Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[rightwinger]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

No it wouldn't and neither would a MW increase.

A person working MW lives with their parents or perhaps with another in an apartment. They are barely getting by. But then we increase the MW to $15.00 an hour, and everything is just great.........for now.

But you can't logically force a wage increase on just one group of people. It creates a domino effect.

So while they enjoy the ride while it lasts, eventually everybody has to make more money which means the cost of living soars. Then the people with the new MW of $15.00 an hour find themselves right back where they started which is barely getting by. So they cry to the Democrats that $15.00 is no longer a living wage, and they need to increase the minimum requirements to get back on food stamps, and nothing was solved.

It would be even faster than that. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. The MW advocates like to pretend the only people effected would be those currently earning MW. That is false. Everyone currently making less than $15/hr would get a mandated increase. That's already a lot of workers. But it doesn't stop there. If I'm a somewhat skilled worker that put in the time and effort to make $20/hr, I'm not going to be very happy that a yokel walking in off the street with no skills or training is going to be making almost as much as me. Most of the work force is going to either be effected or demand to be. I've often said that the only way aMW works is if it's kept life enough to not really make much difference. They can raise it, but the higher and faster that they do, the more disruption or will have, and companies will not carry net loss jobs for long.

Don't believe in Capitalism?

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

Don't believe in math?

Paying more for jobs than they are worth to the company costs money. Kill profits, baby, kill.

It is not what the worker is worth....but what an employer can force them to accept
Low skilled workers do not have much bargaining power and are easily exploited

 

[The Derp]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

They don't. YOU DO. You oppose raising the minimum wage, which would reduce SNAP usage, for no other reason than to complain about people on SNAP.

You're basically making a circle jerk of an argument and voluntarily eating the cracker.

 

[danielpalos]

Dems want to keep an underclass for their own personal use. What have they done to change the plight of Black Americans in the Inner Cities?

They tried healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

 

[hadit]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

No it wouldn't and neither would a MW increase.

A person working MW lives with their parents or perhaps with another in an apartment. They are barely getting by. But then we increase the MW to $15.00 an hour, and everything is just great.........for now.

But you can't logically force a wage increase on just one group of people. It creates a domino effect.

So while they enjoy the ride while it lasts, eventually everybody has to make more money which means the cost of living soars. Then the people with the new MW of $15.00 an hour find themselves right back where they started which is barely getting by. So they cry to the Democrats that $15.00 is no longer a living wage, and they need to increase the minimum requirements to get back on food stamps, and nothing was solved.

It would be even faster than that. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. The MW advocates like to pretend the only people effected would be those currently earning MW. That is false. Everyone currently making less than $15/hr would get a mandated increase. That's already a lot of workers. But it doesn't stop there. If I'm a somewhat skilled worker that put in the time and effort to make $20/hr, I'm not going to be very happy that a yokel walking in off the street with no skills or training is going to be making almost as much as me. Most of the work force is going to either be effected or demand to be. I've often said that the only way aMW works is if it's kept life enough to not really make much difference. They can raise it, but the higher and faster that they do, the more disruption or will have, and companies will not carry net loss jobs for long.

Don't believe in Capitalism?

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

Don't believe in math?

Paying more for jobs than they are worth to the company costs money. Kill profits, baby, kill.

Don't believe in Capitalism like Henry Ford? How socialist of the right wing.

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

I've destroyed you on that before. Have you forgotten so quickly?

 

[rightwinger]

You realize your local burger joint saw the price of beef double since the last minimum wage hike took place nine years ago?

The market adjusted for price increases due to the price of beef....it will adjust to increases due to higher wages

Yes, and if the MW increase is small and done slowly enough, we won't see too much disruption. That's not what so many want, however. They want to double it quickly, which would disrupt over half the workforce. Too much too fast.

Do it slowly, and we would just see some of the low skilled jobs disappear.

The only way the MW really works is if you keep it like enough that it really doesn't make that much of a difference.

