Food Stamp Recipients Outnumber Populations of 24 States Combined

Sorry, but a living wage is what people used to start out at and our economy was much better than it is today. Of course the top tax rate was also 70% at the time and our corporations weren't shipping our jobs overseas, go figure.....

In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.

You work up to more so you can support a family...the bottom should always be a living wage and when it's not, it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations, but you don't care about that, do you? Corporate welfare is all good with you, just as long as the working people don't get any of it.

Really? Where did you hear that garbage?
The notion of a "living wage" is a myth. A myth forwarded by union supporters and the lazy slackers who think that because they "put it time" deserve to be paid high wages.
It is not surprising a whiny person such as yourself buys into this garbage.
We each are responsible for improving our situation. If one's wages are not adequate for the type of lifestyle one wishes to have, you do what you must to improve that situation on your own. We ALL have choices.
Improvise overcome adapt.
" Ican't afford to my house payments/rent on the wages my mean rotten boss pays me."...That doesn't cut any ice.
The answer is. Don't buy what one cannot afford. If the rent it more than one can afford, move to where the rent is affordable. OR......WOW!! Improve one's skill set , go to school, etc so one CAN afford their desired lifestyle.

So, what world is it you live in again? You sure as heck don't live in this one, where hundreds of thousands of college graduates aren't getting jobs....
The real world. A college degree is not a "skill". It is not training. It is not a clear path to success. A degree will open more doors, result in higher starting wages, result in higher earning potential( the last three tied ot the performance of the individual) but it offers NO guarantees. There are no guarantees. Nor should their be.
America May Have Too Many College Graduates - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic

They are not getting hired for a number of reasons.
1. No marketable skills
2. Degree in field with little or no demand
3. Expectation of initial salary and/or benefits too ambitious
4 unwillingness to start at a low(er) paying position even if rapid growth can be achieved in an accelerated fashion.
5 lack of or poor writing or communication skills.
6 poorly or unprofessional dress for interviews.
7 has parent(s) accompany them to interview
8 parent calls HR or hiring manager to lobby for child's hire.
9. 1,000,000 new college grads enter job market each year. most with few skills or no experience. No research into the position for which they have applied.
10. inadequate or overstuffed resume.
If a college grad can master this list, he or she will have a much easier time finding choice work.
To be quite honest if I were hiring for say a logistics manager for a trucking company and I needed a person with experience, is reliable, is willing to learn new techniques, is more likely to stay with me for a long period of time, will be less likely to call in sick on Monday, I would hire a guy who's been in the business, has a stable work history and is a bit older, before I'd even consider a college grad with less than stellar qualifications. Even though I know for a fact the younger person with the degree is more computer savvy and have some research skills the other guy has. But I can count on the other less educated person to go on his own and learn the requirements of the position. He gets the job over the younger college grad because I know I will have to look at a person who will not do anything unless he is told what to do.
The degree gives that person a leg up. It gets them the interview. The degree does not necessarily get them the job. I'm not impressed by style. I want substance.
 
Sorry, but a living wage is what people used to start out at and our economy was much better than it is today. Of course the top tax rate was also 70% at the time and our corporations weren't shipping our jobs overseas, go figure.....

In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.

You work up to more so you can support a family...the bottom should always be a living wage and when it's not, it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations, but you don't care about that, do you? Corporate welfare is all good with you, just as long as the working people don't get any of it.

Really? Where did you hear that garbage?
The notion of a "living wage" is a myth. A myth forwarded by union supporters and the lazy slackers who think that because they "put it time" deserve to be paid high wages.
It is not surprising a whiny person such as yourself buys into this garbage.
We each are responsible for improving our situation. If one's wages are not adequate for the type of lifestyle one wishes to have, you do what you must to improve that situation on your own. We ALL have choices.
Improvise overcome adapt.
" Ican't afford to my house payments/rent on the wages my mean rotten boss pays me."...That doesn't cut any ice.
The answer is. Don't buy what one cannot afford. If the rent it more than one can afford, move to where the rent is affordable. OR......WOW!! Improve one's skill set , go to school, etc so one CAN afford their desired lifestyle.

So, what world is it you live in again? You sure as heck don't live in this one, where hundreds of thousands of college graduates aren't getting jobs....

maybe they should of went to a trade school instead..Where does it say going to college "guarantees" you a job?
 
Yeah that's what happens when a nation sets out to break the back of the unions by shipping its industies offshore and also allows their production back into this nation without TARIFFS.


People get POOR.


You don't like it?

Tell that to CONGRESS.
 
So? The number of people with diagnosed mental problems exceeds the population of Wyoming too. So what?

I can't help but wonder what mental gymnastics one has to go through to be surprised that the number of food stamps recipients goes up during hard economic times.

Gee...who'da thunk it? :rolleyes:

The darker America gets, the more it becomes a welfare state. But since it would be "racist" to point that out, we'll just keep trucking in that direction.

The darker America gets, the more likely people like you are to go on a killing rampage.


