Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[rightwinger]

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?

Sounds like socialism

That's why they want to force business to subsidize the welfare system. They can hide it better that way.

I do want business to subsidize the welfare program

They are exploiting it

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

Idiot!

You mean people do not have a right to work in those states?

Daniel likes to pretend "right to work" means that he has the right to collect unemployment without having to have held a job first. You have to translate.

Right to work means just that

Why are 172 million Americans not working?

If there are jobs they have the right to work, no one has to give them a job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Sounds like socialism

That's why they want to force business to subsidize the welfare system. They can hide it better that way.

I do want business to subsidize the welfare program

They are exploiting it

Businesses can't do that, only people and Democrat politicians can.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Well how about this: when all those jobs are filled, then we'll worry about it.

That is not a solution

You claim people can just take better jobs or work two jobs

The jobs are not there

They are all over the place. Need a link to Craigslist???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Walmart is fully capable of paying higher minimum wages but chose to keep wages as low as possible and have employees get public assistance, and they were the second most profitable company in the US. Walmart managed to pay $11+ in Canada, and higher taxes overall, and still be the most profitable company in Canada, without having government subsidize wages.

And I bet the prices of their goods is higher in Canadian stores than the US.

I know of no first world country in the world which depends on so much cheap labour as the US.

Minimum wage people are 3% of our workforce. No other country has only 3% of their workforce making our minimum wage?

Illegal immigration exists to provide a large pool of easily exploitable cheap labour, and it has been Republicans who have openly encouraged it, just as it has been Republicans who insist on earned income credits instead of increasing the minimum wage.

When has any Republican encouraged it? It's the Republicans who are fighting it. It's why Donald Trump was elected President.

It's Democrats who openly encourage it. Google California. Now a sanctuary state, gives illegals drivers licenses, allows them to attend their schools, rent apartments and buy homes.

Republicans do everything possible to keep the working poor beholding to the government. A reasonable minimum wage tied to inflation would help.

Since minimum wage would only increase inflation, then we would have out of control inflation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Businesses don't start for the reason to pay people a living wage. Businesses start to create a product or service for a profit.

Until there is a law that states a business cannot exist unless they pay a living wage (whatever that is) then anybody has the right to start or own a business paying what they desire.

Yes, government forcing industry to pay wages they demand is coddling people. It's not up to government to make businesses pay you more than you are worth, it's up to you to make yourself worth more to business.

If a business pays their employees so little they qualify for federal aid then the federal government should get reimbursed from that company.

Now that's a good plan. Shut down all these companies because that's all forcing them to pay government would do. More stuff from China, that's what we need for employment in the US.

who said shut down?

Well what do you think would happen if you made employers responsible for paying for welfare their employees take? You'd close them down.

They need to stop trying to make employers subsidize the welfare system.

It will never happen. It's just another leftist dream like Russian collusion.

Democrats would never admit it, but even they know that forcing industry to subsidize welfare would make them close down and/or move out of the country. But they need to put on this dog and pony show to make the puppets happy.

A few years ago some bone head in the Cleveland city Council brought up a $15.00 minimum wage. It was strongly defeated by the all Democrat Council because they knew it would chase jobs out of the city and into the suburbs. So then they tried to get the county to adopt their plan, and the county refused to for the same reason.

Democrats are not very calculated people. They think that when they go after the rich man, he just opens his pockets up to them and that's the end of the story; he just has to do with one less yacht. Conservatives are much more intelligent on such matters. We believe in the theory of Action/ Reaction. We know there will always be ramifications when Democrats attack our job creators.

 

[Vandalshandle]

If a business pays their employees so little they qualify for federal aid then the federal government should get reimbursed from that company.

Now that's a good plan. Shut down all these companies because that's all forcing them to pay government would do. More stuff from China, that's what we need for employment in the US.

who said shut down?

Well what do you think would happen if you made employers responsible for paying for welfare their employees take? You'd close them down.

They need to stop trying to make employers subsidize the welfare system.

