Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[TNHarley]

Or they could get a better job themselves. Or get 2 jobs like i have had to do.

We have 30 million working Americans who require government assistance

Can you look at our economic statistics and identify 30 million better jobs or 30 million second jobs waiting to be filled?

There are jobs everywhere.
I have no sympathy for a person trying to feed their family with a high schooler job at Wendys for minimum wage. Also, if they cant afford to feed more heads without going on the dole, wrap up.
I swear, it really isnt that complicated.

OK

Show me a labor report with 30 million unfilled jobs

You missed about half my post, buddy.
The other half is irrelevant anyways. What if one area of the country has 60% of the jobs?
Also, that number doesnt reflect how many of those people would ACTUALLY be willing to change their lives for the betterment of themselves and their family.
Your post is a circle jerk made for idiots. Try again?

It is your solution, not mine
You claim we do not need welfare or food stamps because all people need to do is find a better paying job or work two jobs

I am merely asking you to support your solution by identifying 30 million unfilled "better jobs" or second jobs waiting to be filled

Otherwise, we can only assume that your solution does not solve the problem

I didnt claim that

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Complete and utter horseshit propaganda!

LOL, so you want Americans unemployed and starving.....................

Idiot

Where do you people get that tripe from. It is made up bovine excrement. We want people to have economic opportunity and earn a living wage . Which party is it the advocates giving huge tax cuts to the wealth and chump change to working people.? Which party wants to deprive millions of people health care ? Who wants to destroy medicare and social security?

It is because of right wing policies that the social safety net is needed more than ever. It is an outrageous lie to say that we want more people on food stamps and welfare . What we want is for those programs to be there for people who get screwed by the system. You should read Regulating the Poor by Piven and Cloward

 

[rightwinger]

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

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Complete and utter horseshit propaganda!

LOL, so you want Americans unemployed and starving.....................

Idiot

Where do you people get that tripe from. It is made up bovine excrement. We want people to have economic opportunity and earn a living wage . Which party is it the advocates giving huge tax cuts to the wealth and chump change to working people.? Which party wants to deprive millions of people health care ? Who wants to destroy medicare and social security?

It is because of right wing policies that the social safety net is needed more than ever. It is an outrageous lie to say that we want more people on food stamps and welfare . What we want is for those programs to be there for people who get screwed by the system. You should read Regulating the Poor by Piven and Cloward

The worst part of that social safety net is that for employers who do not pay well enough to keep their workers off of welfare.....

We just cut their taxes in half so they have to pay even less to support that safety net

 

[hadit]

Let's face reality. The days of high paying, unskilled jobs are gone and are not coming back. You cannot graduate from high school, do shift work at the mill for 40 years, send your kids to college and retire comfortably with a full pension at 65, and forcing employers to pay artificially high wages for work that is not worth the pay is not the answer.

Probably not

But with record profits and a 50% cut in taxes, employers cannot claim they cannot afford higher wages

You're missing the point. Forcing artificially higher wages would only drain any reserves the employers currently have, leaving them with higher labor costs than they can afford. Sure, they may be able to pay them now, but for how long?

They have $2 trillion in reserve and just got a $1.5 trillion tax cut
Don't try to tell me they "can't afford" higher wages

Do they use that same excuse for executive pay?

I don't know, I don't work in the executive suite. I do know, however, that you cannot maintain over the long term jobs that don't generate enough revenue to cover what they cost. I don't see how that's even controversial. You can't just say, "They can afford it" without looking at all the ramifications.

 

[hadit]

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

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Complete and utter horseshit propaganda!

LOL, so you want Americans unemployed and starving.....................

Idiot

Where do you people get that tripe from. It is made up bovine excrement. We want people to have economic opportunity and earn a living wage . Which party is it the advocates giving huge tax cuts to the wealth and chump change to working people.? Which party wants to deprive millions of people health care ? Who wants to destroy medicare and social security?

It is because of right wing policies that the social safety net is needed more than ever. It is an outrageous lie to say that we want more people on food stamps and welfare . What we want is for those programs to be there for people who get screwed by the system. You should read Regulating the Poor by Piven and Cloward

The worst part of that social safety net is that for employers who do not pay well enough to keep their workers off of welfare.....

