Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[Muhammed]

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.

I know your type. You support a total laissez faire economy. That is practically the definition of a liberal.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

I know your type. You support a total laissez faire economy. That is practically the definition of a liberal.

Oh, one of those that claims to know more about a person than the person. You're confusing modern Liberals with classical Liberals, also known as Libertarians of which I am neither. I don't have a problem with certain government functions. I could list them but there's something that does it better. The Constitution. Try reading it and see what it says.

 

[francoHFW]

Could any of the Democrats in the forum explain how destroying hundreds of thousands of good used cars, the only ones that poor people can afford BTW, helps the poor?

You fuckers are maniacal idiots.

Helped the car companies and economy duh. Some marxists lol...

 

[francoHFW]

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.

I know your type. You support a total laissez faire economy. That is practically the definition of a liberal.

Wrong. Well regulated does. That's idiot conservatism.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

I know your type. You support a total laissez faire economy. That is practically the definition of a liberal.

Oh, one of those that claims to know more about a person than the person. You're confusing modern Liberals with classical Liberals, also known as Libertarians of which I am neither. I don't have a problem with certain government functions. I could list them but there's something that does it better. The Constitution. Try reading it and see what it says.

You're confusing the propaganda of the New BS GOP with real politics.

 

[francoHFW]

I believe that a business owner has a moral obligation to pay their employees (that make them all of their monies) high enough where the employee doesn't become a burden on society.

So if somebody is a burden on society, it's the employers fault and not the individual that is working for that employer?

That's like saying it's the banks fault for getting robbed because the bank had a lot of money and the robber had little.

If we make everybody's life better by forcing industry to overpay a worker, how do you expect the worker to ever want to better themselves?

My first full-time job was at a car wash. It was an idiots job. I took money from customers, put them on the line, and hit a button to send the car through the wash.

Imagine if back then, we did things the way liberals want to do it now! I may have spent my life at that car wash, or wasted a lot of my life working there until I finally decided to do something better with my time on this earth.

Minimum wage employees in our country make up about 3% of our workforce. You are not going to have wage disparity because of that 3%. And within a years time, most of those in that 3% end up making more than minimum wage. So your logic is flawed.

So you don't believe in returning to the community?

So you consider the government taking it through a mandate as a business giving back to the community? Giving back involves a willful act by the giver not a mandate from the taker.

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.

In other words, you demand that a business pay a higher wage to an employer than the skills the workers provides are worth. Got it.

As decided upon by greedy idiot Pub billionaires and brainwashed chumps like you....lol

 

[Conservative65]

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.

I know your type. You support a total laissez faire economy. That is practically the definition of a liberal.

Wrong. Well regulated does. That's idiot conservatism.

The problem with idiots like you saying well regulated is that you also want to determine what that means and expect the rest of us to just agree.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

I know your type. You support a total laissez faire economy. That is practically the definition of a liberal.

Wrong. Well regulated does. That's idiot conservatism.

The problem with idiots like you saying well regulated is that you also want to determine what that means and expect the rest of us to just agree.

It's called good gov't, and even a disgrace of an opposition like yours gets to help decide on it...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You're wrong. Greedy CEO's are the reason we need public assistance AND are the reason we have wage disparity.

We don't "need" public assistance, we have public assistance. Big difference.

Wage disparity is due to more Americans finding their dream. We make a new millionaire every day in this country just with lotteries alone. With more things to buy than ever before, those who provide goods and services deserve what they earned.

CEO's have control over the company they work for and not society. CEO's don't provide social programs--Democrats provide social programs.

Since wages haven't kept par with costs, the NEED for public assistance has increased.

Wage disparity is due to Americans finding their dream and wanting more than their dream is worth. During the Visa card economy of W., investors received record returns which they still want to receive, but the Visa card is maxed out, so companies take the easy way out and off-shore to slave workers.

I believe that CEO's have a responsibility to their companies and society and a whole. I talk-the-talk AND walk-the-walk by staring my employees at $23.50/hr plus benefits. None of my employees are a burden to society. Can Walmart say the same?