It will never happen. It's just another leftist dream like Russian collusion.

Democrats would never admit it, but even they know that forcing industry to subsidize welfare would make them close down and/or move out of the country. But they need to put on this dog and pony show to make the puppets happy.

A few years ago some bone head in the Cleveland city Council brought up a $15.00 minimum wage. It was strongly defeated by the all Democrat Council because they knew it would chase jobs out of the city and into the suburbs. So then they tried to get the county to adopt their plan, and the county refused to for the same reason.

Democrats are not very calculated people. They think that when they go after the rich man, he just opens his pockets up to them and that's the end of the story; he just has to do with one less yacht. Conservatives are much more intelligent on such matters. We believe in the theory of Action/ Reaction. We know there will always be ramifications when Democrats attack our job creators.

Walmart would move out of the country if they were forced to stop exploiting poverty safety nets for employees?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now that's a good plan. Shut down all these companies because that's all forcing them to pay government would do. More stuff from China, that's what we need for employment in the US.

who said shut down?

Well what do you think would happen if you made employers responsible for paying for welfare their employees take? You'd close them down.

They need to stop trying to make employers subsidize the welfare system.

It will never happen. It's just another leftist dream like Russian collusion.

Democrats would never admit it, but even they know that forcing industry to subsidize welfare would make them close down and/or move out of the country. But they need to put on this dog and pony show to make the puppets happy.

A few years ago some bone head in the Cleveland city Council brought up a $15.00 minimum wage. It was strongly defeated by the all Democrat Council because they knew it would chase jobs out of the city and into the suburbs. So then they tried to get the county to adopt their plan, and the county refused to for the same reason.

Democrats are not very calculated people. They think that when they go after the rich man, he just opens his pockets up to them and that's the end of the story; he just has to do with one less yacht. Conservatives are much more intelligent on such matters. We believe in the theory of Action/ Reaction. We know there will always be ramifications when Democrats attack our job creators.

Walmart would move out of the country if they were forced to stop exploiting poverty safety nets for employees?

No, they would simply increase the price of their products and you would pay for them. However industry may look at it differently. That was the failure of the big union days.

When unions were strong, they didn't just get ridiculous pays for their employees, it had a domino effect. If a non-union shop was in dire need of employees because of a strong economy, they had to pay similar wages of union places.

So when our pay scale went up one dollar in the US, China's went up four cents. When our pay scales went up a mother dollar, India's went up three cents. Eventually we priced ourselves out of the world market and this is where we are at today.

Even though individuals were making more money, everything else kept costing more money. So we really didn't get ahead in the long run.

I like to watch HGTV. When they look at homes for sale in the NE states or California, their homes that cost $800,000 there is something you can buy in my state for about $225.000, and in most cases get a larger yard.

But these states were strong supporters of unions and taxation. Now that the new tax plan only allows interest write-offs on mortgages under 750K, those are the states that are crying the most. Here? Nobody cares because very few people spend 750K or more on a home. Those kinds of homes are only affordable to rich people.

 

[Vandalshandle]

who said shut down?

Well what do you think would happen if you made employers responsible for paying for welfare their employees take? You'd close them down.

They need to stop trying to make employers subsidize the welfare system.

It will never happen. It's just another leftist dream like Russian collusion.

Democrats would never admit it, but even they know that forcing industry to subsidize welfare would make them close down and/or move out of the country. But they need to put on this dog and pony show to make the puppets happy.

A few years ago some bone head in the Cleveland city Council brought up a $15.00 minimum wage. It was strongly defeated by the all Democrat Council because they knew it would chase jobs out of the city and into the suburbs. So then they tried to get the county to adopt their plan, and the county refused to for the same reason.

Democrats are not very calculated people. They think that when they go after the rich man, he just opens his pockets up to them and that's the end of the story; he just has to do with one less yacht. Conservatives are much more intelligent on such matters. We believe in the theory of Action/ Reaction. We know there will always be ramifications when Democrats attack our job creators.

Walmart would move out of the country if they were forced to stop exploiting poverty safety nets for employees?

