I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

[Soggy in NOLA]

Because they want the super rich to have it all.

That's not possible, inheritance tax heard of it? Duh! Even with the trillions in wealth redistribution already going on you leftist socialist pukes want to steal even more from the people worked to earn it.

You are so thick. You live in a fantasy land. All i am talking about is raising the minimum wage. THAT'S IT. The wealthy will still be wealthy. The world will keep turning. Capitalism will thrive you ass.

It's a non issue..... most MW wage workers are 16 - 24 years old.

The idea that there are all these people trying to raise a family on MW is bullshit.

Um no as usual you cons are wrong about the basic facts. Nowadays the average age is 35. The average age of fast food alone is 29.

Because they want the super rich to have it all.

That's not possible, inheritance tax heard of it? Duh! Even with the trillions in wealth redistribution already going on you leftist socialist pukes want to steal even more from the people worked to earn it.

You are so thick. You live in a fantasy land. All i am talking about is raising the minimum wage. THAT'S IT. The wealthy will still be wealthy. The world will keep turning. Capitalism will thrive you ass.

It's a non issue..... most MW wage workers are 16 - 24 years old.

The idea that there are all these people trying to raise a family on MW is bullshit.

Um no as usual you cons are wrong about the basic facts. Nowadays the average age is 35. The average age of fast food alone is 29.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Even if Billy were right, which he isn't, if you're at age 35 dependent on MW... well... you've screwed the pooch at some point... like badly.

 

[The Rabbi]

Even if Billy were right, which he isn't, if you're at age 35 dependent on MW... well... you've screwed the pooch at some point... like badly.

Not necessarily. I would bet a lot of those are moms whose kids have started school, leaving them free to pick up a job during the day. Dad is probably working full time and has been.

 

[Dragonlady]

The statistics from Pew Research differ greatly from any other study. Compare them to those published in the New York Times.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/upshot/minimum-wage.html?referrer=

 

[The Rabbi]

The statistics from Pew Research differ greatly from any other study. Compare them to those published in the New York Times.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/upshot/minimum-wage.html?referrer=

No, the stats are the same, as they both refer to the BLS stats.
For starters the article you link is by Jared Bernstein, who is Joe Biden's chief economic advisor.
Second, the article cites "average age." That can mean anything. Nor does it contradict the idea that over 50% of min wage workers are under 24.
The short of it is you have no idea what you'[re talking about and are willing to believe anything that supports your world view.

 

[BluesLegend]

Look if you are earning minimum wage you should not be choosing to have kids, buy cars, and other things you cannot yet afford. Its not my job to work overtime to pay their bills.

 

[Billy000]

Because they want the super rich to have it all.

That's not possible, inheritance tax heard of it? Duh! Even with the trillions in wealth redistribution already going on you leftist socialist pukes want to steal even more from the people worked to earn it.

You are so thick. You live in a fantasy land. All i am talking about is raising the minimum wage. THAT'S IT. The wealthy will still be wealthy. The world will keep turning. Capitalism will thrive you ass.

It's a non issue..... most MW wage workers are 16 - 24 years old.

The idea that there are all these people trying to raise a family on MW is bullshit.

Um no as usual you cons are wrong about the basic facts. Nowadays the average age is 35. The average age of fast food alone is 29.

"People at or below the federal minimum are:

• Disproportionately young: 50.4% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
• Mostly (77%) white; nearly half are white women.
• Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)."

Who makes minimum wage Pew Research Center

I appreciate your source but my facts refer to state and local minimum wages which are largely under $10 per hour, not the federal which is hardly the big picture.

 

[Billy000]

Even if Billy were right, which he isn't, if you're at age 35 dependent on MW... well... you've screwed the pooch at some point... like badly.

I was referring to state and local wages which is largely under 10. You are referring to the federal which is hardly the big picture.

 

[Billy000]

The statistics from Pew Research differ greatly from any other study. Compare them to those published in the New York Times.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/upshot/minimum-wage.html?referrer=

He was referring to the federal wage. Your article refers to state wages which is what matters.

