Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[Conservative65]

Wage disparity is caused by keeping employee pay artificially low while employer profits increase.

Here's a hard question for you; How much do you pay the people (employees) that make you all of your money?

The least you can without decreasing or losing your workforce.

And what do you mean by "artificially low?" WTF is that anyway.

Wrong, try again.

Artificially low wages by means of subjecting human beings work 'worth' to commodities such as soy beans.

Many of the jobs that earn the current minimum wage of $7.25 are being overpaid based on the skills necessary to do the job. That means the wages for those jobs are inflated not artificially low.

Which jobs?

Floor sweeper, trash emptier, and toilet cleaner to name just a few.

 

[Conservative65]

Even the Secretary of DHS says the numbers were inflated and those that are being counted as deportations by the Obama administration weren't counted that way under any other President.

Because people turned around at the border AREN'T being deported?

That's not what deported means. Even the DHS Secretary says that.

Deported is to expel a foreigner from a country.

You guys will do anything to cover for your BOY despite things being done for him in a manner that has never been done for another President. He truly is the Affirmative Action president. He can't do the way the white Presidents had to do it so they make it easier on him by counting it a different way.

Racial slurs aside, how is paying employees a living wage a bad thing?

You're confused. The black President is having things counted in his favor that none of the other Presidents, all white, had counted that way for them. I stated a fact. You simply didn't like the manner in which I said it.

There's nothing wrong with paying a worker a living wage AS LONG AS the skills they offer in return warrant that wage. If they don't offer skills that warrant it, the problem isn't with the one paying but with the one offering such low skills they can't EARN it.

 

[Boss]

OK, so lets put it this way; A company making $1M, pays 37% of 1/10 of all of the money collected.

No... Let's put it this way... it doesn't matter how much money is collected.

Each week, at my bistro, I collect close to $10,000. I'm not making $10k... that's how much I collect. Out of that, I have to pay for the food I serve, I have to pay my staff, I have to pay my utilities, etc. I have advertising costs, building maintenance, insurance. I may have to repair the refrigerator or air conditioning. I may have to replace a broken window or fix a broken toilet. I paid for my buildings up front or I would have to pay rent... still, owning my own buildings also has costs.

It doesn't matter to the state tax collector that I have all of these things to pay because they collect sales taxes on what I sell. In other words, I pay the sales taxes on $10k, which is 7% in my state. Of course, I don't actually pay these, my customers do, as I add it onto their bill. But I have to keep track of it and show documentation to the tax man. I provide that service free of charge.

At the end of the day, whatever little bit of money is left over is called "profit" and so far, I am not realizing a profit from my business. Every bit of what would be profit is going right back into the business. Eventually, I will realize a profit and that will be taxed at the Federal and State level as income. By then, I will have "collected" quite a bit of money, it has nothing to do with how much income I received from profit. So whenever you start throwing out your "facts" about what companies collect as opposed to what they pay in taxes, it's a pointless argument that has nothing to do with anything.

Furthermore, let's jump ahead a few years to when I actually do realize a profit. The following year, after realizing my first profit and paying income tax on it, I hope to show a "record profit" ... In other words, I hope to break the previous year's amount. I need to break the previous year's amount of profit by 10% or more or my business is failing to thrive and keep up with my competition. And again, this modest 10% increase can be called a "record profit" because it exceeds the amount from the previous year. This is called "growth."

Now.... the cook in my kitchen may think he is working for "slave wages" but it doesn't change the reality of my business or make more profits for me. If he isn't satisfied with his wages, he lives in a free country and is able to seek employment elsewhere if he so desires. He's not being shackled or held against his will and forced to work for me.