We just cut their taxes in half so they have to pay even less to support that safety net

Hate to tell you this, but it is not the employer's responsibility to "pay well enough to keep their workers off of welfare". It's his responsibility to generate a profit so the company can thrive and grow. As long as it is doing that, he can hire and pay workers. When jobs cost more money than they generate, guess what happens to the jobs?

If society insists on everyone having a certain level of income, than society should be honest, create the welfare program and fund it. Stop trying to make businesses into welfare distribution centers.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Complete and utter horseshit propaganda!

LOL, so you want Americans unemployed and starving.....................

Idiot

Where do you people get that tripe from. It is made up bovine excrement. We want people to have economic opportunity and earn a living wage . Which party is it the advocates giving huge tax cuts to the wealth and chump change to working people.? Which party wants to deprive millions of people health care ? Who wants to destroy medicare and social security?

It is because of right wing policies that the social safety net is needed more than ever. It is an outrageous lie to say that we want more people on food stamps and welfare . What we want is for those programs to be there for people who get screwed by the system. You should read Regulating the Poor by Piven and Cloward

The worst part of that social safety net is that for employers who do not pay well enough to keep their workers off of welfare.....

We just cut their taxes in half so they have to pay even less to support that safety net

Hate to tell you this, but it is not the employer's responsibility to "pay well enough to keep their workers off of welfare". It's his responsibility to generate a profit so the company can thrive and grow. As long as it is doing that, he can hire and pay workers. When jobs cost more money than they generate, guess what happens to the jobs?

If society insists on everyone having a certain level of income, than society should be honest, create the welfare program and fund it. Stop trying to make businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Hate to tell you this but when people don't make enough to feed their families they go on food stamps at the taxpayers expense. They also buy less which in turns puts other jobs at risk.

 

[hadit]

Complete and utter horseshit propaganda!

LOL, so you want Americans unemployed and starving.....................

Idiot

Where do you people get that tripe from. It is made up bovine excrement. We want people to have economic opportunity and earn a living wage . Which party is it the advocates giving huge tax cuts to the wealth and chump change to working people.? Which party wants to deprive millions of people health care ? Who wants to destroy medicare and social security?

It is because of right wing policies that the social safety net is needed more than ever. It is an outrageous lie to say that we want more people on food stamps and welfare . What we want is for those programs to be there for people who get screwed by the system. You should read Regulating the Poor by Piven and Cloward

The worst part of that social safety net is that for employers who do not pay well enough to keep their workers off of welfare.....

We just cut their taxes in half so they have to pay even less to support that safety net

Hate to tell you this, but it is not the employer's responsibility to "pay well enough to keep their workers off of welfare". It's his responsibility to generate a profit so the company can thrive and grow. As long as it is doing that, he can hire and pay workers. When jobs cost more money than they generate, guess what happens to the jobs?

If society insists on everyone having a certain level of income, than society should be honest, create the welfare program and fund it. Stop trying to make businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Hate to tell you this but when people don't make enough to feed their families they go on food stamps at the taxpayers expense. They also buy less which in turns puts other jobs at risk.

Then society should insist on welfare programs to guarantee everyone an arbitrary income. That's the honest way to do it. Did you miss that part of my post? Stop reading after the first sentence, perhaps?

 

[Papageorgio]

Having taxpayers support their workers is coddling employers

That's why we should not be supporting them. It has nothing to do with who pays what. Businesses didn't create welfare requirements--Democrats did, so put the blame where it rightfully belongs.

The taxpayer feeds, houses and provides healthcare to those who make them a profit.

That is coddling employers at the taxpayers expense
To make it worse.......employers now have to pay half the taxes that they used to pay to support their workers

Then the solution if for taxpayers to no longer pay them. It has nothing to do with what a business pays their workers. There is no obligation that we pay lowlifes who made bad decisions in life or only want to work 20 hours a week.

Let them starve

Good solution......that will fix them for being poor

I'll take up bank robber if given that choice.

Or you could find a better paying job, or start your own business. Interesting that gaining money illegally is your solution.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Why do Republicans want to take food stamps and welfare away from people who need it?

They don't.