 

[Billy000]

The statistics from Pew Research differ greatly from any other study. Compare them to those published in the New York Times.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/upshot/minimum-wage.html?referrer=

No, the stats are the same, as they both refer to the BLS stats.
For starters the article you link is by Jared Bernstein, who is Joe Biden's chief economic advisor.
Second, the article cites "average age." That can mean anything. Nor does it contradict the idea that over 50% of min wage workers are under 24.
The short of it is you have no idea what you'[re talking about and are willing to believe anything that supports your world view.

That's just the federal ass clown. That's hardly the big picture considering 18 million people make less than 10.10 per hour.

 

[dblack]

You don't engage in that debate anymore because you are an authoritarian leftist like the rest of the idiot Democrats who don't want to take care of their own problems

The Big Government vs. Small Government debate is dead. We're gonna be Big Government. Both the Neocons and Communists/Progressives want it. Big Government is only getting bigger. So now the only battle is over who will be the beneficiaries of the massive spending. A war over the scraps.

So there's no point engaging in a debate that no longer even exists. My Libertarian/Conservative warrior friends have lost. Sadly, it's time to accept that.

Voting over the warden isn't being free and frankly it's pretty pointless. And no, just beause you love government and want lots of it doesn't mean I have to accept that.

A great book you should read is Harry Browne, How I found Freedom in an Unfree World. I don't agree with everything he says, but it's a great way to look at it. You go ahead and vote for the warden you want though.

BTW, Harry Browne is a libertarian, don't want to shock you or anything since you've invested your manhood in your government slave master

I truly respect people like Ron Paul. He's an honorable Libertarian/Conservative warrior. But it's over. The war is lost. He's engaging in a debate that no longer even exists. There is no more Big Government vs. Small Government debate. It's been settled. We are and always will be Big Government.

Too many depend on Big Brother for survival. The only argument and conflict left, is over who or what will get the cash. Because the cash is gonna be spent. That's for sure. So who or what is gonna get it, is the only question now. A bitter squabble over Big Brother's scraps. And that's that.

So now you've decided to root for it? What a terrible solution. I guess you just want to be on the winning side.

Personally I just think you're another hack authoritarian leftists and this has nothing to do with it. You want the minimum wage higher which only serves to harm people and take away their freedom to work for whoever they want, that isn't accepting big government, that's embracing it

Rooting or not rooting for it is irrelevant. There is no more Big Government vs. Small Government debate. Ron Paul and others are engaging in a debate that doesn't even exist anymore. We are and always will be Big Government. It's time to accept that. I have. Now it's just a matter of who or what is gonna get the cash. That's what all the future squabbles will be about.

I appreciate your candor. But know this: you're the problem. It's you, and people who think like you, who are pissing away what's left of our soul as a nation.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's not possible, inheritance tax heard of it? Duh! Even with the trillions in wealth redistribution already going on you leftist socialist pukes want to steal even more from the people worked to earn it.

You are so thick. You live in a fantasy land. All i am talking about is raising the minimum wage. THAT'S IT. The wealthy will still be wealthy. The world will keep turning. Capitalism will thrive you ass.

It's a non issue..... most MW wage workers are 16 - 24 years old.

The idea that there are all these people trying to raise a family on MW is bullshit.

Um no as usual you cons are wrong about the basic facts. Nowadays the average age is 35. The average age of fast food alone is 29.

"People at or below the federal minimum are:

• Disproportionately young: 50.4% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
• Mostly (77%) white; nearly half are white women.
• Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)."

Who makes minimum wage Pew Research Center

I appreciate your source but my facts refer to state and local minimum wages which are largely under $10 per hour, not the federal which is hardly the big picture.

No, they dont. Please explain how state and local min wage changes the picture at all. You are moving goalposts and inventing things because you've had your ass handed to you as always. Which is why your threads are Triple Fails.

 

[RKMBrown]

So first I'm a totalitarian, now I'm a fool for continuing the passe fight for smaller government. The needle on how smart you are making yourself look is still stuck on zero

The battle for small Government is over. It's not just a losing battle, it's a battle that no longer even exists. Big Government is only getting bigger. So i don't even bother engaging in that debate anymore. Everyone's got their hand out. So why not struggling American Workers? In this Big Government mess, everyone's just gonna have to try and get theirs. That's what it's all about now. It is what it is.