No, they would simply increase the price of their products and you would pay for them. However industry may look at it differently. That was the failure of the big union days.

When unions were strong, they didn't just get ridiculous pays for their employees, it had a domino effect. If a non-union shop was in dire need of employees because of a strong economy, they had to pay similar wages of union places.

So when our pay scale went up one dollar in the US, China's went up four cents. When our pay scales went up a mother dollar, India's went up three cents. Eventually we priced ourselves out of the world market and this is where we are at today.

Even though individuals were making more money, everything else kept costing more money. So we really didn't get ahead in the long run.

I like to watch HGTV. When they look at homes for sale in the NE states or California, their homes that cost $800,000 there is something you can buy in my state for about $225.000, and in most cases get a larger yard.

But these states were strong supporters of unions and taxation. Now that the new tax plan only allows interest write-offs on mortgages under 750K, those are the states that are crying the most. Here? Nobody cares because very few people spend 750K or more on a home. Those kinds of homes are only affordable to rich people.

The states with high mortgage prices and interest voted democratic. In Trump's world, they must pay a price for having voted that way. To my knowledge, Trump has never even visited California in any official governmental capacity. The Divider in Chief has simply told the entire West Coast to get fucked. He has done the same thing to the northeast. But, for his special billionaire pals, they can still write off their private jets.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well what do you think would happen if you made employers responsible for paying for welfare their employees take? You'd close them down.

They need to stop trying to make employers subsidize the welfare system.

It will never happen. It's just another leftist dream like Russian collusion.

Democrats would never admit it, but even they know that forcing industry to subsidize welfare would make them close down and/or move out of the country. But they need to put on this dog and pony show to make the puppets happy.

A few years ago some bone head in the Cleveland city Council brought up a $15.00 minimum wage. It was strongly defeated by the all Democrat Council because they knew it would chase jobs out of the city and into the suburbs. So then they tried to get the county to adopt their plan, and the county refused to for the same reason.

Democrats are not very calculated people. They think that when they go after the rich man, he just opens his pockets up to them and that's the end of the story; he just has to do with one less yacht. Conservatives are much more intelligent on such matters. We believe in the theory of Action/ Reaction. We know there will always be ramifications when Democrats attack our job creators.

Walmart would move out of the country if they were forced to stop exploiting poverty safety nets for employees?

No, they would simply increase the price of their products and you would pay for them. However industry may look at it differently. That was the failure of the big union days.

When unions were strong, they didn't just get ridiculous pays for their employees, it had a domino effect. If a non-union shop was in dire need of employees because of a strong economy, they had to pay similar wages of union places.

So when our pay scale went up one dollar in the US, China's went up four cents. When our pay scales went up a mother dollar, India's went up three cents. Eventually we priced ourselves out of the world market and this is where we are at today.

Even though individuals were making more money, everything else kept costing more money. So we really didn't get ahead in the long run.

I like to watch HGTV. When they look at homes for sale in the NE states or California, their homes that cost $800,000 there is something you can buy in my state for about $225.000, and in most cases get a larger yard.

But these states were strong supporters of unions and taxation. Now that the new tax plan only allows interest write-offs on mortgages under 750K, those are the states that are crying the most. Here? Nobody cares because very few people spend 750K or more on a home. Those kinds of homes are only affordable to rich people.

The states with high mortgage prices and interest voted democratic. In Trump's world, they must pay a price for having voted that way. To my knowledge, Trump has never even visited California in any official governmental capacity. The Divider in Chief has simply told the entire West Coast to get fucked. He has done the same thing to the northeast. But, for his special billionaire pals, they can still write off their private jets.

Yes, they did vote Democrat and that's why their cost of living is much higher than states that didn't.

Democrats are constantly focused on "paying your fair share" however when it comes to them doing the same, they object.

 

[Vandalshandle]

They need to stop trying to make employers subsidize the welfare system.

It will never happen. It's just another leftist dream like Russian collusion.