The rich already got richer; social welfare cuts were on the table for the right wing. Y'all, recanting now.

Name a welfare program that gets less money next year than this one and we can talk.

Children's health care?

 

[hadit]

Why do Republicans want to take food stamps and welfare away from people who need it?

They don't.

The rich already got richer; social welfare cuts were on the table for the right wing. Y'all, recanting now.

Name a welfare program that gets less money next year than this one and we can talk.

Children's health care?

Numbers?

 

[danielpalos]

Let's face reality. The days of high paying, unskilled jobs are gone and are not coming back. You cannot graduate from high school, do shift work at the mill for 40 years, send your kids to college and retire comfortably with a full pension at 65, and forcing employers to pay artificially high wages for work that is not worth the pay is not the answer.

Probably not

But with record profits and a 50% cut in taxes, employers cannot claim they cannot afford higher wages

You're missing the point. Forcing artificially higher wages would only drain any reserves the employers currently have, leaving them with higher labor costs than they can afford. Sure, they may be able to pay them now, but for how long?

They have $2 trillion in reserve and just got a $1.5 trillion tax cut
Don't try to tell me they "can't afford" higher wages

Do they use that same excuse for executive pay?

I don't know, I don't work in the executive suite. I do know, however, that you cannot maintain over the long term jobs that don't generate enough revenue to cover what they cost. I don't see how that's even controversial. You can't just say, "They can afford it" without looking at all the ramifications.

It has to do with economics and "growing the size of the pie."

 

[danielpalos]

That's why we should not be supporting them. It has nothing to do with who pays what. Businesses didn't create welfare requirements--Democrats did, so put the blame where it rightfully belongs.

The taxpayer feeds, houses and provides healthcare to those who make them a profit.

That is coddling employers at the taxpayers expense
To make it worse.......employers now have to pay half the taxes that they used to pay to support their workers

Then the solution if for taxpayers to no longer pay them. It has nothing to do with what a business pays their workers. There is no obligation that we pay lowlifes who made bad decisions in life or only want to work 20 hours a week.

Let them starve

Good solution......that will fix them for being poor

I'll take up bank robber if given that choice.

Or you could find a better paying job, or start your own business. Interesting that gaining money illegally is your solution.

Should he move to an alleged, Right to Work State and advocate for a legal right to work?

 

[hadit]

Let's face reality. The days of high paying, unskilled jobs are gone and are not coming back. You cannot graduate from high school, do shift work at the mill for 40 years, send your kids to college and retire comfortably with a full pension at 65, and forcing employers to pay artificially high wages for work that is not worth the pay is not the answer.

Probably not

But with record profits and a 50% cut in taxes, employers cannot claim they cannot afford higher wages

You're missing the point. Forcing artificially higher wages would only drain any reserves the employers currently have, leaving them with higher labor costs than they can afford. Sure, they may be able to pay them now, but for how long?

They have $2 trillion in reserve and just got a $1.5 trillion tax cut
Don't try to tell me they "can't afford" higher wages

Do they use that same excuse for executive pay?

I don't know, I don't work in the executive suite. I do know, however, that you cannot maintain over the long term jobs that don't generate enough revenue to cover what they cost. I don't see how that's even controversial. You can't just say, "They can afford it" without looking at all the ramifications.

It has to do with economics and "growing the size of the pie."

Which you don't do by simply mandating an artificially high wage. If that were possible, we'd just set the MW to $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether.

 

[danielpalos]

Probably not

But with record profits and a 50% cut in taxes, employers cannot claim they cannot afford higher wages

You're missing the point. Forcing artificially higher wages would only drain any reserves the employers currently have, leaving them with higher labor costs than they can afford. Sure, they may be able to pay them now, but for how long?

They have $2 trillion in reserve and just got a $1.5 trillion tax cut
Don't try to tell me they "can't afford" higher wages

Do they use that same excuse for executive pay?

I don't know, I don't work in the executive suite. I do know, however, that you cannot maintain over the long term jobs that don't generate enough revenue to cover what they cost. I don't see how that's even controversial. You can't just say, "They can afford it" without looking at all the ramifications.

It has to do with economics and "growing the size of the pie."