You don't engage in that debate anymore because you are an authoritarian leftist like the rest of the idiot Democrats who don't want to take care of their own problems

The Big Government vs. Small Government debate is dead. We're gonna be Big Government. Both the Neocons and Communists/Progressives want it. Big Government is only getting bigger. So now the only battle is over who will be the beneficiaries of the massive spending. A war over the scraps.

So there's no point engaging in a debate that no longer even exists. My Libertarian/Conservative warrior friends have lost. Sadly, it's time to accept that.

Voting over the warden isn't being free and frankly it's pretty pointless. And no, just beause you love government and want lots of it doesn't mean I have to accept that.

A great book you should read is Harry Browne, How I found Freedom in an Unfree World. I don't agree with everything he says, but it's a great way to look at it. You go ahead and vote for the warden you want though.

BTW, Harry Browne is a libertarian, don't want to shock you or anything since you've invested your manhood in your government slave master

I truly respect people like Ron Paul. He's an honorable Libertarian/Conservative warrior. But it's over. The war is lost. He's engaging in a debate that no longer even exists. There is no more Big Government vs. Small Government debate. It's been settled. We are and always will be Big Government.

Too many depend on Big Brother for survival. The only argument and conflict left, is over who or what will get the cash. Because the cash is gonna be spent. That's for sure. So who or what is gonna get it, is the only question now. A bitter squabble over Big Brother's scraps. And that's that.

You're a moron. Nothing is over.

 

[Billy000]

You are so thick. You live in a fantasy land. All i am talking about is raising the minimum wage. THAT'S IT. The wealthy will still be wealthy. The world will keep turning. Capitalism will thrive you ass.

It's a non issue..... most MW wage workers are 16 - 24 years old.

The idea that there are all these people trying to raise a family on MW is bullshit.

Um no as usual you cons are wrong about the basic facts. Nowadays the average age is 35. The average age of fast food alone is 29.

"People at or below the federal minimum are:

• Disproportionately young: 50.4% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
• Mostly (77%) white; nearly half are white women.
• Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)."

Who makes minimum wage Pew Research Center

I appreciate your source but my facts refer to state and local minimum wages which are largely under $10 per hour, not the federal which is hardly the big picture.

No, they dont. Please explain how state and local min wage changes the picture at all. You are moving goalposts and inventing things because you've had your ass handed to you as always. Which is why your threads are Triple Fails.

Admittedly I should have known he was strictly talking about the federal wage but it's easy to forget considering how insignificant it is to min wage levels in general. 18 million people make less than 10.10 per hour. Those are the facts that matter.

You on the other hand know nothing about it. You know you lose everytime with me and will do anything to get one small feeling of validation. Why else do you reply to ALL of my threads saying the same lame response. You're a pitiful soul.

 

[Skylar]

Believe it or not, both the left and the right want to end welfare for the poor. The left just has a realistic and humane way of doing it.

$153 billion of public assistance is spent on people because of their low wage jobs. 18 million people make less than $10.10 per hour. How many more do you think make less than $15? If the minimum was raised to $10.10, republicans are to stupid/immature to realize that far less people would be eligible for programs like food stamps. It would dramatically fix the fucking problem of the poor on welfare!

Like it or not, $15 as a minimum wage would be a base wage kept up with the rate of inflation. The last time someone could live comfortably off 10.10 per hour was the fucking 60s. Since the recession, low wage jobs out number higher wage jobs. That means MILLIONS OF PEOPLE have no choice but to accept low wage jobs.

As long as it was gradually raised over a couple of years, the initial cost to the market would be minimized. Prices would go up, but not nearly enough to offset the consumer spending power created by it. Consumer spending would boom. The market would begin to create jobs. Way more than the jobs that would have been scrapped initially. Prices would also go down.