Another one of you smart-ass Marxists once quipped that I am a greedy fuck who takes advantage of his workers by not paying them what they are worth.... I disagreed that I am greedy but I absolutely agreed that I don't pay my employees anything near what they are worth. My staff are rock stars! They all go above and beyond the call of duty every single day to make me look good and help my business thrive and prosper. It would be impossible to pay them what they are worth to me. Still, my waiters are making over $100 a night in tips, so they will end up paying more Federal income taxes than I will. And Marxists will exploit that statistic to try and illustrate how I am a greedy capitalist.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I expect the government to come down hard on business that pay so little that their employees qualify for public assistance, especially when the business has received public funds.

So what kind of public funds has Walmart ever received?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We don't believe any of that crap, dupe..But Dem gov't, the real one, can help. The GOP has nothing but a good con for the chumps and a giveaway to the greedy idiot rich who ARE the GOP.

Bull, that's exactly what you believe. That's why you believe government should take wealth away from people that earned it and give it to guys like you. In spite of what all the wealthy pay in federal taxes that you don't have to pay, you only want more, and more, and more.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Enabling the racketeers?

There are no racketeers, there are employers. If you don't like what an employer pays, then work for a different employer. If no employer is offering the money you want, then it's because you have no talent to offer them.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Wrong, try again.

Artificially low wages by means of subjecting human beings work 'worth' to commodities such as soy beans.

What???? WTF is that even supposed to mean? What does a workers wage have to do with commodities like soy beans?

Nothing...it is five dollar words from a five cent mind.

 

[Wilbur Right]

So what kind of public funds has Walmart ever received?

Believe me dude, if it was explained to you, you wouldn't understand anyway. So why bother trying to.educate a fucking idiot.

 

[hadit]

Stupid dudes don't pay attention. You can raise the MW with seemingly minimal impact as long as you keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter immediately. What stupid dudes fail to realize, however, is that jobs ARE disappearing because they cost more than they are worth. Ever wonder why Dad didn't have to pump his own gas at the pump?

I'm against the minimum wage totally. If government can force a company to pay a minimum wage, then why shouldn't government force all companies to give their employees a raise?

Government doesn't belong in the wage business. Government should govern and private industry should take care of business.

Yup, greedy idiot/a-hole GOP CEOs should have no restraint in screwing over their workers and the environment. Bring back poor houses and potters fields. Death and destruction is good. Send non whites back where they came from. Trump/? 2016! Save the rich!

The hatred and ignorance is strong.

 

[JoeNormal]

Stupid dudes don't pay attention. You can raise the MW with seemingly minimal impact as long as you keep it low enough that it doesn't really matter immediately. What stupid dudes fail to realize, however, is that jobs ARE disappearing because they cost more than they are worth. Ever wonder why Dad didn't have to pump his own gas at the pump?

I'm against the minimum wage totally. If government can force a company to pay a minimum wage, then why shouldn't government force all companies to give their employees a raise?

Government doesn't belong in the wage business. Government should govern and private industry should take care of business.

True. A government that can set a wage floor can also set a wage ceiling, and in fact, a Republican president once did that. Bad all the way around.

True.

I would add.

Capital wants the lowest possible labor costs coupled with the lest possible competition. This is why it goes to Taiwan for sweatshop labor costs, and why it goes to congress for regulatory control over most domestic markets. Research the number of cable/internet providers and how they have (with the help of congress) divided the nation mostly into fixed no-compete zones, allowing them to raise rates/decrease services without being disciplined by market competition. Real money comes from government protected monopolies.

Capital wants and gets a ton of free technological research and advanced industrial infrastructure. The 80s consumer electronics boom was heavily dependent upon the state sector (mostly Defense and NASA). Research the history of satellite and Internet technology or containerization or Aerospace, to name only a few industries. FDR and Reagan were masters of Military Keynesianism; both grew the economy and our technological superiority with the help of The Big Government Defense Sector.

[Most Republicans don't know the kind of subsidies say Boeing received. Nor do they understand how WWII manufacturing helped to end the depression; nor do they know how the aforementioned government-lead manufacturing was converted to the commercial boom that undergird the great postwar growth from 1945-1973.]

