Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[Dragonlady]

Fewer and fewer Americans, by percentage, are successful

Who has been in charge for the past decade? Allow me to assist. Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama.

This has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the Republican tax code which set all of this in motion in the 1980's. Look to where Americans savings peaked and started dropping off - 1982, when wages stagnated, 1981, when corporate mergers and profits started rising. Everything dates back to the Reagan tax code.

You idiots keep blaming Democrats, when it's the Republicans who keep electing who did this to you. Democrats haven't been able to change tax policy to reverse this, but it is the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of man and it all went one way - to the top 5%

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There was great prosperity? Do you know the word "prosperity" comes from the word prosperous; meaning accumulating great wealth and having more than enough material items? I don't recall unions doing that.

The Republican vision is for people to get off their ass and make something of themselves. No more turning nuts onto bolts and getting paid $50,000 a year. Those days are long gone and they are never coming back. Your only two choices are hope and pray somebody hires you to do monkey jobs and pays you great wages, or learn a trade or profession and MAKE YOURSELF worth more money.

That's the Republicans vision.

Thats funny, trump keeps saying he is going to bring manufacturing back.

Unemployment is low, people are working. The jobs just are not so good without unions.

Well, would you rather have jobs "not so good" or no jobs at all? That's the only two choices you have.

Your comment reminds me of something that happened to me years ago. One of our customers makes crates. They make crates the size of suitcases to crates the size of tractor-trailers. We delivered those crates to companies that were moving out of state or out of the country.

Whenever possible, I would try to learn more by starting a discussion about the move with the supervisor, the company owner, and even the workers.

In most cases, the company had to leave because of the unions. So I would ask the workers if they ever considered meeting the company demands in order to keep their jobs? They said they would never consider it. The union convinced them that the company was only trying to take advantage of them, or that the union would find them another union job so it didn't matter. Let the company close down. Who cares if they didn't play ball with the union employees?

Well, they all lost their jobs, and the union more than likely didn't find them squat. So in the end, they lost and the company still survived.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that logic.

That sure sounds loser. Bad jobs or no jobs is the best repubs have. Funny.

And where do you get this "Republicans" thing all the time? What does this have to do with the Republican party? You do know Bill Gates is a big lib, don't you? How about the late Steve Jobs? Both have sent American jobs overseas or made arrangements overseas to reduce their taxation.

Which one is funnier, Republicans wanting any kind of jobs or Democrats wanting no jobs?

The loser attitude is just wrong. We are the largest economy in the world, the richest nation in history. Yes we can have lots of good jobs.

And yet Obama gave us the weakest recovery in 70 years.

 

[Markle]

It started with Reagan.

Your usual lie.

As you know, it started with President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

The long standing policy of democrats is to create a permanent dependent underclass. Is being in power the only thing that matters to democrats?

Oh GFY and take your gaslighting bullshit elsewhere.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fewer and fewer Americans, by percentage, are successful

Who has been in charge for the past decade? Allow me to assist. Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama.

This has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the Republican tax code which set all of this in motion in the 1980's. Look to where Americans savings peaked and started dropping off - 1982, when wages stagnated, 1981, when corporate mergers and profits started rising. Everything dates back to the Reagan tax code.

You idiots keep blaming Democrats, when it's the Republicans who keep electing who did this to you. Democrats haven't been able to change tax policy to reverse this, but it is the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of man and it all went one way - to the top 5%

So what did Reagan do with that Democrat Congress? He took more money away from government--not take money away from the working people. Where do you people get this notion that when government takes less from job creators, it is somehow stealing from the middle-class?

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Thats funny, trump keeps saying he is going to bring manufacturing back.

Unemployment is low, people are working. The jobs just are not so good without unions.

Well, would you rather have jobs "not so good" or no jobs at all? That's the only two choices you have.

Your comment reminds me of something that happened to me years ago. One of our customers makes crates. They make crates the size of suitcases to crates the size of tractor-trailers. We delivered those crates to companies that were moving out of state or out of the country.

Whenever possible, I would try to learn more by starting a discussion about the move with the supervisor, the company owner, and even the workers.

In most cases, the company had to leave because of the unions. So I would ask the workers if they ever considered meeting the company demands in order to keep their jobs? They said they would never consider it. The union convinced them that the company was only trying to take advantage of them, or that the union would find them another union job so it didn't matter. Let the company close down. Who cares if they didn't play ball with the union employees?