Look the only reason most (not all) CEOs are against raising wages is because it just easier to for them to keep the ridiculous money they make rather than invest in a strong labor force. The average CEO makes over 300x what the average worker makes. Sure we can all agree CEOs deserve a wealthy life for all their hard work, but do you really think they deserve 300x more?

Hell no.

Honestly, I think its that republicans as a group (with plenty of individual exceptions) have swallowed the "Money is Morality" Kool-aid. A sort of financial determinism that goes far beyond 'you deserve your financial situation'. And embraces the a hyper-moral idea of the 'makers' and the 'takers', with those who are rich being morally superior creators and benefactors. And those who are poor being immoral leeches and parasites.

Thus the minimum wage and welfare are considered enabling of this inferior moral position. With the growing ranks of poverty seen as evidence of moral decline.

And it may go farther still. I'd argue that a faction of this view actually resents the lack of suffering on the part of the poor. These conservatives would probably frame it as being 'shielded from consequence'. With a social safety net preventing people from truly experiencing the horrors of their immoral poverty. Or as these conservatives would frame it 'shielded from the consequences of their own decisions'. And if the poor were to experience more pain, more suffering, more hunger, more 'consequence', that they would be motivated to rectify their immoral poverty and become a 'maker'.

Thus per this view feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless....or even by offering food assistance to the working poor, you're encouraging the immorality of poverty, enabling the moral decay of parasitism. And that its only through the cleansing fire of suffering, hunger, misery and pain that the poor can be whole again.

 

[Skylar]

Because they want the super rich to have it all.

That's not possible, inheritance tax heard of it? Duh! Even with the trillions in wealth redistribution already going on you leftist socialist pukes want to steal even more from the people worked to earn it.

You are so thick. You live in a fantasy land. All i am talking about is raising the minimum wage. THAT'S IT. The wealthy will still be wealthy. The world will keep turning. Capitalism will thrive you ass.

There are plenty of societies that use capitalism that don't have the degree of economic stratification that we have. Or the degree of disproportionate political influence by the wealthy that our society exists under. The view of the public at large on any given issue has very close to no correlation to policy. While the view of special interest groups and the wealthy have a strong corollary to policy.

And to many on the right, there is no degree of economic stratification, of concentration of wealth among the 1%, of disproportionate influence of the wealthy that they would find objectionable. As for many on the right they are motivated by ideology. Not outcome. And the consequence of wealth concentration or political influence is irrelevant to their support of it on ideological grounds.

The consequences matter to me. And I'd argue that if you were to sit down and talk with most folks, it matters to them too.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a non issue..... most MW wage workers are 16 - 24 years old.

The idea that there are all these people trying to raise a family on MW is bullshit.

Um no as usual you cons are wrong about the basic facts. Nowadays the average age is 35. The average age of fast food alone is 29.

"People at or below the federal minimum are:

• Disproportionately young: 50.4% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
• Mostly (77%) white; nearly half are white women.
• Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)."

Who makes minimum wage Pew Research Center

I appreciate your source but my facts refer to state and local minimum wages which are largely under $10 per hour, not the federal which is hardly the big picture.

No, they dont. Please explain how state and local min wage changes the picture at all. You are moving goalposts and inventing things because you've had your ass handed to you as always. Which is why your threads are Triple Fails.

Admittedly I should have known he was strictly talking about the federal wage but it's easy to forget considering how insignificant it is to min wage levels in general. 18 million people make less than 10.10 per hour. Those are the facts that matter.

You on the other hand know nothing about it. You know you lose everytime with me and will do anything to get one small feeling of validation. Why else do you reply to ALL of my threads saying the same lame response. You're a pitiful soul.

Actually no one is really focusing on how many people make min wage. The argument is that over 50% of those who do are under 24years old.
As usual when confronted with facts you deflect to stupid. It's why you're Billy Triple Fail.

 

[Billy000]

Um no as usual you cons are wrong about the basic facts. Nowadays the average age is 35. The average age of fast food alone is 29.

"People at or below the federal minimum are:

• Disproportionately young: 50.4% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
• Mostly (77%) white; nearly half are white women.
• Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)."