We have not raised minimum wage in the last 9 years
The increase will have to cover the past 9 years as well as the next 9 till we get around to raising it again

$15 is reasonable

You're ignoring the fact that over 60% of the American work force makes $20/hr or less, and most, if not all, of them are going to demand raises. I know I would if I was making $17/hr and all of a sudden I'm making only 2 bucks more than minimum. That's a huge impact.

Those making less than $20 an hour are the ones needing government assistance. They have been ignored in the economic recovery as much as those making minimum wage

You cannot ignore practical reality. Only in a fantasy world can you quickly jack the MW that high with no or few negative effects. If you want a guaranteed income, be honest and create a welfare program. Companies should not become welfare distribution centers.

I have no issues with doing it incrementally over five years
But you will notice that 50% tax cut for employers was not done incrementally

 

[hadit]

Yes, and if the MW increase is small and done slowly enough, we won't see too much disruption. That's not what so many want, however. They want to double it quickly, which would disrupt over half the workforce. Too much too fast.

Do it slowly, and we would just see some of the low skilled jobs disappear.

The only way the MW really works is if you keep it like enough that it really doesn't make that much of a difference.

We have not raised minimum wage in the last 9 years
The increase will have to cover the past 9 years as well as the next 9 till we get around to raising it again

$15 is reasonable

You're ignoring the fact that over 60% of the American work force makes $20/hr or less, and most, if not all, of them are going to demand raises. I know I would if I was making $17/hr and all of a sudden I'm making only 2 bucks more than minimum. That's a huge impact.

Those making less than $20 an hour are the ones needing government assistance. They have been ignored in the economic recovery as much as those making minimum wage

You cannot ignore practical reality. Only in a fantasy world can you quickly jack the MW that high with no or few negative effects. If you want a guaranteed income, be honest and create a welfare program. Companies should not become welfare distribution centers.

Choose your poison
Have employers support their employees or have the taxpayer do it

You ignored the best option, which is to sustain an economy that enables everyone to support themselves.

Since when has it become society's responsibility to support everyone? Down that road lies ultimate collapse when the goose is killed.

 

[hadit]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

No it wouldn't and neither would a MW increase.

A person working MW lives with their parents or perhaps with another in an apartment. They are barely getting by. But then we increase the MW to $15.00 an hour, and everything is just great.........for now.

But you can't logically force a wage increase on just one group of people. It creates a domino effect.

So while they enjoy the ride while it lasts, eventually everybody has to make more money which means the cost of living soars. Then the people with the new MW of $15.00 an hour find themselves right back where they started which is barely getting by. So they cry to the Democrats that $15.00 is no longer a living wage, and they need to increase the minimum requirements to get back on food stamps, and nothing was solved.

It would be even faster than that. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. The MW advocates like to pretend the only people effected would be those currently earning MW. That is false. Everyone currently making less than $15/hr would get a mandated increase. That's already a lot of workers. But it doesn't stop there. If I'm a somewhat skilled worker that put in the time and effort to make $20/hr, I'm not going to be very happy that a yokel walking in off the street with no skills or training is going to be making almost as much as me. Most of the work force is going to either be effected or demand to be. I've often said that the only way aMW works is if it's kept life enough to not really make much difference. They can raise it, but the higher and faster that they do, the more disruption or will have, and companies will not carry net loss jobs for long.

Don't believe in Capitalism?

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

Don't believe in math?

Paying more for jobs than they are worth to the company costs money. Kill profits, baby, kill.

It is not what the worker is worth....but what an employer can force them to accept
Low skilled workers do not have much bargaining power and are easily exploited

Important difference. It is not the worker that has worth, but his work. To do otherwise is to disconnect the value of the work from compensation, which results in net loss, which results in fewer jobs and higher prices.

Ultimately, you can't fight the math. If a company pays more for a job than the job generates in revenue or that is not covered by other revenue, the company loses money. If the company loses enough money, it goes out of business and everyone loses their job.