Which you don't do by simply mandating an artificially high wage. If that were possible, we'd just set the MW to $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. The left subscribes to rational choice theory whenever possible.

 

[Thinker101]

You're missing the point. Forcing artificially higher wages would only drain any reserves the employers currently have, leaving them with higher labor costs than they can afford. Sure, they may be able to pay them now, but for how long?

They have $2 trillion in reserve and just got a $1.5 trillion tax cut
Don't try to tell me they "can't afford" higher wages

Do they use that same excuse for executive pay?

I don't know, I don't work in the executive suite. I do know, however, that you cannot maintain over the long term jobs that don't generate enough revenue to cover what they cost. I don't see how that's even controversial. You can't just say, "They can afford it" without looking at all the ramifications.

It has to do with economics and "growing the size of the pie."

Which you don't do by simply mandating an artificially high wage. If that were possible, we'd just set the MW to $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. The left subscribes to rational choice theory whenever possible.

Whenever possible?! You mean whenever convenient.

 

[danielpalos]

They have $2 trillion in reserve and just got a $1.5 trillion tax cut
Don't try to tell me they "can't afford" higher wages

Do they use that same excuse for executive pay?

I don't know, I don't work in the executive suite. I do know, however, that you cannot maintain over the long term jobs that don't generate enough revenue to cover what they cost. I don't see how that's even controversial. You can't just say, "They can afford it" without looking at all the ramifications.

It has to do with economics and "growing the size of the pie."

Which you don't do by simply mandating an artificially high wage. If that were possible, we'd just set the MW to $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. The left subscribes to rational choice theory whenever possible.

Whenever possible?! You mean whenever convenient.

Social costs also have to be considered. The right wing seems to care about merely lucre.

 

[hadit]

You're missing the point. Forcing artificially higher wages would only drain any reserves the employers currently have, leaving them with higher labor costs than they can afford. Sure, they may be able to pay them now, but for how long?

They have $2 trillion in reserve and just got a $1.5 trillion tax cut
Don't try to tell me they "can't afford" higher wages

Do they use that same excuse for executive pay?

I don't know, I don't work in the executive suite. I do know, however, that you cannot maintain over the long term jobs that don't generate enough revenue to cover what they cost. I don't see how that's even controversial. You can't just say, "They can afford it" without looking at all the ramifications.

It has to do with economics and "growing the size of the pie."

Which you don't do by simply mandating an artificially high wage. If that were possible, we'd just set the MW to $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. The left subscribes to rational choice theory whenever possible.

Sadly, with you that's not possible. You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over.

 

[hadit]

I don't know, I don't work in the executive suite. I do know, however, that you cannot maintain over the long term jobs that don't generate enough revenue to cover what they cost. I don't see how that's even controversial. You can't just say, "They can afford it" without looking at all the ramifications.

It has to do with economics and "growing the size of the pie."

Which you don't do by simply mandating an artificially high wage. If that were possible, we'd just set the MW to $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. The left subscribes to rational choice theory whenever possible.

Whenever possible?! You mean whenever convenient.

Social costs also have to be considered. The right wing seems to care about merely lucre.

Without lucre you have nothing with which to pay the demands. The left wing seems to think that they can just mandate a bunch of stuff with no regard for reality.

 

[Flash]

Without the welfare queens and the illegals the only group left to vote for Democrats are the stupid Moon Bats.

The Democrats have to pay people to vote for them. They do it through the welfare system.

 

[danielpalos]

They have $2 trillion in reserve and just got a $1.5 trillion tax cut
Don't try to tell me they "can't afford" higher wages

Do they use that same excuse for executive pay?

I don't know, I don't work in the executive suite. I do know, however, that you cannot maintain over the long term jobs that don't generate enough revenue to cover what they cost. I don't see how that's even controversial. You can't just say, "They can afford it" without looking at all the ramifications.

It has to do with economics and "growing the size of the pie."

Which you don't do by simply mandating an artificially high wage. If that were possible, we'd just set the MW to $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. The left subscribes to rational choice theory whenever possible.

Sadly, with you that's not possible. You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over.

in other words, you got nothing but repeal coming into an election cycle. I recommend, better solutions at lower cost.