You start your employees at $49k a year?

 

[Muhammed]

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.

I know your type. You support a total laissez faire economy. That is practically the definition of a liberal.

Oh, one of those that claims to know more about a person than the person. You're confusing modern Liberals with classical Liberals, also known as Libertarians of which I am neither. I don't have a problem with certain government functions. I could list them but there's something that does it better. The Constitution. Try reading it and see what it says.

I know you are a liberal because of your posts here that I've read. Also, I do not need to read the Constitution because I know it by heart and can cite it verbatim. I can also cite the enlightenment era law books that the Constitution is based on verbatim.

 

[Conservative65]

So if somebody is a burden on society, it's the employers fault and not the individual that is working for that employer?

That's like saying it's the banks fault for getting robbed because the bank had a lot of money and the robber had little.

If we make everybody's life better by forcing industry to overpay a worker, how do you expect the worker to ever want to better themselves?

My first full-time job was at a car wash. It was an idiots job. I took money from customers, put them on the line, and hit a button to send the car through the wash.

Imagine if back then, we did things the way liberals want to do it now! I may have spent my life at that car wash, or wasted a lot of my life working there until I finally decided to do something better with my time on this earth.

Minimum wage employees in our country make up about 3% of our workforce. You are not going to have wage disparity because of that 3%. And within a years time, most of those in that 3% end up making more than minimum wage. So your logic is flawed.

So you don't believe in returning to the community?

So you consider the government taking it through a mandate as a business giving back to the community? Giving back involves a willful act by the giver not a mandate from the taker.

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.

In other words, you demand that a business pay a higher wage to an employer than the skills the workers provides are worth. Got it.

As decided upon by greedy idiot Pub billionaires and brainwashed chumps like you....lol

As decided by those whose money is doing the paying. If you want to start a business and pay people a certain amount, I won't say it's too much or too little. I will say it's just right, whether I would choose to do the same thing or not, solely because the one doing the paying is the one doing the choosing.

Anyone that thinks someone that isn't doing the paying should dictate how much should be paid to those that are is brainwashed.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

I know your type. You support a total laissez faire economy. That is practically the definition of a liberal.

Oh, one of those that claims to know more about a person than the person. You're confusing modern Liberals with classical Liberals, also known as Libertarians of which I am neither. I don't have a problem with certain government functions. I could list them but there's something that does it better. The Constitution. Try reading it and see what it says.

I know you are a liberal because of your posts here that I've read. Also, I do not need to read the Constitution because I know it by heart and can cite it verbatim. I can also cite the enlightenment era law books that the Constitution is based on verbatim.

Sure you can, liar.

 

[Conservative65]

You're wrong. Greedy CEO's are the reason we need public assistance AND are the reason we have wage disparity.

We don't "need" public assistance, we have public assistance. Big difference.

Wage disparity is due to more Americans finding their dream. We make a new millionaire every day in this country just with lotteries alone. With more things to buy than ever before, those who provide goods and services deserve what they earned.

CEO's have control over the company they work for and not society. CEO's don't provide social programs--Democrats provide social programs.

Since wages haven't kept par with costs, the NEED for public assistance has increased.

Wage disparity is due to Americans finding their dream and wanting more than their dream is worth. During the Visa card economy of W., investors received record returns which they still want to receive, but the Visa card is maxed out, so companies take the easy way out and off-shore to slave workers.

I believe that CEO's have a responsibility to their companies and society and a whole. I talk-the-talk AND walk-the-walk by staring my employees at $23.50/hr plus benefits. None of my employees are a burden to society. Can Walmart say the same?

You start your employees at $49k a year?

He's a damn liar. Ask him to prove it by providing the name of the company and payroll records.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

I know your type. You support a total laissez faire economy. That is practically the definition of a liberal.

Wrong. Well regulated does. That's idiot conservatism.

The problem with idiots like you saying well regulated is that you also want to determine what that means and expect the rest of us to just agree.

