What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Vidi]

"Exploitation of the blue-collar working man by multinational corporations". You mean, by giving them jobs so they can make a living? THAT "exploitation"?

And exactly what sort of "addressing" did you want?

(This, of course, is all aside from my laughter at your "doesn't matter how big government is, as long as it's 'effective'" schtick.)

just because a company gives a man a job, does not mean that company pays a living wage.

you can work for McDonalds and make minimum wage, thats not exactly a living wage
you can work for walmart and make $10 an hour, thats not exactly a living wage

Define "living".

Living to me means paying the rent, the heat, and food. That's a living wage, because those are the things you need to live.

Actually, living goes beyond that.

For example, you forgot clothing and you didn't mention health care. Or gas money/public transportation money so they can actually get to work.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Define "living".

Living to me means paying the rent, the heat, and food. That's a living wage, because those are the things you need to live.

where can you do that on $10 an hr?

$10 x 40 x 4.3 = $1720
Rent: $750
Heat/electric: $100
Food (for a family of 3): $450
That's $1300. You have $420 to use for incidentals.

40 hours? Why are you only working 40 hours if you're only making $10/hr and trying to support 2 other people?
10 x 55 x 52/12 = 2383 gross, ~1906 net/month

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok, I can agree that welfare and these types of financial support server no one (including the recipients)

HOWEVER

Logically one cannot be against welfare for destitute families while at the same time bailing out large corporations. If the goal is self-dependence, it must apply to corporations as much as it does people.

Personally I don't think the federal government should be using the people's money for ANY kind of benevolence to anybody whether it is a country, a person, a group of people, a class of people, or an entity. I think welfare, if it exists, should be handled and administered at the state or more local levels, and not at the federal level where it all too easily corrupts both those administering it and those receiving it.

Yes a moral society does take care of the truly helpless and desperate among us. But there are many many ways to consider as to how best to accomplish that. A big central government program is almost always the least efficient and effective way to do it.

I can at least see a rationale for making an intelligent loan to a failing corporation with very strict terms for repayment, etc. and that would include the government being able to sell the assets of the corporation to return the money to the treasury in case of default. This was the case with Chrysler back in the 1980's I believe. They were given a modest (by today's standards) federal loan to enable them to reorganize and get back on solid financial footing. At that time, Iococca did put the company back on track and repaid the loan in full, with interest, ahead of schedule.

The way the more recent bailouts went down, the taxpayer will never see a lot of that money and a whole lot of those deals were pure cronyism between the President and his union supporters.

 

[Vidi]

Define "living".

Living to me means paying the rent, the heat, and food. That's a living wage, because those are the things you need to live.

where can you do that on $10 an hr?

$10 x 40 x 4.3 = $1720
Rent: $750
Heat/electric: $100
Food (for a family of 3): $450

That's $1300. You have $420 to use for incidentals.

Once again, clothing! Transportation. Now that there's a child ( or children ) day care, school supplies, toilet paper, dish soap, shampoo, towels, bed sheets, furniture, TAXES.

You're numbers omit real life, which means its fantasyland.

 

[Syphon]

where can you do that on $10 an hr?

$10 x 40 x 4.3 = $1720
Rent: $750
Heat/electric: $100
Food (for a family of 3): $450
That's $1300. You have $420 to use for incidentals.

40 hours? Why are you only working 40 hours if you're only making $10/hr and trying to support 2 other people?
10 x 55 x 52/12 = 2383 gross, ~1906 net/month

your argument assumes a person can get a 2nd job or work overtime. based on that premise alone your argument is a failure.

 

[koshergrl]

where can you do that on $10 an hr?

$10 x 40 x 4.3 = $1720
Rent: $750
Heat/electric: $100
Food (for a family of 3): $450

That's $1300. You have $420 to use for incidentals.

Once again, clothing! Transportation. Now that there's a child ( or children ) day care, school supplies, toilet paper, dish soap, shampoo, towels, bed sheets, furniture, TAXES.

You're numbers omit real life, which means its fantasyland.

That's what the EXTRA $420 IS FOR, dipwad.

It's a LIVING wage. A wage that is meant to provide the BARE ESSENTIALS TO LIFE.

And it's more than enough.

 

[koshergrl]

And for child care, you do what people did for aeons before there was welfare...you network with other people who work and you swap child care for your shifts.

I am appalled and depressed by the level of entitlement that people have these days.