[Seriously, ask a republican to talk about the government-lead industrial output of WWII or the Cold War (including the number of jobs and spenders it put into the economy), and then ask how said output was converted to domestic commercial uses... and you will get a blank stare followed by simplistic cliches about the evils of government. These people are know-nothings who have never studied this stuff - never fucking read an actual policy paper. They get their information from pop media bafoons like Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin]

The carrying capacity of the Southwest, with all its thriving profit centers, wouldn't exist without the Hoover Dam and the multi-trillion dollar engineering of the Colorado tributary system, which no combination of corporations could have afforded in the 20s. Same goes for the nation's energy or overseas trade routes, which require a massive military (government) effort across multiple continents.

The reason why large corporations build massive offices in Washington DC is precisely because so much profit making is parasitic on the public dollar.

And when those large corporations place massive bets they can't cover, like AIG and their corrupt derivative insurance scam, who do you think bails them out so that the global market doesn't tank?

Listen, my family owned a successful small business across several generations. I support a system that provides incentives to the productive, one that doesn't reward laziness. This is second grade stuff.

I also think price controls are fucking moronic because they not only fail to create appropriate incentives for suppliers but no central planner could ever have enough information to predict consumer behavior.

Let's cut to the chase. The Republican Party takes advantage of well-meaning uneducated people who have no clue the degree to which profit makers are parasitic on the state. This means any debate regarding government involvement in the economy can't even get started.

Turn off Fox News and go to a library.

(We're begging you)

On the upside ...

Good thread, better than most here. Kudos to OP.

Damn dude, I've been saying this stuff for years and you just said it better!

 

[JoeNormal]

Maybe it's an investment that you're 'sure' will bear fruit someday. I can't see any other reason for a working class hero to bow down to the 1% so eagerly.

How is saying leave people alone bowing to anybody?

Sure I will come to attack haters who's jealousy promotes getting government to get even with others for something they didn't do themselves.

If a person becomes wealthy from hard work, then I applaud that person, not look for ways to take his or her wealth. It's not mine, why should I take it? Why do I deserve to have it?

This whole concept of attacking other Americans for what they do, want, or have is just as anti-American as I can think of. That's why I would never dream of voting or being Democrat.

The whole concept of liberalism is making other people as miserable as the liberal.

If a liberal sees a person happy with their success and wealth, the liberal looks for ways to make that person unhappy by taking their money.

If a liberal sees a person bothering nobody smoking a cigarette in a park, the first thing the liberal does is petition his representative to make smoking illegal in that park so that man loses that happiness.

If a liberal sees a man happy to take his firearms to a shooting range or competition, the liberal wants to disarm that man to see him unhappy.

I just could never be a person who wishes to punish people for having or doing something 100% legal because what they accomplished brings them happiness.

It's the same crap that went on where I live. The Mayor decided he was going to attack landlords. Why? Because he "believed" that landlords have it too good, and need to share their money with the city. So he instituted these idiotic apartment inspections before each and any tenant moves into a rental unit. The application, processing and occupancy fees are nearly $300.00, plus all the down time of the apartment waiting for inspections, updates, re-inspecitons, and getting the permit to let somebody move in. Then of course if it's not something minor, the city wants to charge permits for each thing you do.

Did it help our city any? No. Did it help our citizens any? No. Did it help anybody? No. But it gave our Mayor some peace of mind that he made other people miserable because that's what liberals do.

The people you admire generally have talents and abilities that exist only in your head. Of course there are a few notable exceptions to the greedy scumbags who tend to occupy the upper echelons. Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, Henry Ford, Elon Musk.... But for every one of them, there are literally thousands of either greedy sociopaths like Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon or incompetent self-promotion machines like Carly Fiorina or the CEO of the corporation I work for who took over for its founder. Rather than adding any actual value to the world, they stand on the shoulders of their subordinates and let them provide the innovation, creativity and productive capacity. Sorry you can't see it.