Please. That pussy is never likely to so much as go on a 'give people a dirty look' rampage.
 
defense-WelfareQueens.jpg
 
You libs just hate capitalism. When you get an entry level job you are suppose to move up through your own merits. Work two jobs, and save, and invest. No one owes you food. If your poor it probably your parents falt along ith yours. If you don't think your children are going to have a strong chance at independence than don't have any. It is not other people's responsibility to feed your children.
The biggest problem with America is a bunch of dumb ass people propagating.
 
You libs just hate capitalism. When you get an entry level job you are suppose to move up through your own merits. Work two jobs, and save, and invest. No one owes you food. If your poor it probably your parents falt along ith yours. If you don't think your children are going to have a strong chance at independence than don't have any. It is not other people's responsibility to feed your children.
The biggest problem with America is a bunch of dumb ass people propagating.

Yes, and entry level job should provide a living for ONE person, if you want a family, you should move up, work harder, etc.

I'm not a lib. I'm not a conservative. I sit here on the fence watching both of you make fools out of yourself. No one is denying that management shouldn't make more money than the workers. What we are denying is that anyone is worth 300 times what their workers are worth. The growing income gap in this country is bad for the economy and worse for our country as a whole. It divides us. Put the money in the hands of those who will spend it, even on necessities, and our economy will improve.

Read up on Henry Ford. He realized that if he paid his workers enough, they could buy his cars and HE would make more money. It's a win win. You seem to think it should be a win/lose.

No country can long survive when the majority of it's wealth is in the hands of a few. - Teddy Roosevelt.
 
You libs just hate capitalism. When you get an entry level job you are suppose to move up through your own merits. Work two jobs, and save, and invest. No one owes you food. If your poor it probably your parents falt along ith yours. If you don't think your children are going to have a strong chance at independence than don't have any. It is not other people's responsibility to feed your children.
The biggest problem with America is a bunch of dumb ass people propagating.



So, when does your ESL class begin?
 
Just more Breitbart bullshit. They should be thankful that Obama isn't letting red states starve to death from the Great Bush Recession.

The GOP Is The Food Stamp Party

You side won the White House and you are STILL all pissed off. Such is the life of the perpetually miserable liberal.

no kidding.
as if what he posted is suppose to mean anything..the troll just post the same stuff over and over
Injun Joe IS a troll of the first magnitude.
 
Do you have any idea how many of those people collecting food stamps ARE working? This is what happens when you have a minimum wage that has the lowest spending power in history. We, the taxpayers, are in effect supplementing the wages for corporations like Walmart. They refuse to pay their employees a living wage, so their employees qualify for assistance which we the taxpayer provide.

a living wage, what do you say that should be?
I work for a school district and they start a person out at 9.50 an hour..one year we got a 25cent raise..

Many Republicans say you are overpaid.

That makes as much as much sense as saying "nobody goes there anymore because it's too crowded".
Where ever you work, they should charge you for being there.
 
A living wage: enough for a cheap apartment, clothes, food, housing, utilities, medical care and transportation for one person.

right, and what would that be? 10, 20, 30 hour?

I guess that would depend on where you are living.
Funny. When you libs are challenged to place a dollar figure on your so called living wage, you suddenly turn tail and run from the question.
All you know is how to scream "UNDERPAID!!!!!".
 
A living wage is what people work toward, not start out at.

If you are 35 with a family, and you are still making minimum wage because you have been in the same job for the past 20 years; it is not the wage that is the problem.

Sorry, but a living wage is what people used to start out at and our economy was much better than it is today. Of course the top tax rate was also 70% at the time and our corporations weren't shipping our jobs overseas, go figure.....

In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.

You work up to more so you can support a family...the bottom should always be a living wage and when it's not, it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations, but you don't care about that, do you? Corporate welfare is all good with you, just as long as the working people don't get any of it.
Tell me in your own words, how does giving more of the earned income of individuals to government increase wages to unskilled workers?
 
A living wage is what people work toward, not start out at.

If you are 35 with a family, and you are still making minimum wage because you have been in the same job for the past 20 years; it is not the wage that is the problem.

Sorry, but a living wage is what people used to start out at and our economy was much better than it is today. Of course the top tax rate was also 70% at the time and our corporations weren't shipping our jobs overseas, go figure.....

In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.

You work up to more so you can support a family...the bottom should always be a living wage and when it's not, it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations, but you don't care about that, do you? Corporate welfare is all good with you, just as long as the working people don't get any of it.

Let me try to piece this together because it is very confusing.

"a living wage is what people used to start out at".
Define a living wage. Then place a number of what you deem to be "living".
"our top tax rate was 70%".
How does this correlate to wages in general? Does the government have a secret fund from which they supply working people with additional funds? And I am not referring to public assistance.
Back to the top tax rate reference....In what way do tax rates on individuals affect the business climate in that higher taxes kept business from going overseas?
Can you speak to the fact that while US Based businesses are relocating some work outside the US while foreign owned firms continue to build facilities here and employ people HERE.
" it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations,"...OK how is the leap made from wage levels to corporate subsidies?. Is it your belief that when companies pay lower wages than those that make you comfortable, government steps in and creates or increases these alleged subsidies?...
Look, I am not arguing with you. Just trying to follow your logic.
Just answer the questions to the best of your ability. Your answers are your answers.
 