Democrats would never admit it, but even they know that forcing industry to subsidize welfare would make them close down and/or move out of the country. But they need to put on this dog and pony show to make the puppets happy.

A few years ago some bone head in the Cleveland city Council brought up a $15.00 minimum wage. It was strongly defeated by the all Democrat Council because they knew it would chase jobs out of the city and into the suburbs. So then they tried to get the county to adopt their plan, and the county refused to for the same reason.

Democrats are not very calculated people. They think that when they go after the rich man, he just opens his pockets up to them and that's the end of the story; he just has to do with one less yacht. Conservatives are much more intelligent on such matters. We believe in the theory of Action/ Reaction. We know there will always be ramifications when Democrats attack our job creators.

Walmart would move out of the country if they were forced to stop exploiting poverty safety nets for employees?

No, they would simply increase the price of their products and you would pay for them. However industry may look at it differently. That was the failure of the big union days.

When unions were strong, they didn't just get ridiculous pays for their employees, it had a domino effect. If a non-union shop was in dire need of employees because of a strong economy, they had to pay similar wages of union places.

So when our pay scale went up one dollar in the US, China's went up four cents. When our pay scales went up a mother dollar, India's went up three cents. Eventually we priced ourselves out of the world market and this is where we are at today.

Even though individuals were making more money, everything else kept costing more money. So we really didn't get ahead in the long run.

I like to watch HGTV. When they look at homes for sale in the NE states or California, their homes that cost $800,000 there is something you can buy in my state for about $225.000, and in most cases get a larger yard.

But these states were strong supporters of unions and taxation. Now that the new tax plan only allows interest write-offs on mortgages under 750K, those are the states that are crying the most. Here? Nobody cares because very few people spend 750K or more on a home. Those kinds of homes are only affordable to rich people.

The states with high mortgage prices and interest voted democratic. In Trump's world, they must pay a price for having voted that way. To my knowledge, Trump has never even visited California in any official governmental capacity. The Divider in Chief has simply told the entire West Coast to get fucked. He has done the same thing to the northeast. But, for his special billionaire pals, they can still write off their private jets.

Yes, they did vote Democrat and that's why their cost of living is much higher than states that didn't.

Democrats are constantly focused on "paying your fair share" however when it comes to them doing the same, they object.

But, of course, the poorest county in all of America, is solidly Trump!

Trump has made America's 'poorest white town' hopeful again

The entire economy of this country depends on "welfare" money.

"Today, the town is a ghost of its former self. The vast majority of Beattyville residents get some form of government aid -- 57% of households receive food stamps and 58% get disability payments from Social Security."

Donald Trump was voted in by these dirt poor towns

"The strength of the Trump vote puzzled Mr McCoy when he considers the local reliance on food stamps and welfare.

“Because social assistance like food stamps and welfare is what the Republicans are going to cut,” he said."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It will never happen. It's just another leftist dream like Russian collusion.

Democrats would never admit it, but even they know that forcing industry to subsidize welfare would make them close down and/or move out of the country. But they need to put on this dog and pony show to make the puppets happy.

A few years ago some bone head in the Cleveland city Council brought up a $15.00 minimum wage. It was strongly defeated by the all Democrat Council because they knew it would chase jobs out of the city and into the suburbs. So then they tried to get the county to adopt their plan, and the county refused to for the same reason.

Democrats are not very calculated people. They think that when they go after the rich man, he just opens his pockets up to them and that's the end of the story; he just has to do with one less yacht. Conservatives are much more intelligent on such matters. We believe in the theory of Action/ Reaction. We know there will always be ramifications when Democrats attack our job creators.

Walmart would move out of the country if they were forced to stop exploiting poverty safety nets for employees?

No, they would simply increase the price of their products and you would pay for them. However industry may look at it differently. That was the failure of the big union days.

When unions were strong, they didn't just get ridiculous pays for their employees, it had a domino effect. If a non-union shop was in dire need of employees because of a strong economy, they had to pay similar wages of union places.