 

[JoeNormal]

Capital wants the lowest possible labor costs coupled with the lest possible competition. This is why it goes to Taiwan for sweatshop labor costs, and why it goes to congress for regulatory control over most domestic markets. Research the number of cable/internet providers and how they have (with the help of congress) divided the nation mostly into fixed no-compete zones, allowing them to raise rates/decrease services without being disciplined by market competition. Real money comes from government protected monopolies.

Capital wants and gets a ton of free technological research and advanced industrial infrastructure. The 80s consumer electronics boom was heavily dependent upon the state sector (mostly Defense and NASA). Research the history of satellite and Internet technology or containerization or Aerospace, to name only a few industries. FDR and Reagan were masters of Military Keynesianism; both grew the economy and our technological superiority with the help of The Big Government Defense Sector.

[Most Republicans don't know the kind of subsidies say Boeing received. Nor do they understand how WWII manufacturing helped to end the depression; nor do they know how the aforementioned government-lead manufacturing was converted to the commercial boom that undergird the great postwar growth from 1945-1973.]

[Seriously, ask a republican to talk about the government-lead industrial output of WWII or the Cold War (including the number of jobs and spenders it put into the economy), and then ask how said output was converted to domestic commercial uses... and you will get a blank stare followed by simplistic cliches about the evils of government. These people are know-nothings who have never studied this stuff - never fucking read an actual policy paper. They get their information from pop media bafoons like Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin]

The carrying capacity of the Southwest, with all its thriving profit centers, wouldn't exist without the Hoover Dam and the multi-trillion dollar engineering of the Colorado tributary system, which no combination of corporations could have afforded in the 20s. Same goes for the nation's energy or overseas trade routes, which require a massive military (government) effort across multiple continents.

The reason why large corporations build massive offices in Washington DC is precisely because so much profit making is parasitic on the public dollar.

And when those large corporations place massive bets they can't cover, like AIG and their corrupt derivative insurance scam, who do you think bails them out so that the global market doesn't tank?

Listen, my family owned a successful small business across several generations. I support a system that provides incentives to the productive, one that doesn't reward laziness. This is second grade stuff.

I also think price controls are fucking moronic because they not only fail to create appropriate incentives for suppliers but no central planner could ever have enough information to predict consumer behavior.

Let's cut to the chase. The Republican Party takes advantage of well-meaning uneducated people who have no clue the degree to which profit makers are parasitic on the state. This means any debate regarding government involvement in the economy can't even get started.

Turn off Fox News and go to a library.

Let's get you up to speed on some things here.... Capitalism comes in all shapes and forms. The Russians, China and North Korea engage in Capitalism... it's not free market capitalism, it's Marxist-Socialist-Fascist capitalism... but it's Capitalism.

What you have an objection to is what many in the current anti-establishment GOP object to... Crony Corporatist Capitalism. That is NOT Free Market Capitalism. The Corporatist unfairly uses the powers of government to leverage an advantage over his competition... that's the antithesis of "free markets" and is actually more subversive and damaging to free market capitalism than Marxist socialism.

Whoosh! And the point goes straight over your head. He's saying (among other things) that there is a symbiotic relationship between government and industry that provides much or most of what we enjoy as an advanced technological society.

 

[Muhammed]

Because people turned around at the border AREN'T being deported?

That's not what deported means. Even the DHS Secretary says that.

Deported is to expel a foreigner from a country.

You guys will do anything to cover for your BOY despite things being done for him in a manner that has never been done for another President. He truly is the Affirmative Action president. He can't do the way the white Presidents had to do it so they make it easier on him by counting it a different way.

Racial slurs aside, how is paying employees a living wage a bad thing?

You're confused. The black President is having things counted in his favor that none of the other Presidents, all white, had counted that way for them. I stated a fact. You simply didn't like the manner in which I said it.