 

[M14 Shooter]

$10 x 40 x 4.3 = $1720
Rent: $750
Heat/electric: $100
Food (for a family of 3): $450
That's $1300. You have $420 to use for incidentals.

40 hours? Why are you only working 40 hours if you're only making $10/hr and trying to support 2 other people?
10 x 55 x 52/12 = 2383 gross, ~1906 net/month

your argument assumes a person can get a 2nd job or work overtime. based on that premise alone your argument is a failure.

What a maroon.

Thank you for proving beyond any reasonable doubt that you are indeed incapable of having an intelligent discussion of the issue. Maybe when you grow up a little and attain a post-middle school education, you can come back here and try again. Maybe.

 

[koshergrl]

Or you can keep your legs closed in the first place, and not have kids until you have a way to support them in the style you want.

Again, this is about survival. Not about living in style...min wage is enough to live on. I've done it, I know lots of other people who have done it. Of course, you want to move up the ladder, so you work harder and scrimp scrimp scrimp to make ends meet.

 

[Foxfyre]

$10 x 40 x 4.3 = $1720
Rent: $750
Heat/electric: $100
Food (for a family of 3): $450
That's $1300. You have $420 to use for incidentals.

40 hours? Why are you only working 40 hours if you're only making $10/hr and trying to support 2 other people?
10 x 55 x 52/12 = 2383 gross, ~1906 net/month

your argument assumes a person can get a 2nd job or work overtime. based on that premise alone your argument is a failure.

No it isn't. I applaud KG for making ends meet on not all that much money, but that is a choice many of us have made at some point in their lifetime. There have been many times that we had to get really creative to stretch the groceries to the end of the week after the money ran out much earlier. But we learned that most of us can get by with a whole lot less if we have to.

I worked many jobs to pay for an education. After we married, my husband and I, both in entry level jobs, once worked five jobs between us to pay the bills and three jobs between us was the norm for us for a lot of years. We have had motor paper routes in addition to our day job--hubby used to get home from his day job, have dinner, play with the kids a bit, and then go to a nearby farm and drive a tractor plowing or drilling wheat until midnight. I have baby sat, took in laundry, hired out as an on call legal secretary, worked as a ghost writer, a speech writer etc. in addition to my day job to bring in extra money.

You do what you have to do.

 

[Syphon]

40 hours? Why are you only working 40 hours if you're only making $10/hr and trying to support 2 other people?
10 x 55 x 52/12 = 2383 gross, ~1906 net/month

your argument assumes a person can get a 2nd job or work overtime. based on that premise alone your argument is a failure.

What a maroon.

Thank you for proving beyond any reasonable doubt that you are indeed incapable of having an intelligent discussion of the issue. Maybe when you grow up a little and attain a post-middle school education, you can come back here and try again. Maybe.

so you truly believe that when someone wants to work more than 40 hours, they can simply do so?

 

[Uncensored2008]

$10 x 40 x 4.3 = $1720
Rent: $750
Heat/electric: $100
Food (for a family of 3): $450

That's $1300. You have $420 to use for incidentals.

Honestly, that $420 will all go to taxes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

your argument assumes a person can get a 2nd job or work overtime. based on that premise alone your argument is a failure.

What a maroon.
Thank you for proving beyond any reasonable doubt that you are indeed incapable of having an intelligent discussion of the issue. Maybe when you grow up a little and attain a post-middle school education, you can come back here and try again. Maybe.

so you truly believe that when someone wants to work more than 40 hours, they can simply do so?

If they are worth anyting as an employee? Yep. Absolutely.
The fact that you think otherwise denotes a lack of experience in the outside world.
Clearly, you aren't competent to judge -anything- regarding a 'living wage'.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Personally I don't think the federal government should be using the people's money for ANY kind of benevolence to anybody whether it is a country, a person, a group of people, a class of people, or an entity. I think welfare, if it exists, should be handled and administered at the state or more local levels, and not at the federal level where it all too easily corrupts both those administering it and those receiving it.

Yes a moral society does take care of the truly helpless and desperate among us. But there are many many ways to consider as to how best to accomplish that. A big central government program is almost always the least efficient and effective way to do it.

I can at least see a rationale for making an intelligent loan to a failing corporation with very strict terms for repayment, etc. and that would include the government being able to sell the assets of the corporation to return the money to the treasury in case of default. This was the case with Chrysler back in the 1980's I believe. They were given a modest (by today's standards) federal loan to enable them to reorganize and get back on solid financial footing. At that time, Iococca did put the company back on track and repaid the loan in full, with interest, ahead of schedule.