So when our pay scale went up one dollar in the US, China's went up four cents. When our pay scales went up a mother dollar, India's went up three cents. Eventually we priced ourselves out of the world market and this is where we are at today.

Even though individuals were making more money, everything else kept costing more money. So we really didn't get ahead in the long run.

I like to watch HGTV. When they look at homes for sale in the NE states or California, their homes that cost $800,000 there is something you can buy in my state for about $225.000, and in most cases get a larger yard.

But these states were strong supporters of unions and taxation. Now that the new tax plan only allows interest write-offs on mortgages under 750K, those are the states that are crying the most. Here? Nobody cares because very few people spend 750K or more on a home. Those kinds of homes are only affordable to rich people.

The states with high mortgage prices and interest voted democratic. In Trump's world, they must pay a price for having voted that way. To my knowledge, Trump has never even visited California in any official governmental capacity. The Divider in Chief has simply told the entire West Coast to get fucked. He has done the same thing to the northeast. But, for his special billionaire pals, they can still write off their private jets.

Yes, they did vote Democrat and that's why their cost of living is much higher than states that didn't.

Democrats are constantly focused on "paying your fair share" however when it comes to them doing the same, they object.

But, of course, the poorest county in all of America, is solidly Trump!

Trump has made America's 'poorest white town' hopeful again

The entire economy of this country depends on "welfare" money.

"Today, the town is a ghost of its former self. The vast majority of Beattyville residents get some form of government aid -- 57% of households receive food stamps and 58% get disability payments from Social Security."

Donald Trump was voted in by these dirt poor towns

"The strength of the Trump vote puzzled Mr McCoy when he considers the local reliance on food stamps and welfare.

“Because social assistance like food stamps and welfare is what the Republicans are going to cut,” he said."

And why (in these articles) do you suppose those people voted for Trump? That's right, because they want jobs--not more government handouts, whereas your liberal cities vote Democrat because they want more government handouts, not more jobs.

People who actually need these programs because they have no choice don't worry too much. They understand that Republicans are for cutting off people that have options. When there are no other options, their support won't be cutoff.

It's one thing to walk a town that has absolutely no jobs around and another to walk through a city with businesses that have huge HELP WANTED signs in the window and act like they never seen them.

 

[hadit]

It will never happen. It's just another leftist dream like Russian collusion.

Democrats would never admit it, but even they know that forcing industry to subsidize welfare would make them close down and/or move out of the country. But they need to put on this dog and pony show to make the puppets happy.

A few years ago some bone head in the Cleveland city Council brought up a $15.00 minimum wage. It was strongly defeated by the all Democrat Council because they knew it would chase jobs out of the city and into the suburbs. So then they tried to get the county to adopt their plan, and the county refused to for the same reason.

Democrats are not very calculated people. They think that when they go after the rich man, he just opens his pockets up to them and that's the end of the story; he just has to do with one less yacht. Conservatives are much more intelligent on such matters. We believe in the theory of Action/ Reaction. We know there will always be ramifications when Democrats attack our job creators.

Walmart would move out of the country if they were forced to stop exploiting poverty safety nets for employees?

No, they would simply increase the price of their products and you would pay for them. However industry may look at it differently. That was the failure of the big union days.

When unions were strong, they didn't just get ridiculous pays for their employees, it had a domino effect. If a non-union shop was in dire need of employees because of a strong economy, they had to pay similar wages of union places.

So when our pay scale went up one dollar in the US, China's went up four cents. When our pay scales went up a mother dollar, India's went up three cents. Eventually we priced ourselves out of the world market and this is where we are at today.

Even though individuals were making more money, everything else kept costing more money. So we really didn't get ahead in the long run.

I like to watch HGTV. When they look at homes for sale in the NE states or California, their homes that cost $800,000 there is something you can buy in my state for about $225.000, and in most cases get a larger yard.

But these states were strong supporters of unions and taxation. Now that the new tax plan only allows interest write-offs on mortgages under 750K, those are the states that are crying the most. Here? Nobody cares because very few people spend 750K or more on a home. Those kinds of homes are only affordable to rich people.