There's nothing wrong with paying a worker a living wage AS LONG AS the skills they offer in return warrant that wage. If they don't offer skills that warrant it, the problem isn't with the one paying but with the one offering such low skills they can't EARN it.

So what do propose we do with these people that you claim don't have the skills to earn a living wage? Round them up and slaughter them perhaps?

 

[Boss]

Capital wants the lowest possible labor costs coupled with the lest possible competition. This is why it goes to Taiwan for sweatshop labor costs, and why it goes to congress for regulatory control over most domestic markets. Research the number of cable/internet providers and how they have (with the help of congress) divided the nation mostly into fixed no-compete zones, allowing them to raise rates/decrease services without being disciplined by market competition. Real money comes from government protected monopolies.

Capital wants and gets a ton of free technological research and advanced industrial infrastructure. The 80s consumer electronics boom was heavily dependent upon the state sector (mostly Defense and NASA). Research the history of satellite and Internet technology or containerization or Aerospace, to name only a few industries. FDR and Reagan were masters of Military Keynesianism; both grew the economy and our technological superiority with the help of The Big Government Defense Sector.

[Most Republicans don't know the kind of subsidies say Boeing received. Nor do they understand how WWII manufacturing helped to end the depression; nor do they know how the aforementioned government-lead manufacturing was converted to the commercial boom that undergird the great postwar growth from 1945-1973.]

[Seriously, ask a republican to talk about the government-lead industrial output of WWII or the Cold War (including the number of jobs and spenders it put into the economy), and then ask how said output was converted to domestic commercial uses... and you will get a blank stare followed by simplistic cliches about the evils of government. These people are know-nothings who have never studied this stuff - never fucking read an actual policy paper. They get their information from pop media bafoons like Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin]

The carrying capacity of the Southwest, with all its thriving profit centers, wouldn't exist without the Hoover Dam and the multi-trillion dollar engineering of the Colorado tributary system, which no combination of corporations could have afforded in the 20s. Same goes for the nation's energy or overseas trade routes, which require a massive military (government) effort across multiple continents.

The reason why large corporations build massive offices in Washington DC is precisely because so much profit making is parasitic on the public dollar.

And when those large corporations place massive bets they can't cover, like AIG and their corrupt derivative insurance scam, who do you think bails them out so that the global market doesn't tank?

Listen, my family owned a successful small business across several generations. I support a system that provides incentives to the productive, one that doesn't reward laziness. This is second grade stuff.

I also think price controls are fucking moronic because they not only fail to create appropriate incentives for suppliers but no central planner could ever have enough information to predict consumer behavior.

Let's cut to the chase. The Republican Party takes advantage of well-meaning uneducated people who have no clue the degree to which profit makers are parasitic on the state. This means any debate regarding government involvement in the economy can't even get started.

Turn off Fox News and go to a library.

Let's get you up to speed on some things here.... Capitalism comes in all shapes and forms. The Russians, China and North Korea engage in Capitalism... it's not free market capitalism, it's Marxist-Socialist-Fascist capitalism... but it's Capitalism.

What you have an objection to is what many in the current anti-establishment GOP object to... Crony Corporatist Capitalism. That is NOT Free Market Capitalism. The Corporatist unfairly uses the powers of government to leverage an advantage over his competition... that's the antithesis of "free markets" and is actually more subversive and damaging to free market capitalism than Marxist socialism.

Whoosh! And the point goes straight over your head. He's saying (among other things) that there is a symbiotic relationship between government and industry that provides much or most of what we enjoy as an advanced technological society.

No there's not and that's not what has created our advanced technological society. This is the reason you keep getting things wrong. From the most fundamental level, you don't comprehend reality. Then you build an ideology based on that. If what you are claiming were true, every nation on the planet would enjoy technological advancement and that's clearly not the case.

There is a reason why we are the most technologically advanced and it is no coincidence our government was most certainly designed and intended to be small and limited in power.