Only in a fantasy can you compel a company to pay more for a job than it's worth and not have negative consequences.

 

[hadit]

Yes, and if the MW increase is small and done slowly enough, we won't see too much disruption. That's not what so many want, however. They want to double it quickly, which would disrupt over half the workforce. Too much too fast.

Do it slowly, and we would just see some of the low skilled jobs disappear.

The only way the MW really works is if you keep it like enough that it really doesn't make that much of a difference.

We have not raised minimum wage in the last 9 years
The increase will have to cover the past 9 years as well as the next 9 till we get around to raising it again

$15 is reasonable

You're ignoring the fact that over 60% of the American work force makes $20/hr or less, and most, if not all, of them are going to demand raises. I know I would if I was making $17/hr and all of a sudden I'm making only 2 bucks more than minimum. That's a huge impact.

Those making less than $20 an hour are the ones needing government assistance. They have been ignored in the economic recovery as much as those making minimum wage

You cannot ignore practical reality. Only in a fantasy world can you quickly jack the MW that high with no or few negative effects. If you want a guaranteed income, be honest and create a welfare program. Companies should not become welfare distribution centers.

I have no issues with doing it incrementally over five years
But you will notice that 50% tax cut for employers was not done incrementally

That's because a tax cut doesn't increase a company's expenses dramatically. There's no massive downside to doing it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

No it wouldn't and neither would a MW increase.

A person working MW lives with their parents or perhaps with another in an apartment. They are barely getting by. But then we increase the MW to $15.00 an hour, and everything is just great.........for now.

But you can't logically force a wage increase on just one group of people. It creates a domino effect.

So while they enjoy the ride while it lasts, eventually everybody has to make more money which means the cost of living soars. Then the people with the new MW of $15.00 an hour find themselves right back where they started which is barely getting by. So they cry to the Democrats that $15.00 is no longer a living wage, and they need to increase the minimum requirements to get back on food stamps, and nothing was solved.

It would be even faster than that. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. The MW advocates like to pretend the only people effected would be those currently earning MW. That is false. Everyone currently making less than $15/hr would get a mandated increase. That's already a lot of workers. But it doesn't stop there. If I'm a somewhat skilled worker that put in the time and effort to make $20/hr, I'm not going to be very happy that a yokel walking in off the street with no skills or training is going to be making almost as much as me. Most of the work force is going to either be effected or demand to be. I've often said that the only way aMW works is if it's kept life enough to not really make much difference. They can raise it, but the higher and faster that they do, the more disruption or will have, and companies will not carry net loss jobs for long.

Don't believe in Capitalism?

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

Don't believe in math?

Paying more for jobs than they are worth to the company costs money. Kill profits, baby, kill.

It is not what the worker is worth....but what an employer can force them to accept
Low skilled workers do not have much bargaining power and are easily exploited

Then the worker can find somebody else to work for. If nobody is going to pay he or she over minimum wage, then are they all exploiting workers?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Once they're enslaved to the dems through trinkets and other handouts, they're indebted with their vote.

What are Republicans offering them?

Its not the responsibility of the govt to offer trinkets.

It is a responsibility of Government to provide for the General Welfare of We the People

It doesn't say "fund" the general welfare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is this thread still going on? The question was already answered, the poor vote for democrats, so democrats want for there to be more poor people. Duhhh....

The poor are not stupid

They see Democrats in their neighborhoods offering help
All Republicans do is mock them for being poor

Nobody is knocking the poor just because we don't want to support them.

 

[skookerasbil]

We just saw 8 years of trickle-up poverty economics..........only those with a political IQ of a small soap dish don't get why that is!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do conservatives make shit up and lie all the time ?

Why do you deny what you are and what you believe in?