It's called good gov't, and even a disgrace of an opposition like yours gets to help decide on it...

Again, you're deciding what you think is good and demanding the rest of us agree.

Any government that would enable it's citizens to be freeloaders by giving them more for nothing than they could earn while thinking that will motivate them to do better for themselves is NEVER good.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

I know your type. You support a total laissez faire economy. That is practically the definition of a liberal.

Wrong. Well regulated does. That's idiot conservatism.

The problem with idiots like you saying well regulated is that you also want to determine what that means and expect the rest of us to just agree.

It's called good gov't, and even a disgrace of an opposition like yours gets to help decide on it...

Again, you're deciding what you think is good and demanding the rest of us agree.

Any government that would enable it's citizens to be freeloaders by giving them more for nothing than they could earn while thinking that will motivate them to do better for themselves is NEVER good.

Unions are broken and the Greatest Generation is gone, so only gov't can watch out for the workers and the environment. Ethics free GOP CEOs and MBAs certainly won't...

 

[francoHFW]

You're wrong. Greedy CEO's are the reason we need public assistance AND are the reason we have wage disparity.

We don't "need" public assistance, we have public assistance. Big difference.

Wage disparity is due to more Americans finding their dream. We make a new millionaire every day in this country just with lotteries alone. With more things to buy than ever before, those who provide goods and services deserve what they earned.

CEO's have control over the company they work for and not society. CEO's don't provide social programs--Democrats provide social programs.

Since wages haven't kept par with costs, the NEED for public assistance has increased.

Wage disparity is due to Americans finding their dream and wanting more than their dream is worth. During the Visa card economy of W., investors received record returns which they still want to receive, but the Visa card is maxed out, so companies take the easy way out and off-shore to slave workers.

I believe that CEO's have a responsibility to their companies and society and a whole. I talk-the-talk AND walk-the-walk by staring my employees at $23.50/hr plus benefits. None of my employees are a burden to society. Can Walmart say the same?

You start your employees at $49k a year?

He's a damn liar. Ask him to prove it by providing the name of the company and payroll records.

That's ridiculous, but I assume it's a high tech industry, the type we SHOULD be training workers for, but the GOP blocks. NAFTA TPP free trade etc could work, it is in Germany etc where they don't have an idiot GOP...

 

[Conservative65]

You're wrong. Greedy CEO's are the reason we need public assistance AND are the reason we have wage disparity.

We don't "need" public assistance, we have public assistance. Big difference.

Wage disparity is due to more Americans finding their dream. We make a new millionaire every day in this country just with lotteries alone. With more things to buy than ever before, those who provide goods and services deserve what they earned.

CEO's have control over the company they work for and not society. CEO's don't provide social programs--Democrats provide social programs.

Since wages haven't kept par with costs, the NEED for public assistance has increased.

Wage disparity is due to Americans finding their dream and wanting more than their dream is worth. During the Visa card economy of W., investors received record returns which they still want to receive, but the Visa card is maxed out, so companies take the easy way out and off-shore to slave workers.

I believe that CEO's have a responsibility to their companies and society and a whole. I talk-the-talk AND walk-the-walk by staring my employees at $23.50/hr plus benefits. None of my employees are a burden to society. Can Walmart say the same?

You start your employees at $49k a year?

He's a damn liar. Ask him to prove it by providing the name of the company and payroll records.

That's ridiculous, but I assume it's a high tech industry, the type we SHOULD be training workers for, but the GOP blocks. NAFTA TPP free trade etc could work, it is in Germany etc where they don't have an idiot GOP...

What's ridiculous about asking someone to prove what they claim they do?

The problem with you saying we should be training workers in certain fields is that you want those that aren't the parents of the kids funding for those kids what those kids own parents won't do for them. I'm in full support of training for high tech jobs. What I don't support is being forced to fund it when those that should be aren't doing it.

Perhaps you should move to Germany if you like what they do so much. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[Conservative65]

I know your type. You support a total laissez faire economy. That is practically the definition of a liberal.