Well, they all lost their jobs, and the union more than likely didn't find them squat. So in the end, they lost and the company still survived.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that logic.

That sure sounds loser. Bad jobs or no jobs is the best repubs have. Funny.

And where do you get this "Republicans" thing all the time? What does this have to do with the Republican party? You do know Bill Gates is a big lib, don't you? How about the late Steve Jobs? Both have sent American jobs overseas or made arrangements overseas to reduce their taxation.

Which one is funnier, Republicans wanting any kind of jobs or Democrats wanting no jobs?

The loser attitude is just wrong. We are the largest economy in the world, the richest nation in history. Yes we can have lots of good jobs.

And yet Obama gave us the weakest recovery in 70 years.

And it's about to get worse under von TrumpleStiltSkin, the giant Cheeto:
Two of Wall Street's Biggest Names Are Sounding the Alarm on the U.S. Economy
"
Two of Wall Street’s most influential CEOs -- Larry Fink and Jamie Dimon -- are raising warning flags over the nation’s economy.
BlackRock Inc.’s Fink said Thursday that U.S. growth is slowing on concern whether the Trump administration’s agenda will get through Congress. Dimon lamented that “it is clear that something is wrong” with the nation in a letter to investors Tuesday. Both CEOs are part of a group of business leaders that advise President Donald Trump.""""

You're gonna' fuckin' BEG for Obama to come back to the White House. He might as well. It's empty most of the time since The Dumpster spends our tax money to stay in Florida.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There was great prosperity? Do you know the word "prosperity" comes from the word prosperous; meaning accumulating great wealth and having more than enough material items? I don't recall unions doing that.

The Republican vision is for people to get off their ass and make something of themselves. No more turning nuts onto bolts and getting paid $50,000 a year. Those days are long gone and they are never coming back. Your only two choices are hope and pray somebody hires you to do monkey jobs and pays you great wages, or learn a trade or profession and MAKE YOURSELF worth more money.

That's the Republicans vision.

Thats funny, trump keeps saying he is going to bring manufacturing back.

Unemployment is low, people are working. The jobs just are not so good without unions.

Well, would you rather have jobs "not so good" or no jobs at all? That's the only two choices you have.

Your comment reminds me of something that happened to me years ago. One of our customers makes crates. They make crates the size of suitcases to crates the size of tractor-trailers. We delivered those crates to companies that were moving out of state or out of the country.

Whenever possible, I would try to learn more by starting a discussion about the move with the supervisor, the company owner, and even the workers.

In most cases, the company had to leave because of the unions. So I would ask the workers if they ever considered meeting the company demands in order to keep their jobs? They said they would never consider it. The union convinced them that the company was only trying to take advantage of them, or that the union would find them another union job so it didn't matter. Let the company close down. Who cares if they didn't play ball with the union employees?

Well, they all lost their jobs, and the union more than likely didn't find them squat. So in the end, they lost and the company still survived.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that logic.

That sure sounds loser. Bad jobs or no jobs is the best repubs have. Funny.

And where do you get this "Republicans" thing all the time? What does this have to do with the Republican party? You do know Bill Gates is a big lib, don't you? How about the late Steve Jobs? Both have sent American jobs overseas or made arrangements overseas to reduce their taxation.

Which one is funnier, Republicans wanting any kind of jobs or Democrats wanting no jobs?

The loser attitude is just wrong. We are the largest economy in the world, the richest nation in history. Yes we can have lots of good jobs.

What loser attitude? If we are the richest nation in history; have the largest economy in the world, would that not indicate we are doing something right that the rest of the world is not doing?

We can have lots of jobs? Okay, then open up your own business and create some of those good jobs. Let's see how you do with your business model compared to the successful ones.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Face it, rightwing idiots. Trump is failing and he's failing badly. The good news is that he won't be here this time next year. Either he will be impeached or he will resign because he's not been "...treated fairly"! Sad.

 

[Markle]

The only revenue available to the owners and employees is the consumer.

Unless you're raising a sales tax...so what?
We're no longer talking about consumers money, we're talking about money now held by the company.