It is our individual freedom to pursue our interests and passions, our ability to freely participate in enterprise and commerce with each other. To trade, barter and sell our ideas, our skills and our talents. To develop those ideas and build upon them without being encumbered by outside forces of power or their influence, or the influence of their agents.

To what extent we need government, it is to protect that freedom and liberty and stay the hell out of the way. That's a huge and important job, make no mistake, but to claim that there is a "symbiotic relationship" is just plain wrong.

 

[JoeNormal]

Capital wants the lowest possible labor costs coupled with the lest possible competition. This is why it goes to Taiwan for sweatshop labor costs, and why it goes to congress for regulatory control over most domestic markets. Research the number of cable/internet providers and how they have (with the help of congress) divided the nation mostly into fixed no-compete zones, allowing them to raise rates/decrease services without being disciplined by market competition. Real money comes from government protected monopolies.

Capital wants and gets a ton of free technological research and advanced industrial infrastructure. The 80s consumer electronics boom was heavily dependent upon the state sector (mostly Defense and NASA). Research the history of satellite and Internet technology or containerization or Aerospace, to name only a few industries. FDR and Reagan were masters of Military Keynesianism; both grew the economy and our technological superiority with the help of The Big Government Defense Sector.

[Most Republicans don't know the kind of subsidies say Boeing received. Nor do they understand how WWII manufacturing helped to end the depression; nor do they know how the aforementioned government-lead manufacturing was converted to the commercial boom that undergird the great postwar growth from 1945-1973.]

[Seriously, ask a republican to talk about the government-lead industrial output of WWII or the Cold War (including the number of jobs and spenders it put into the economy), and then ask how said output was converted to domestic commercial uses... and you will get a blank stare followed by simplistic cliches about the evils of government. These people are know-nothings who have never studied this stuff - never fucking read an actual policy paper. They get their information from pop media bafoons like Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin]

The carrying capacity of the Southwest, with all its thriving profit centers, wouldn't exist without the Hoover Dam and the multi-trillion dollar engineering of the Colorado tributary system, which no combination of corporations could have afforded in the 20s. Same goes for the nation's energy or overseas trade routes, which require a massive military (government) effort across multiple continents.

The reason why large corporations build massive offices in Washington DC is precisely because so much profit making is parasitic on the public dollar.

And when those large corporations place massive bets they can't cover, like AIG and their corrupt derivative insurance scam, who do you think bails them out so that the global market doesn't tank?

Listen, my family owned a successful small business across several generations. I support a system that provides incentives to the productive, one that doesn't reward laziness. This is second grade stuff.

I also think price controls are fucking moronic because they not only fail to create appropriate incentives for suppliers but no central planner could ever have enough information to predict consumer behavior.

Let's cut to the chase. The Republican Party takes advantage of well-meaning uneducated people who have no clue the degree to which profit makers are parasitic on the state. This means any debate regarding government involvement in the economy can't even get started.

Turn off Fox News and go to a library.

Let's get you up to speed on some things here.... Capitalism comes in all shapes and forms. The Russians, China and North Korea engage in Capitalism... it's not free market capitalism, it's Marxist-Socialist-Fascist capitalism... but it's Capitalism.

What you have an objection to is what many in the current anti-establishment GOP object to... Crony Corporatist Capitalism. That is NOT Free Market Capitalism. The Corporatist unfairly uses the powers of government to leverage an advantage over his competition... that's the antithesis of "free markets" and is actually more subversive and damaging to free market capitalism than Marxist socialism.

Whoosh! And the point goes straight over your head. He's saying (among other things) that there is a symbiotic relationship between government and industry that provides much or most of what we enjoy as an advanced technological society.

No there's not and that's not what has created our advanced technological society. This is the reason you keep getting things wrong. From the most fundamental level, you don't comprehend reality. Then you build an ideology based on that. If what you are claiming were true, every nation on the planet would enjoy technological advancement and that's clearly not the case.

There is a reason why we are the most technologically advanced and it is no coincidence our government was most certainly designed and intended to be small and limited in power.