I don't believe your lying I just believe you were brainwashed to the point of total idiocy. On this front, Democrats want to text the rich more like their fair share and invest in training and cheap education For technical jobs that are going going begging under this stupid GOP policy, dumbass. We also want to cut taxes in a real way on the middle class and the working class so we can generate some demand for product. The last thing we need is more tax cuts on the bloated rich and giant corporations. Idiot.

Correct. We certainly don't want to give tax cuts to those who have been paying all of the taxes for the rest of us. The people that don't pay taxes should get a cut. The question is, how do you cut something that nobody was giving in the first place?

That is only true if you only count federal income taxes, super dupe. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 18 and 29% and the richest have been ending up with all the New Wealth for 35 years now, and you are an idiot yes.

Once again, income taxes are the money used to pay for stuff like welfare. Your Social Security doesn't go to pay for welfare, your Medicare taxes don't go to pay for welfare, your FICA taxes don't go to pay for welfare, and neither do your state or city taxes.

Income taxes are what supports just about everything in our country, and almost half of our country doesn't pay those taxes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Probably because its better they are on welfare than living in the streets.

It would be great if everyone had a job but only idiots think thats possible in a capitalistic system.

It's very possible. I work in industrial areas all day long. Each one is loaded with HELP WANTED signs because they can't find people to take the jobs.

They must not really want any help since there are plenty of unemployed people in every city.

So what you're saying is that they don't want help, so they hang HELP WANTED signs on their buildings? Why does that not make any sense whatsoever?

Obviously they dont want help. I hear people complaining all the time about how hard it is to get hired. If they wanted to employ someone there is no shortage of people looking for work. Putting up signs is bullshit. Talk to me when the signs come down because they hired someone.

They don't come down because they can't hire anybody. You better start hearing different people is what I would suggest.

My industry is transportation, and we need over 60,000 new drivers right now that industry can't find. As the boomers retire, it's going to get worse. Many companies are bringing in foreigners because they can't find Americans willing to do the job. Some companies will not only train you, but pay you while you learn and guarantee you a job for at least a year or two. After that, they give you a salary increase to get you to stay.

 

[basquebromance]

it's a globalist power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of it's wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.

the only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is Donald J Trump & WE THE PEOPLE!

 

[rightwinger]

We have not raised minimum wage in the last 9 years
The increase will have to cover the past 9 years as well as the next 9 till we get around to raising it again

$15 is reasonable

You're ignoring the fact that over 60% of the American work force makes $20/hr or less, and most, if not all, of them are going to demand raises. I know I would if I was making $17/hr and all of a sudden I'm making only 2 bucks more than minimum. That's a huge impact.

Those making less than $20 an hour are the ones needing government assistance. They have been ignored in the economic recovery as much as those making minimum wage

You cannot ignore practical reality. Only in a fantasy world can you quickly jack the MW that high with no or few negative effects. If you want a guaranteed income, be honest and create a welfare program. Companies should not become welfare distribution centers.

Choose your poison
Have employers support their employees or have the taxpayer do it

You ignored the best option, which is to sustain an economy that enables everyone to support themselves.

Since when has it become society's responsibility to support everyone? Down that road lies ultimate collapse when the goose is killed.

Very good option until you realize employers get to decide how much profit trickles down to those who create it

For example, we have sustained an economy for the last eight years in which corporations have tripled their value yet maintained the same pay scales
Those same corporations just received a 50 percent tax cut. How much will make it down to the employees?

So we have sustained that economy and those employees are still making a fucking $7.25 an hour

 

[rightwinger]

Once they're enslaved to the dems through trinkets and other handouts, they're indebted with their vote.

What are Republicans offering them?

Its not the responsibility of the govt to offer trinkets.

It is a responsibility of Government to provide for the General Welfare of We the People

It doesn't say "fund" the general welfare.