Who makes minimum wage Pew Research Center

I appreciate your source but my facts refer to state and local minimum wages which are largely under $10 per hour, not the federal which is hardly the big picture.

No, they dont. Please explain how state and local min wage changes the picture at all. You are moving goalposts and inventing things because you've had your ass handed to you as always. Which is why your threads are Triple Fails.

Admittedly I should have known he was strictly talking about the federal wage but it's easy to forget considering how insignificant it is to min wage levels in general. 18 million people make less than 10.10 per hour. Those are the facts that matter.

You on the other hand know nothing about it. You know you lose everytime with me and will do anything to get one small feeling of validation. Why else do you reply to ALL of my threads saying the same lame response. You're a pitiful soul.

Actually no one is really focusing on how many people make min wage. The argument is that over 50% of those who do are under 24years old.
As usual when confronted with facts you deflect to stupid. It's why you're Billy Triple Fail.

Don't be dumb. That apples only to the federal wage which is completely insignificant if the proposal to raise it is beyond most state wages.

 

[The Rabbi]

"People at or below the federal minimum are:

• Disproportionately young: 50.4% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
• Mostly (77%) white; nearly half are white women.
• Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)."

Who makes minimum wage Pew Research Center

I appreciate your source but my facts refer to state and local minimum wages which are largely under $10 per hour, not the federal which is hardly the big picture.

No, they dont. Please explain how state and local min wage changes the picture at all. You are moving goalposts and inventing things because you've had your ass handed to you as always. Which is why your threads are Triple Fails.

Admittedly I should have known he was strictly talking about the federal wage but it's easy to forget considering how insignificant it is to min wage levels in general. 18 million people make less than 10.10 per hour. Those are the facts that matter.

You on the other hand know nothing about it. You know you lose everytime with me and will do anything to get one small feeling of validation. Why else do you reply to ALL of my threads saying the same lame response. You're a pitiful soul.

Actually no one is really focusing on how many people make min wage. The argument is that over 50% of those who do are under 24years old.
As usual when confronted with facts you deflect to stupid. It's why you're Billy Triple Fail.

Don't be dumb. That apples only to the federal wage which is completely insignificant if the proposal to raise it is beyond most state wages.

So what is the percentage overall of people working for min wage, either federal or state, who are under 24?

 

[dblack]

Honestly, I think its that republicans as a group (with plenty of individual exceptions) have swallowed the "Money is Morality" Kool-aid. A sort of financial determinism that goes far beyond 'you deserve your financial situation'. And embraces the a hyper-moral idea of the 'makers' and the 'takers', with those who are rich being morally superior creators and benefactors. And those who are poor being immoral leeches and parasites.

Thus the minimum wage and welfare are considered enabling of this inferior moral position. With the growing ranks of poverty seen as evidence of moral decline.

And it may go farther still. I'd argue that a faction of this view actually resents the lack of suffering on the part of the poor. They would probably frame it as being 'shielded from consequence'. With a social safety net preventing people from truly experiencing the horrors of their immoral poverty. Or as they would frame it 'the consequences of their own decisions'. For both them and their children. And if they were to experience more pain, more suffering, more hunger, more 'consequence', that they would be motivated to rectify their immoral poverty and become a 'maker'.

Thus, by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless....or even by offering food assistance to the working poor, you're encouraging the immorality of poverty, enabling the moral decay of parasitism. And that its only through the cleansing fire of suffering, hunger, misery and pain that the poor can be whole again.

This is why, probably more than any other reason, I've never been able to call myself a conservative, or (with the exception of Ron Paul's primary runs) associate in any way with the Republican party.

... As for many on the right they are motivated by ideology. Not outcome. And the consequence of wealth concentration or political influence is irrelevant to their support of it on ideological grounds.

The consequences matter to me. And I'd argue that if you were to sit down and talk with most folks, it matters to them too.

I'm not sure this is fair. There are different kinds of consequences to consider, and a free society is a practical outcome as well as an ideological concern. But then I don't see ideology as a bad thing. Indeed, my biggest beef with both of the major parties is their lack of any discernible ideology.