A living wage is what people work toward, not start out at.

If you are 35 with a family, and you are still making minimum wage because you have been in the same job for the past 20 years; it is not the wage that is the problem.

Sorry, but a living wage is what people used to start out at and our economy was much better than it is today. Of course the top tax rate was also 70% at the time and our corporations weren't shipping our jobs overseas, go figure.....

In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.

You work up to more so you can support a family...the bottom should always be a living wage and when it's not, it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations, but you don't care about that, do you? Corporate welfare is all good with you, just as long as the working people don't get any of it.
Tell me in your own words, how does giving more of the earned income of individuals to government increase wages to unskilled workers?

You think the unskilled workers don't earn a living????? You think the CEO of hostess earned his 300% increase?
 
A living wage is what people work toward, not start out at.

If you are 35 with a family, and you are still making minimum wage because you have been in the same job for the past 20 years; it is not the wage that is the problem.

Sorry, but a living wage is what people used to start out at and our economy was much better than it is today. Of course the top tax rate was also 70% at the time and our corporations weren't shipping our jobs overseas, go figure.....

In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.

You work up to more so you can support a family...the bottom should always be a living wage and when it's not, it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations, but you don't care about that, do you? Corporate welfare is all good with you, just as long as the working people don't get any of it.

Let me try to piece this together because it is very confusing.

"a living wage is what people used to start out at".
Define a living wage. Then place a number of what you deem to be "living".
"our top tax rate was 70%".
How does this correlate to wages in general? Does the government have a secret fund from which they supply working people with additional funds? And I am not referring to public assistance.
Back to the top tax rate reference....In what way do tax rates on individuals affect the business climate in that higher taxes kept business from going overseas?
Can you speak to the fact that while US Based businesses are relocating some work outside the US while foreign owned firms continue to build facilities here and employ people HERE.
" it's the taxpayer that foots the bill, further subsidizing the corporations,"...OK how is the leap made from wage levels to corporate subsidies?. Is it your belief that when companies pay lower wages than those that make you comfortable, government steps in and creates or increases these alleged subsidies?...
Look, I am not arguing with you. Just trying to follow your logic.
Just answer the questions to the best of your ability. Your answers are your answers.

I've defined a living wage many times. It's enough for one person to afford a cheap apartment, food, utilities, transportation and medical care. I can't put a price on it, I'm not that current on rents and utilities.

The top tax rate correlates to wages only in that the government made more money from the richest Americans, taking away some of the tax burden that is now on the middle class.

I was pointing out the when the mw had the highest spending power in history our top tax rate was twice what it is today so that obviously, reducing taxes has not trickled down or increased wages in anyway because today's mw has the lowest spending power in history.

It wasn't the higher taxes that kept business from going overseas, it was our corporate laws, which changed in the 70's which allowed our corporations to ship our jobs overseas.

The reason our business left is because our government has given them money to leave. Yes, our government has rewarded corporations for moving our jobs overseas. They've also rewarded foreign businesses to bring jobs here, thought not to the same extent. Personally I think the people running our government are idiots. I don't know if this law is still in effect but for awhile there, our government was allowing immigrants to come here from Russia, giving them low interest loans not available to our own citizens to purchase business and allowing them to run those businesses for 5 years without paying any taxes (another perk not given to our own citizens) at the end of the 5 years, the Russian immigrant would bring a relative over and sell the business to him and and he would get the low interest loan and the 5 years tax free. Yep, they're idiots, or worse, they are purposely destroying our country.


When businesses do not pay a living wage to their employees, they end up collecting foodstamps, and other welfare programs to subsidize their wages, in effect, the taxpayer is subsidizing the businesses this way because without their employees, they wouldn't BE in business.

Of course you think that without the business the people wouldn't have work, but the truth is, we are both right. Think about it.
 
You libs just hate capitalism. When you get an entry level job you are suppose to move up through your own merits. Work two jobs, and save, and invest. No one owes you food. If your poor it probably your parents falt along ith yours. If you don't think your children are going to have a strong chance at independence than don't have any. It is not other people's responsibility to feed your children.
The biggest problem with America is a bunch of dumb ass people propagating.

You're so fucking unidealistic with your bullshit, it doesn't work that way and you know it, you Repugs preach shit that cannot happen. If welth distribution is uneven with the rich getting more and more how can anybody work their way up and work two jobs? Name me all of the CEOs who have followed the blueprint and became rich. I know people who have worked at the same job for 25+ years and have not moved up simply because there is no upward mobility and other people sit in jobs above them preventing such a move. What you say is idealistic and the way it should work but often it does not and its not totally the fault of th employee.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top