We the People will decide how to provide that General Welfare

 

[rightwinger]

We have not raised minimum wage in the last 9 years
The increase will have to cover the past 9 years as well as the next 9 till we get around to raising it again

$15 is reasonable

You're ignoring the fact that over 60% of the American work force makes $20/hr or less, and most, if not all, of them are going to demand raises. I know I would if I was making $17/hr and all of a sudden I'm making only 2 bucks more than minimum. That's a huge impact.

Those making less than $20 an hour are the ones needing government assistance. They have been ignored in the economic recovery as much as those making minimum wage

You cannot ignore practical reality. Only in a fantasy world can you quickly jack the MW that high with no or few negative effects. If you want a guaranteed income, be honest and create a welfare program. Companies should not become welfare distribution centers.

I have no issues with doing it incrementally over five years
But you will notice that 50% tax cut for employers was not done incrementally

That's because a tax cut doesn't increase a company's expenses dramatically. There's no massive downside to doing it.

The only downside I see is taking on $1.5 trillion in debt to fund that tax cut
That qualifies as massive

 

[hadit]

You're ignoring the fact that over 60% of the American work force makes $20/hr or less, and most, if not all, of them are going to demand raises. I know I would if I was making $17/hr and all of a sudden I'm making only 2 bucks more than minimum. That's a huge impact.

Those making less than $20 an hour are the ones needing government assistance. They have been ignored in the economic recovery as much as those making minimum wage

You cannot ignore practical reality. Only in a fantasy world can you quickly jack the MW that high with no or few negative effects. If you want a guaranteed income, be honest and create a welfare program. Companies should not become welfare distribution centers.

Choose your poison
Have employers support their employees or have the taxpayer do it

You ignored the best option, which is to sustain an economy that enables everyone to support themselves.

Since when has it become society's responsibility to support everyone? Down that road lies ultimate collapse when the goose is killed.

Very good option until you realize employers get to decide how much profit trickles down to those who create it

For example, we have sustained an economy for the last eight years in which corporations have tripled their value yet maintained the same pay scales
Those same corporations just received a 50 percent tax cut. How much will make it down to the employees?

So we have sustained that economy and those employees are still making a fucking $7.25 an hour

And those unskilled, relatively high paying jobs are gone for good. You do know that, right? Every step along this path, we have lost unskilled jobs, because they no longer generate enough revenue to cover their cost. You might not remember, but at one time in this country, you could pull into any gas station, get your car gassed up, your oil and water checked, and your windshield cleaned without leaving your car. That's never going to be the norm again.

 

[danielpalos]

No it wouldn't and neither would a MW increase.

A person working MW lives with their parents or perhaps with another in an apartment. They are barely getting by. But then we increase the MW to $15.00 an hour, and everything is just great.........for now.

But you can't logically force a wage increase on just one group of people. It creates a domino effect.

So while they enjoy the ride while it lasts, eventually everybody has to make more money which means the cost of living soars. Then the people with the new MW of $15.00 an hour find themselves right back where they started which is barely getting by. So they cry to the Democrats that $15.00 is no longer a living wage, and they need to increase the minimum requirements to get back on food stamps, and nothing was solved.

It would be even faster than that. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. The MW advocates like to pretend the only people effected would be those currently earning MW. That is false. Everyone currently making less than $15/hr would get a mandated increase. That's already a lot of workers. But it doesn't stop there. If I'm a somewhat skilled worker that put in the time and effort to make $20/hr, I'm not going to be very happy that a yokel walking in off the street with no skills or training is going to be making almost as much as me. Most of the work force is going to either be effected or demand to be. I've often said that the only way aMW works is if it's kept life enough to not really make much difference. They can raise it, but the higher and faster that they do, the more disruption or will have, and companies will not carry net loss jobs for long.

Don't believe in Capitalism?

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

Don't believe in math?

Paying more for jobs than they are worth to the company costs money. Kill profits, baby, kill.

Don't believe in Capitalism like Henry Ford? How socialist of the right wing.

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

I've destroyed you on that before. Have you forgotten so quickly?

Seattle's unemployment doesn't support your hypothesis.