Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[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.

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

You're looking at the government's budget as if it matters in the regard. It does not.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The power to provide for the general welfare does just that; it is up to Congress to find the ways and means.

 

[hadit]

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.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Very true
We have been conditioned to accept less service at the same price

There is no question that the profit is there. They have just learned that they are under no obligation to share it unless forced to do so

Our Government chooses to ignore having employers support their employees and does it through welfare

 

[rightwinger]

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

You're looking at the government's budget as if it matters in the regard. It does not.

I'm afraid it does
We all pay the price

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

It works great in Australia and New Zealand, super dupe where there minimum wage is 19 and $15. BRain-washed functional moron.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I don't know about that. Somebody here wrote that they still have that in New Jersey, but I've never been to Jersey so I don't know.

Younger people don't remember full-serve gas stations, so maybe one day down the road, somebody might open one up as a gimmick and draw in a lot of business. For younger people that never experienced that before, they may get a kick out of it.

We have full-service pumps where we get our fuel at at Penske. Just drive your truck to the pump and somebody comes out, fills your fuel tanks, checks the oil, and refills your windshield washer fluid. I love it. It's great especially on global warming days like we're having in Cleveland where the high for the day is 14 degrees.

 

[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.

We the People will decide how to provide that General Welfare

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one....
James Madison

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
Thomas Jefferson

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison

 

[danielpalos]

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

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one....
James Madison

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
Thomas Jefferson

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison

Providing for the general welfare must be more comprehensive than anything justified for the common defense.

 

[hadit]

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

You're looking at the government's budget as if it matters in the regard. It does not.

I'm afraid it does
We all pay the price

Then the government should do what the private sector does and cut spending to bring it in line with revenue. They can increase spending again when the revenue shoots up after the tax cut.

 

[hadit]

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.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

Meaningless blargling. That's incoherent, even for you.

 

[hadit]

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.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

It works great in Australia and New Zealand, super dupe where there minimum wage is 19 and $15. BRain-washed functional moron.

And their prices?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I don't know about that. Somebody here wrote that they still have that in New Jersey, but I've never been to Jersey so I don't know.

Younger people don't remember full-serve gas stations, so maybe one day down the road, somebody might open one up as a gimmick and draw in a lot of business. For younger people that never experienced that before, they may get a kick out of it.

We have full-service pumps where we get our fuel at at Penske. Just drive your truck to the pump and somebody comes out, fills your fuel tanks, checks the oil, and refills your windshield washer fluid. I love it. It's great especially on global warming days like we're having in Cleveland where the high for the day is 14 degrees.

In Jersey they will fill your tank (which is still nice) but check the oil, or clean your windows....forget it

I once broke down at the pumps. I realized the worst place to have car problems is at a gas station. They won't do anything to help you

 

[rightwinger]

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

You're looking at the government's budget as if it matters in the regard. It does not.

I'm afraid it does
We all pay the price

Then the government should do what the private sector does and cut spending to bring it in line with revenue. They can increase spending again when the revenue shoots up after the tax cut.

In this case, they cut down a revenue stream for no reason
They will take it out on the poor.......I'm sorry but we can't afford to feed you this month

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

 

[hadit]

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.

Very true
We have been conditioned to accept less service at the same price

There is no question that the profit is there. They have just learned that they are under no obligation to share it unless forced to do so

Our Government chooses to ignore having employers support their employees and does it through welfare

Is it then your contention that gas stations could cost effectively hire workers at MW to pump your gas, check your oil and water, and pump up your tires?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

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

Thats funny though because that's 1.5 trillion over 10 years...and that's unacceptable according to the radical libs. O doing QE to 6 trillion to wall street was all good in the hood.

 

[rightwinger]

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

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one....
James Madison

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
Thomas Jefferson

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison

The powers of Congress are well established over 200+ years of legislation
If they are currently overstepping their powers, you, as a citizen have a right to challenge

I'm sure you can find some libertarian buddies to support you

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

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

Thats funny though because that's 1.5 trillion over 10 years...and that's unacceptable according to the radical libs. O doing QE to 6 trillion to wall street was all good in the hood.

QE was hugely successful in restoring the economy without inflation or devaluation of the dollar