not a specifically delegated power to the federal government belongs as a power to the STATES. What about the 10th Amendment is hard to understand for you big government leftists?
State’s unemployment rate falls to a historic lowAnalysis | A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberalsno that isn't what happens.
Yes, it is precisely what happens. It's actually a very simple equation:
W = Welfare
S = Wage/salary
LW = Living Wage (A constant)
So let's say for the sake of argument, that a "living wage" is $14/hr. That is the constant. The more you increase "S", the more you decrease "W".
So, W + S = LW
If LW = $14/hr and if S = $10/hr, then W = $4/hr
If S = $12/hr, then W = $2/hr
Understand?
see when one raises minimum wages, one then redefines the work force and more are put out of work. it's a really simple concept and in play in Seattle today.
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T!
Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2015 (Start of MW hike) = 3.2%
Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2017 = 2.6%
So in what fucking world is Seattle losing jobs when the unemployment rate has declined by 0.6% since the MW hike started?
Now, what about wages? How have those been affected by the Seattle Minimum Wage Hike?
Over the last 12-month period, June 2016 to June 2017, Seattle's wages have grown by 3.6%, which is the second-highest wage growth rate in the country. The United States' wage growth over the same period is 2.4%
The problem is that you refuse to accept facts, choosing to buy into bullshit that confirms your narrow world view instead. I think you do that because you're an insecure person who is desperate to be taken seriously because you never have been before.
There's a thread about it in here. you should look it up. I love the left's unintelligent.
Threads only work if you actually read them instead of sloppily glossing over counter points to your already false argument.
"When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city's minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they'd hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the opposite effect.
The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found."
fk me?.......................fk you
[
Is that what I said? Please show me those very words.
I go by what the Constitution says. You go by what you twist it to say. That's the difference.
You said it when you said the SCOTUS has no constitutional power of judicial review.
If the State in which the schools exist decides that, yes. Education, since it's not a specifically delegated power to the federal government belongs as a power to the STATES. What about the 10th Amendment is hard to understand for you big government leftists?
Explain to me why teaching something completely different between students in Massachusetts and students in Texas prepares those students for employment in a competitive, global economy where other nations don't have such silly things?
What to fuck are you rambling on about? The 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment. I've read it. It's fairly simple to understand - even for a brainwashed leftist as yourself.
But how do you stop state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment in their laws,
without a Supreme Court to declare those laws unconstitutional?no that isn't what happens.
Yes, it is precisely what happens. It's actually a very simple equation:
W = Welfare
S = Wage/salary
LW = Living Wage (A constant)
So let's say for the sake of argument, that a "living wage" is $14/hr. That is the constant. The more you increase "S", the more you decrease "W".
So, W + S = LW
If LW = $14/hr and if S = $10/hr, then W = $4/hr
If S = $12/hr, then W = $2/hr
Understand?
see when one raises minimum wages, one then redefines the work force and more are put out of work. it's a really simple concept and in play in Seattle today.
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T!
Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2015 (Start of MW hike) = 3.2%
Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2017 = 2.6%
So in what fucking world is Seattle losing jobs when the unemployment rate has declined by 0.6% since the MW hike started?
Now, what about wages? How have those been affected by the Seattle Minimum Wage Hike?
Over the last 12-month period, June 2016 to June 2017, Seattle's wages have grown by 3.6%, which is the second-highest wage growth rate in the country. The United States' wage growth over the same period is 2.4%
The problem is that you refuse to accept facts, choosing to buy into bullshit that confirms your narrow world view instead. I think you do that because you're an insecure person who is desperate to be taken seriously because you never have been before.
There's a thread about it in here. you should look it up. I love the left's unintelligent.
Threads only work if you actually read them instead of sloppily glossing over counter points to your already false argument.
If the only skills you have earn you a skill equivalent $8/hour, the W is irrelevant. It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to offset someone's inability. The living wage bullshit is nothing more than a bleeding heart program designed to give someone something they didn't or couldn't earn.
You left out one variable:
Y - YOU
If the LW is $14 and the low skilled person is only making $8, let the LW = S + Y and get rid of the W. Get to paying the $6 you think that person deserves. It's the ONLY way. If they can't get it from you or those like you that say they deserve it, tough shit.
Should the government deny public school to children whose parents do not pay a fair market value share of the cost of public education?
If the State in which the schools exist decides that, yes. Education, since it's not a specifically delegated power to the federal government belongs as a power to the STATES. What about the 10th Amendment is hard to understand for you big government leftists?
But what you said is this;
It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to offset someone's inability.