It is our individual freedom to pursue our interests and passions, our ability to freely participate in enterprise and commerce with each other. To trade, barter and sell our ideas, our skills and our talents. To develop those ideas and build upon them without being encumbered by outside forces of power or their influence, or the influence of their agents.

To what extent we need government, it is to protect that freedom and liberty and stay the hell out of the way. That's a huge and important job, make no mistake, but to claim that there is a "symbiotic relationship" is just plain wrong.

Like most hard core right wingers, you are the polar opposite of a visionary. As such, you apparently believe that the Constitution is absolute in your personal interpretation of it and was written by prophets.

Furthermore, I would peg your understanding of the technological development process at the level of a savvy kindergartener. I develop technological IP for a living and I can tell you that if something we innovate won't pay off in a maximum of five years (two years is more typical), it doesn't receive funding to see the light of day. I'm personally grateful that big science and big infrastructure has been funded by the government. If you had even a hazy understanding of how our modern world came to be, you would be too.

 

[Conservative65]

That's not what deported means. Even the DHS Secretary says that.

Deported is to expel a foreigner from a country.

You guys will do anything to cover for your BOY despite things being done for him in a manner that has never been done for another President. He truly is the Affirmative Action president. He can't do the way the white Presidents had to do it so they make it easier on him by counting it a different way.

Racial slurs aside, how is paying employees a living wage a bad thing?

You're confused. The black President is having things counted in his favor that none of the other Presidents, all white, had counted that way for them. I stated a fact. You simply didn't like the manner in which I said it.

There's nothing wrong with paying a worker a living wage AS LONG AS the skills they offer in return warrant that wage. If they don't offer skills that warrant it, the problem isn't with the one paying but with the one offering such low skills they can't EARN it.

So what do propose we do with these people that you claim don't have the skills to earn a living wage? Round them up and slaughter them perhaps?

Same thing I've suggested for years. If someone thinks that a person unable to EARN a "living wage" should have it offset, write a personal check. No one says do what you asked. All I ask is for those that think the other person deserves it is to do what I suggested and the ones wanting it to STFU about having it handed to them.

 

[Muhammed]

Deported is to expel a foreigner from a country.

You guys will do anything to cover for your BOY despite things being done for him in a manner that has never been done for another President. He truly is the Affirmative Action president. He can't do the way the white Presidents had to do it so they make it easier on him by counting it a different way.

Racial slurs aside, how is paying employees a living wage a bad thing?

You're confused. The black President is having things counted in his favor that none of the other Presidents, all white, had counted that way for them. I stated a fact. You simply didn't like the manner in which I said it.

There's nothing wrong with paying a worker a living wage AS LONG AS the skills they offer in return warrant that wage. If they don't offer skills that warrant it, the problem isn't with the one paying but with the one offering such low skills they can't EARN it.

So what do propose we do with these people that you claim don't have the skills to earn a living wage? Round them up and slaughter them perhaps?

Same thing I've suggested for years. If someone thinks that a person unable to EARN a "living wage" should have it offset, write a personal check. No one says do what you asked. All I ask is for those that think the other person deserves it is to do what I suggested and the ones wanting it to STFU about having it handed to them.

That is fucking ridiculous. Do actually WANT a civil war that would transform this country into a third world hellhole?

 

[Conservative65]

You guys will do anything to cover for your BOY despite things being done for him in a manner that has never been done for another President. He truly is the Affirmative Action president. He can't do the way the white Presidents had to do it so they make it easier on him by counting it a different way.

Racial slurs aside, how is paying employees a living wage a bad thing?

You're confused. The black President is having things counted in his favor that none of the other Presidents, all white, had counted that way for them. I stated a fact. You simply didn't like the manner in which I said it.

There's nothing wrong with paying a worker a living wage AS LONG AS the skills they offer in return warrant that wage. If they don't offer skills that warrant it, the problem isn't with the one paying but with the one offering such low skills they can't EARN it.