 

[Markle]

You idiots keep blaming Democrats, when it's the Republicans who keep electing who did this to you. Democrats haven't been able to change tax policy to reverse this, but it is the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of man and it all went one way - to the top 5%

Who again was in charge? Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama.

Are you even aware, or do you refuse to admit that under the Obama reign, taxes skyrocketed along with regulations which drastically increased costs for owners?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, would you rather have jobs "not so good" or no jobs at all? That's the only two choices you have.

Your comment reminds me of something that happened to me years ago. One of our customers makes crates. They make crates the size of suitcases to crates the size of tractor-trailers. We delivered those crates to companies that were moving out of state or out of the country.

Whenever possible, I would try to learn more by starting a discussion about the move with the supervisor, the company owner, and even the workers.

In most cases, the company had to leave because of the unions. So I would ask the workers if they ever considered meeting the company demands in order to keep their jobs? They said they would never consider it. The union convinced them that the company was only trying to take advantage of them, or that the union would find them another union job so it didn't matter. Let the company close down. Who cares if they didn't play ball with the union employees?

Well, they all lost their jobs, and the union more than likely didn't find them squat. So in the end, they lost and the company still survived.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that logic.

That sure sounds loser. Bad jobs or no jobs is the best repubs have. Funny.

And where do you get this "Republicans" thing all the time? What does this have to do with the Republican party? You do know Bill Gates is a big lib, don't you? How about the late Steve Jobs? Both have sent American jobs overseas or made arrangements overseas to reduce their taxation.

Which one is funnier, Republicans wanting any kind of jobs or Democrats wanting no jobs?

The loser attitude is just wrong. We are the largest economy in the world, the richest nation in history. Yes we can have lots of good jobs.

And yet Obama gave us the weakest recovery in 70 years.

And it's about to get worse under von TrumpleStiltSkin, the giant Cheeto:
Two of Wall Street's Biggest Names Are Sounding the Alarm on the U.S. Economy
"
Two of Wall Street’s most influential CEOs -- Larry Fink and Jamie Dimon -- are raising warning flags over the nation’s economy.
BlackRock Inc.’s Fink said Thursday that U.S. growth is slowing on concern whether the Trump administration’s agenda will get through Congress. Dimon lamented that “it is clear that something is wrong” with the nation in a letter to investors Tuesday. Both CEOs are part of a group of business leaders that advise President Donald Trump.""""

You're gonna' fuckin' BEG for Obama to come back to the White House. He might as well. It's empty most of the time since The Dumpster spends our tax money to stay in Florida.

Dimon lamented that “it is clear that something is wrong” with the nation in a letter to investors Tuesday.

Ummmm...he's talking about the mess Obama left us.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only revenue available to the owners and employees is the consumer.

Unless you're raising a sales tax...so what?
We're no longer talking about consumers money, we're talking about money now held by the company.

If Congress raises corporate tax rates tomorrow, do companies get to go back
and take more money from previous customers?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Face it, rightwing idiots. Trump is failing and he's failing badly. The good news is that he won't be here this time next year. Either he will be impeached or he will resign because he's not been "...treated fairly"! Sad.

So you think that an all Republican federal government will impeach a Republican President? Then you wonder why we call you people uninformed voters?????

 

[Brain357]

Thats funny, trump keeps saying he is going to bring manufacturing back.

Unemployment is low, people are working. The jobs just are not so good without unions.

Well, would you rather have jobs "not so good" or no jobs at all? That's the only two choices you have.

Your comment reminds me of something that happened to me years ago. One of our customers makes crates. They make crates the size of suitcases to crates the size of tractor-trailers. We delivered those crates to companies that were moving out of state or out of the country.

Whenever possible, I would try to learn more by starting a discussion about the move with the supervisor, the company owner, and even the workers.

In most cases, the company had to leave because of the unions. So I would ask the workers if they ever considered meeting the company demands in order to keep their jobs? They said they would never consider it. The union convinced them that the company was only trying to take advantage of them, or that the union would find them another union job so it didn't matter. Let the company close down. Who cares if they didn't play ball with the union employees?

Well, they all lost their jobs, and the union more than likely didn't find them squat. So in the end, they lost and the company still survived.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that logic.

That sure sounds loser. Bad jobs or no jobs is the best repubs have. Funny.