Wrong. Well regulated does. That's idiot conservatism.

The problem with idiots like you saying well regulated is that you also want to determine what that means and expect the rest of us to just agree.

It's called good gov't, and even a disgrace of an opposition like yours gets to help decide on it...

Again, you're deciding what you think is good and demanding the rest of us agree.

Any government that would enable it's citizens to be freeloaders by giving them more for nothing than they could earn while thinking that will motivate them to do better for themselves is NEVER good.

Unions are broken and the Greatest Generation is gone, so only gov't can watch out for the workers and the environment. Ethics free GOP CEOs and MBAs certainly won't...

So you do support an unwillingness to do for oneself what one should be doing?

If a company is paying a person what their skills are worth, what's unethical about that?

 

[francoHFW]

We don't "need" public assistance, we have public assistance. Big difference.

Wage disparity is due to more Americans finding their dream. We make a new millionaire every day in this country just with lotteries alone. With more things to buy than ever before, those who provide goods and services deserve what they earned.

CEO's have control over the company they work for and not society. CEO's don't provide social programs--Democrats provide social programs.

Since wages haven't kept par with costs, the NEED for public assistance has increased.

Wage disparity is due to Americans finding their dream and wanting more than their dream is worth. During the Visa card economy of W., investors received record returns which they still want to receive, but the Visa card is maxed out, so companies take the easy way out and off-shore to slave workers.

I believe that CEO's have a responsibility to their companies and society and a whole. I talk-the-talk AND walk-the-walk by staring my employees at $23.50/hr plus benefits. None of my employees are a burden to society. Can Walmart say the same?

You start your employees at $49k a year?

He's a damn liar. Ask him to prove it by providing the name of the company and payroll records.

That's ridiculous, but I assume it's a high tech industry, the type we SHOULD be training workers for, but the GOP blocks. NAFTA TPP free trade etc could work, it is in Germany etc where they don't have an idiot GOP...

What's ridiculous about asking someone to prove what they claim they do?

The problem with you saying we should be training workers in certain fields is that you want those that aren't the parents of the kids funding for those kids what those kids own parents won't do for them. I'm in full support of training for high tech jobs. What I don't support is being forced to fund it when those that should be aren't doing it.

Perhaps you should move to Germany if you like what they do so much. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

You can't. Plus, I'm AMERICAN, a-hole. You move to Somalia. We're just trying to make GOP morons think at this point....no forget that, you're nuts. Independents.

 

[francoHFW]

Wrong. Well regulated does. That's idiot conservatism.

The problem with idiots like you saying well regulated is that you also want to determine what that means and expect the rest of us to just agree.

It's called good gov't, and even a disgrace of an opposition like yours gets to help decide on it...

Again, you're deciding what you think is good and demanding the rest of us agree.

Any government that would enable it's citizens to be freeloaders by giving them more for nothing than they could earn while thinking that will motivate them to do better for themselves is NEVER good.

Unions are broken and the Greatest Generation is gone, so only gov't can watch out for the workers and the environment. Ethics free GOP CEOs and MBAs certainly won't...

So you do support an unwillingness to do for oneself what one should be doing?

If a company is paying a person what their skills are worth, what's unethical about that?

Wrong. Well regulated does. That's idiot conservatism.

The problem with idiots like you saying well regulated is that you also want to determine what that means and expect the rest of us to just agree.

It's called good gov't, and even a disgrace of an opposition like yours gets to help decide on it...

Again, you're deciding what you think is good and demanding the rest of us agree.

Any government that would enable it's citizens to be freeloaders by giving them more for nothing than they could earn while thinking that will motivate them to do better for themselves is NEVER good.

Unions are broken and the Greatest Generation is gone, so only gov't can watch out for the workers and the environment. Ethics free GOP CEOs and MBAs certainly won't...

So you do support an unwillingness to do for oneself what one should be doing?

If a company is paying a person what their skills are worth, what's unethical about that?

Their unethical way of doing business. DUH. Trusting corps is moronic, for ignorant dupes like you ONLY.