The way the more recent bailouts went down, the taxpayer will never see a lot of that money and a whole lot of those deals were pure cronyism between the President and his union supporters.

I make over $12,000 a month at my primary job, and still choose to work the second job teaching. I do it because I enjoy teaching.

A lot of people work two jobs.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Or you can keep your legs closed in the first place, and not have kids until you have a way to support them in the style you want.

Again, this is about survival. Not about living in style...min wage is enough to live on. I've done it, I know lots of other people who have done it. Of course, you want to move up the ladder, so you work harder and scrimp scrimp scrimp to make ends meet.

And yet, so many are apparently so jaded that they cannot comprehend life w/o a smart phone, A/C, latte mochas and fewer than 5 pairs if shoes.

Funny how liberals recoil so quickly from the 'elitist' label.

 

[Syphon]

What a maroon.
Thank you for proving beyond any reasonable doubt that you are indeed incapable of having an intelligent discussion of the issue. Maybe when you grow up a little and attain a post-middle school education, you can come back here and try again. Maybe.

so you truly believe that when someone wants to work more than 40 hours, they can simply do so?

If they are worth anyting as an employee? Yep. Absolutely.
The fact that you think otherwise denotes a lack of experience in the outside world.
Clearly, you aren't competent to judge -anything- regarding a 'living wage'.

yeah id like you see you go to your boss and demand overtime....

what world do you live in?

 

[Uncensored2008]

And yet, so many are apparently so jaded that they cannot comprehend life w/o a smart phone, A/C, latte mochas and fewer than 5 pairs if shoes.

Funny how liberals recoil so quickly from the 'elitist' label.

I can comprehend life without those things, but I sure don't want to live without them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Personally I don't think the federal government should be using the people's money for ANY kind of benevolence to anybody whether it is a country, a person, a group of people, a class of people, or an entity. I think welfare, if it exists, should be handled and administered at the state or more local levels, and not at the federal level where it all too easily corrupts both those administering it and those receiving it.

Yes a moral society does take care of the truly helpless and desperate among us. But there are many many ways to consider as to how best to accomplish that. A big central government program is almost always the least efficient and effective way to do it.

I can at least see a rationale for making an intelligent loan to a failing corporation with very strict terms for repayment, etc. and that would include the government being able to sell the assets of the corporation to return the money to the treasury in case of default. This was the case with Chrysler back in the 1980's I believe. They were given a modest (by today's standards) federal loan to enable them to reorganize and get back on solid financial footing. At that time, Iococca did put the company back on track and repaid the loan in full, with interest, ahead of schedule.

The way the more recent bailouts went down, the taxpayer will never see a lot of that money and a whole lot of those deals were pure cronyism between the President and his union supporters.

I make over $12,000 a month at my primary job, and still choose to work the second job teaching. I do it because I enjoy teaching.

A lot of people work two jobs.

While you probably intended to quote something different than what you quoted for your comments here , so have I. Long after we had worked our way up to a comfortable living, I still accepted speaking/teaching engagements, writing assignments, and did other things that I loved doing and would probably have done for nothing, but getting paid was a nice bonus. But once we became comfortable, most of my extra curricular activties have been volunteer work utilizing abilities God has blessed me with and/or acquired skills. Still all labors of love and the leisure that allows that is the reward for taking advantage of the opportunities offered in the world and making better choices.

 

[M14 Shooter]

so you truly believe that when someone wants to work more than 40 hours, they can simply do so?

If they are worth anyting as an employee? Yep. Absolutely.
The fact that you think otherwise denotes a lack of experience in the outside world.
Clearly, you aren't competent to judge -anything- regarding a 'living wage'.

yeah id like you see you go to your boss and demand overtime....

I laugh at you. Out loud.

I -gladly- pay overtime to -anyone- worth a damn, because O/T for effective employees is cheaper and more productive than hiring aditional employees who might not be worth anything.

Perhaps when you find yourself gainfully employed, you'll understand.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And yet, so many are apparently so jaded that they cannot comprehend life w/o a smart phone, A/C, latte mochas and fewer than 5 pairs if shoes.

Funny how liberals recoil so quickly from the 'elitist' label.

I can comprehend life without those things, but I sure don't want to live without them.

You fully agree, though, that such thing aren't necessities, and so any sort of 'living wage' need not be high enough to enable the worker in question to afford them.
Correct?