And where do you get this "Republicans" thing all the time? What does this have to do with the Republican party? You do know Bill Gates is a big lib, don't you? How about the late Steve Jobs? Both have sent American jobs overseas or made arrangements overseas to reduce their taxation.

Which one is funnier, Republicans wanting any kind of jobs or Democrats wanting no jobs?

The loser attitude is just wrong. We are the largest economy in the world, the richest nation in history. Yes we can have lots of good jobs.

And yet Obama gave us the weakest recovery in 70 years.

Which is understandable given he was handed 2 wars, a recession, housing bubble, out of control deficits...

 

[Brain357]

Thats funny, trump keeps saying he is going to bring manufacturing back.

Unemployment is low, people are working. The jobs just are not so good without unions.

Well, would you rather have jobs "not so good" or no jobs at all? That's the only two choices you have.

Your comment reminds me of something that happened to me years ago. One of our customers makes crates. They make crates the size of suitcases to crates the size of tractor-trailers. We delivered those crates to companies that were moving out of state or out of the country.

Whenever possible, I would try to learn more by starting a discussion about the move with the supervisor, the company owner, and even the workers.

In most cases, the company had to leave because of the unions. So I would ask the workers if they ever considered meeting the company demands in order to keep their jobs? They said they would never consider it. The union convinced them that the company was only trying to take advantage of them, or that the union would find them another union job so it didn't matter. Let the company close down. Who cares if they didn't play ball with the union employees?

Well, they all lost their jobs, and the union more than likely didn't find them squat. So in the end, they lost and the company still survived.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that logic.

That sure sounds loser. Bad jobs or no jobs is the best repubs have. Funny.

And where do you get this "Republicans" thing all the time? What does this have to do with the Republican party? You do know Bill Gates is a big lib, don't you? How about the late Steve Jobs? Both have sent American jobs overseas or made arrangements overseas to reduce their taxation.

Which one is funnier, Republicans wanting any kind of jobs or Democrats wanting no jobs?

The loser attitude is just wrong. We are the largest economy in the world, the richest nation in history. Yes we can have lots of good jobs.

What loser attitude? If we are the richest nation in history; have the largest economy in the world, would that not indicate we are doing something right that the rest of the world is not doing?

We can have lots of jobs? Okay, then open up your own business and create some of those good jobs. Let's see how you do with your business model compared to the successful ones.

You say our economy is dead in the water and the best we can do is bad jobs that people should be happy with. You can't see how that is a loser attitude? You really are lost.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the common offense or general warfare is not.

welfare in the context used in the constitution does not mean giving money to the poor or lazy. it means providing an environment that is safe and fair. It does not mean guaranteeing everyone equal results in life.

I don't take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You only have, "specifics".

the words of the constitution and the intent of the founders is quite clear. Individual freedom and responsibility in an environment of law.

Freedom includes both the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. Your results are based on your efforts and are not guaranteed by the federal government.

Both terms, promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare; that means, what ever will work in the most cost effective manner.

I think the words are "promote the general welfare" not "provide welfare in general".

Both terms, promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare; that means, what ever will work in the most cost effective manner.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You only have, "specifics".

the words of the constitution and the intent of the founders is quite clear. Individual freedom and responsibility in an environment of law.

Freedom includes both the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. Your results are based on your efforts and are not guaranteed by the federal government.

Both terms, promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare; that means, what ever will work in the most cost effective manner.

I think the words are "promote the general welfare" not "provide welfare in general".

just plain false analogies.

the meanings of the words are not in dispute, the words in the constitution are clear, the intent of the founders is clear.

they wanted a national environment that allowed any citizen to "pursue happiness" as he or she desired. They had declared independence from a system where everyone was subject to the whims and desires of monarchs and tyrants.

Don't you understand that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have?

The common defense is not the power for the common offense, even if a good offense is the best defense.

 

[danielpalos]

This has been an abject failure every time it's been tried. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

There has to be an entire infrastructure set up to find the jobs, to match the welfare recipients to the jobs, to arrange placements with the employers, and to arrange the bus transportation. There has to be due consideration as to whether the individuals can physically perform the work required. Not everyone is physically able to do hard manual labour. Welfare recipients could sue for discrimination if they are assigned work they are physically unsuited to perform.