The states with high mortgage prices and interest voted democratic. In Trump's world, they must pay a price for having voted that way. To my knowledge, Trump has never even visited California in any official governmental capacity. The Divider in Chief has simply told the entire West Coast to get fucked. He has done the same thing to the northeast. But, for his special billionaire pals, they can still write off their private jets.

Yes, they did vote Democrat and that's why their cost of living is much higher than states that didn't.

Democrats are constantly focused on "paying your fair share" however when it comes to them doing the same, they object.

But, of course, the poorest county in all of America, is solidly Trump!

Trump has made America's 'poorest white town' hopeful again

The entire economy of this country depends on "welfare" money.

"Today, the town is a ghost of its former self. The vast majority of Beattyville residents get some form of government aid -- 57% of households receive food stamps and 58% get disability payments from Social Security."

Donald Trump was voted in by these dirt poor towns

"The strength of the Trump vote puzzled Mr McCoy when he considers the local reliance on food stamps and welfare.

“Because social assistance like food stamps and welfare is what the Republicans are going to cut,” he said."

That's because they hope Trump will invigorate the economy and they will be able to WORK and not NEED assistance. This is the divide between left and right. The left assumes that everyone getting from the government wants to continue getting, while the right understands that they don't.

 

[hadit]

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?

Sounds like socialism

That's why they want to force business to subsidize the welfare system. They can hide it better that way.

I do want business to subsidize the welfare program

They are exploiting it

They are paying what the job is worth. Tell you what, start your own business and pay workers. Let us know how that works.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, you recommend a bunch of blargling. Your arguments have all been systematically destroyed many times, yet you seem to think they're still relevant.

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

So what is your better solution at a lower cost.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. I don't mind if the right wing, "sits out the next election cycle."

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Idiot!

You mean people do not have a right to work in those states?

No, they currently don't. We need Persons in those States to advocate for Truth in Legislative Advertising laws.

You could first target Congress and the "Affordable HealthCare Act", that could be the first change.

Then you could go work on the "Fairness Doctrine."

As a federalist, I would insist on equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and a permanent federal solution to our border issues, via Commerce, well regulated.

And, I would abolish our income tax by abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Sounds like socialism

That's why they want to force business to subsidize the welfare system. They can hide it better that way.

I do want business to subsidize the welfare program

They are exploiting it

They are paying what the job is worth. Tell you what, start your own business and pay workers. Let us know how that works.

If that is the case......get business to kick in more for welfare

It is supporting their workforce

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The democrats actually ran a budget surplus. The republicans financed tax cuts for the rich and put it on the Peoples' dime, coming into an election cycle.

"The democrats" did no such thing.

Yes, they did. It was a democrat administration not a republican administration.

No, it was a democrat president with a Republican House and Senate. Bubba could sign nothing that wasn't sent to him from the Republicans. "The democrats" didn't do it, it was done by both parties working together.

It was about leadership. All your leader has done is help the rich get richer faster and put it on the Peoples' tab.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Idiot!

You mean people do not have a right to work in those states?

Daniel likes to pretend "right to work" means that he has the right to collect unemployment without having to have held a job first. You have to translate.

Can I insist I get hired in a right to work State?

 

[danielpalos]

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

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

We want them on foodstamps if they're hungry. Provide jobs that pay them enough to keep their families fed and less people would need them.
Any other questions?

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.

If it were as easy as you say, 47% of Americans wouldn’t be receiving government assistance in some form or another.

And just for the record, it’s Republicans who insist that instead of raising the minimum wage, the earned income credits be increased, this keeping the working poor dependent on government handouts instead of giving them a proper wage.

Every Democratic effort to raise minimum wages has resulted in increases in the EIC instead. It’s Republicans who have worked very hard in maintaining the dependency of the working poor on the government, and resisted efforts to make people less dependent on government.

The rich get bailed out all the time and they have lots of money. How much more difficult is it for the poor.