Aren't the schools in your state funded by state TAXES?
cutting spending is what cuts deficits. and it's a fact that lower taxes brings in more money. just a fact. you can argue until you die, but that is a fact of economics bubba.Deficits don't occur from lack of money.
Ummm, wrong. This is why Conservatives have never been able to balance a budget. Because they think that cutting revenue doesn't create deficits. Because they don't know math or finance.
Only the fantastical right wing does that: Every Thing for the "general welfare" is Bad, and every Thing for the "common Offense or general Warfare" is Good.Who has decided they are unconstitutional?We wouldnt need any welfare if we didnt have so many unconstitutional programs.Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."
BTW - we wouldn't need as much, if any welfare if employers paid their workers more.
No, not everything you leftists want is for the general welfare.
What is or isn't part of the general welfare is up to the federal government to decide.
well someone should work on the VA then. you know that single payer system you all want.
i know.Only the fantastical right wing does that: Every Thing for the "general welfare" is Bad, and every Thing for the "common Offense or general Warfare" is Good.Who has decided they are unconstitutional?We wouldnt need any welfare if we didnt have so many unconstitutional programs.btw, what are the two sides of the argument on welfare? I hear your side, but just wondering the other side's full argument on why it is constitutional? I've never really paid attention?
Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."
BTW - we wouldn't need as much, if any welfare if employers paid their workers more.
No, not everything you leftists want is for the general welfare.
I said city of Seattle. posted city of seattle. what is their LW?State’s unemployment rate falls to a historic lowAnalysis | A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberalsno that isn't what happens.
Yes, it is precisely what happens. It's actually a very simple equation:
W = Welfare
S = Wage/salary
LW = Living Wage (A constant)
So let's say for the sake of argument, that a "living wage" is $14/hr. That is the constant. The more you increase "S", the more you decrease "W".
So, W + S = LW
If LW = $14/hr and if S = $10/hr, then W = $4/hr
If S = $12/hr, then W = $2/hr
Understand?
see when one raises minimum wages, one then redefines the work force and more are put out of work. it's a really simple concept and in play in Seattle today.
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T!
Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2015 (Start of MW hike) = 3.2%
Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2017 = 2.6%
So in what fucking world is Seattle losing jobs when the unemployment rate has declined by 0.6% since the MW hike started?
Now, what about wages? How have those been affected by the Seattle Minimum Wage Hike?
Over the last 12-month period, June 2016 to June 2017, Seattle's wages have grown by 3.6%, which is the second-highest wage growth rate in the country. The United States' wage growth over the same period is 2.4%
The problem is that you refuse to accept facts, choosing to buy into bullshit that confirms your narrow world view instead. I think you do that because you're an insecure person who is desperate to be taken seriously because you never have been before.
There's a thread about it in here. you should look it up. I love the left's unintelligent.
Threads only work if you actually read them instead of sloppily glossing over counter points to your already false argument.
"When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city's minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they'd hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the opposite effect.
The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found."
fk me?.......................fk you
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...hington-unemployment-rate-drops-to-46-percent
Washington State Unemployment Rate and Total Unemployed | Department of Numbers
If someone offers such low skills they can't make it, tough shit.
It's that simple. Unless YOU'RE personally willing to offset it, it's not a good investment for me. I like a return on my money and I'm not getting it by handing it to someone unwilling to do for him/herself.
Just the right wing being disingenuous? Providing health care is a promotion of the general welfare.I told you, it is an implied power justified by the Supremacy Clause.
Now you tell me how you prevent state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment without a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review.
...or you could just run away from the question again.
That is your INTERPRETATION.
Yes, States Can Nullify Some Federal Laws, Not All
You did run away from the question.
You want to take the power of judicial review away from the Supreme Court, which would make the Constitution unenforceable,
as the example of state and local governments ignoring the 2nd Amendment proves.
What then is the point of having a Constitution?
How can something that wasn't there to start with be taken away?
That's the same bullshit argument you bleeding hearts use with healthcare. You claim millions have it taken away if Obamacare was repealed. When someone has something that another group was forced to fund they shouldn't have had unless they bought it themselves, it's not taking it away. It's allowing those forced to fund it to keep what they never should have lost.
To you, it seems then point of having a Constitution is to give you something to find things in that aren't there.
The common defense does not encompass the common offense nor the general warfare.
A nation's health is also a defense issue. As is education. The sick and uneducated make poor soldiers.
well someone should work on the VA then. you know that single payer system you all want.
Veterans have the highest patient satisfaction with their system, according to Gallup.
Apart from a few poorly-run VA hospitals, the VA itself is looked favorably by more people than those who have Medicare, Medicaid, and all forms of private insurance.