There also has to be someone at the employers' end who tracks which workers show up and what hours they work, and supervise them to ensure they are working. As for the employers, they aren't interesting in being sent a bunch of city people who have no idea of how to pick crops, or who do it too slowly. The profit margins these farmers work under are so small that they can ill afford a bunch of to hire a bunch of lazy, fat city people who have no idea of what they're doing.

The vast majority of people receiving Section 8 housing, food stamps, MedicAid, or other forms of federal assistance, have full time jobs, or more than one part time job, for which they are paid very low wages. These people wouldn't be available for your slave pool.

As someone who worked in the tobacco fields in the summer when I was young, I am well aware that farm labour really isn't suitable for people who aren't young, strong and very healthy.

This whole program was tried where I lived a few years ago - "WorkFare". Everyone said it was high time. Members of our church thought this would be a good way to get some needed work done on our Church building, while teaching welfare bums some needed lessons. What we discovered was that we had to hire someone to supervise the workers. This person had to be on site the whole time. By the time we paid for our "workers" and the supervisor, it would be cheaper for us to hire small local firms to do the work, and we'd get a higher quality of work if we did.

The government announced this program with great fanfare, but then quietly cancelled it a year later. There were few takers for the service. Many organizations considered it "slavery" and refused to use it. Others, like our church, discovered that the required supervision made the program too expensive to use, and that the quality of the work was highly suspect.

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

too much irony for hypocrites? it is about being legal to our own laws instead of merely, "harassing" less fortunate illegals for their illegalities.

it is about being legal to our own laws

Exactly!
Our laws say, unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

can you cite a State labor code that states that?

 

[danielpalos]

The abuse isn't obvious to you?

So do the places they work pay anything? Or do they get free labor?

The abuse isn't obvious to you?

A work requirement is abuse? Tell me more.

Employment is at-will not for -cause.

DERP!

just untermenchen talk?

Moron says what?

only untermenchen have nothing but fallacy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, would you rather have jobs "not so good" or no jobs at all? That's the only two choices you have.

Your comment reminds me of something that happened to me years ago. One of our customers makes crates. They make crates the size of suitcases to crates the size of tractor-trailers. We delivered those crates to companies that were moving out of state or out of the country.

Whenever possible, I would try to learn more by starting a discussion about the move with the supervisor, the company owner, and even the workers.

In most cases, the company had to leave because of the unions. So I would ask the workers if they ever considered meeting the company demands in order to keep their jobs? They said they would never consider it. The union convinced them that the company was only trying to take advantage of them, or that the union would find them another union job so it didn't matter. Let the company close down. Who cares if they didn't play ball with the union employees?

Well, they all lost their jobs, and the union more than likely didn't find them squat. So in the end, they lost and the company still survived.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that logic.

That sure sounds loser. Bad jobs or no jobs is the best repubs have. Funny.

And where do you get this "Republicans" thing all the time? What does this have to do with the Republican party? You do know Bill Gates is a big lib, don't you? How about the late Steve Jobs? Both have sent American jobs overseas or made arrangements overseas to reduce their taxation.

Which one is funnier, Republicans wanting any kind of jobs or Democrats wanting no jobs?

The loser attitude is just wrong. We are the largest economy in the world, the richest nation in history. Yes we can have lots of good jobs.

What loser attitude? If we are the richest nation in history; have the largest economy in the world, would that not indicate we are doing something right that the rest of the world is not doing?

We can have lots of jobs? Okay, then open up your own business and create some of those good jobs. Let's see how you do with your business model compared to the successful ones.

You say our economy is dead in the water and the best we can do is bad jobs that people should be happy with. You can't see how that is a loser attitude? You really are lost.

There is only one solution to dealing with bad jobs, and that is get a better job.

The days of going into the workforce with no experience or training and being able to make a good living are long gone. You can accept that or continue to live in disbelief.

The real loser attitude is living in the past where you can drive around on a floor sweeper and make 50K a year plus good benefits. It's simply not there anymore than a telephone operator, a ditch digger, a ice man to deliver ice blocks for your refrigerator or a coal man to shovel coal into your basement so you can create heat for your home.

There are just some things that you can never get back such as great paying monkey jobs. And I never said our economy was dead in the water. I think our economy is doing fine.