So what do propose we do with these people that you claim don't have the skills to earn a living wage? Round them up and slaughter them perhaps?

Same thing I've suggested for years. If someone thinks that a person unable to EARN a "living wage" should have it offset, write a personal check. No one says do what you asked. All I ask is for those that think the other person deserves it is to do what I suggested and the ones wanting it to STFU about having it handed to them.

That is fucking ridiculous. Do actually WANT a civil war that would transform this country into a third world hellhole?

You believe that every worker should get a living wage. That would mean some workers would have to be paid more than the skills they offer are worth since the concept involves making sure the worker has enough to live on without regard of what they provide in return. Since you do, what's ridiculous about expecting you to offset the difference when what the living wage amounts to is greater than what the skills the person offers is worth. If the living wage in an area is $12/hour but the person's skills only warrant $8/hour, are you going to voluntarily offset that $4/hour? If not, why not. You want it to that level.

 

[Muhammed]

Racial slurs aside, how is paying employees a living wage a bad thing?

You're confused. The black President is having things counted in his favor that none of the other Presidents, all white, had counted that way for them. I stated a fact. You simply didn't like the manner in which I said it.

There's nothing wrong with paying a worker a living wage AS LONG AS the skills they offer in return warrant that wage. If they don't offer skills that warrant it, the problem isn't with the one paying but with the one offering such low skills they can't EARN it.

So what do propose we do with these people that you claim don't have the skills to earn a living wage? Round them up and slaughter them perhaps?

Same thing I've suggested for years. If someone thinks that a person unable to EARN a "living wage" should have it offset, write a personal check. No one says do what you asked. All I ask is for those that think the other person deserves it is to do what I suggested and the ones wanting it to STFU about having it handed to them.

That is fucking ridiculous. Do actually WANT a civil war that would transform this country into a third world hellhole?

You believe that every worker should get a living wage. That would mean some workers would have to be paid more than the skills they offer are worth since the concept involves making sure the worker has enough to live on without regard of what they provide in return. Since you do, what's ridiculous about expecting you to offset the difference when what the living wage amounts to is greater than what the skills the person offers is worth. If the living wage in an area is $12/hour but the person's skills only warrant $8/hour, are you going to voluntarily offset that $4/hour? If not, why not. You want it to that level.

I already do that. It's called taxes. Extreme liberals like you don't seem to comprehend that fact.

 

[Conservative65]

You're confused. The black President is having things counted in his favor that none of the other Presidents, all white, had counted that way for them. I stated a fact. You simply didn't like the manner in which I said it.

There's nothing wrong with paying a worker a living wage AS LONG AS the skills they offer in return warrant that wage. If they don't offer skills that warrant it, the problem isn't with the one paying but with the one offering such low skills they can't EARN it.

So what do propose we do with these people that you claim don't have the skills to earn a living wage? Round them up and slaughter them perhaps?

Same thing I've suggested for years. If someone thinks that a person unable to EARN a "living wage" should have it offset, write a personal check. No one says do what you asked. All I ask is for those that think the other person deserves it is to do what I suggested and the ones wanting it to STFU about having it handed to them.

That is fucking ridiculous. Do actually WANT a civil war that would transform this country into a third world hellhole?

You believe that every worker should get a living wage. That would mean some workers would have to be paid more than the skills they offer are worth since the concept involves making sure the worker has enough to live on without regard of what they provide in return. Since you do, what's ridiculous about expecting you to offset the difference when what the living wage amounts to is greater than what the skills the person offers is worth. If the living wage in an area is $12/hour but the person's skills only warrant $8/hour, are you going to voluntarily offset that $4/hour? If not, why not. You want it to that level.

I already do that. It's called taxes. Extreme liberals like you don't seem to comprehend that fact.

I said voluntary by writing a personal check. You don't read well do you.

I'm not the one supporting public assistance. That's you, Liberal.