Notice liberals will spam this bored flaming Repubs but they won't talk about Obama?

[Sallow]

The rise in people needing foodstamps is an embarrassment to this country. We need to raise the minimum wage so that working Americans do not have to rely on foodstamps to survive.

Wouldn't you agree?

Naw..she wouldn't.

She's part of the "Let em eat cake" crowd. She's a little like Ayn Rand..who blathered on about Social programs constantly..until she needed one.

Wouldn't a conservative believe that employers should be paying their employees enough so that they can feed their families so that taxpayers don't have to step in and make up the difference?

Walmart use to give it's employees information on how to get government benefits.

 

[Cuyo]

He denied the KeyStone Pipeline. While Iran shuts oil to Europe and our gas prices spike.

He's forced a healthcare on this country most don't want.

His policies have increased unemployment to over 10% if unemployment was counted the same way it was under Bush. (and under Bush it never got over 6%!)

He increased spending to 100% of GDP! 100%! Do you know how much spending was under Bush for all you libs crying about Bush spending during the Iraq war?

SEVEN PERCENT! It never got over seven percent of GDP!

GDP = C + I + G + nX

Wanna re-evaluate your claim?

Want to eat this crow?

U.S. Debt Reaches 100 Percent Of Country's GDP | Fox News

U.S. Borrowing Tops 100% of GDP - GDP - Fox Nation

Whether it's spending or borrowing it's still the same debt sink hole our kids will fall into.

Spin your way out of that.

Nah, I'm not ready to chow down just yet.

Glaze over what you said, then what I said, then what you said.

Get back to me and let me know if I really need to break it down for you.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

The rise in people needing foodstamps is an embarrassment to this country. We need to raise the minimum wage so that working Americans do not have to rely on foodstamps to survive.

Wouldn't you agree?

Naw..she wouldn't.

She's part of the "Let em eat cake" crowd. She's a little like Ayn Rand..who blathered on about Social programs constantly..until she needed one.

Wouldn't a conservative believe that employers should be paying their employees enough so that they can feed their families so that taxpayers don't have to step in and make up the difference?

No, a conservative would believe that the, and I'm going to use a term here that will send shivers down your spine, "FREE MARKET" should determine what an employer will pay their employees. Minimum wages do nothing except spur on price hikes for those employers most affected by their implementation.

For example, I am not so worried about a big national chain that has to pay minimum wages, they can make up a lot in quantity, what I am worried about is the mom and pop hamburger stand on the corner that is forced to pay a high school student minimum wage. At $7.00 an hour, at 20 hours a week, Susie Cheerleader is earning $140.00 a week. Now tell me that somehow you have helped the "working poor" when you force a mom and pop hamburger stand to meet that minimum wage. You haven't, and you know you haven't. You haven't saved anyone. What you have done is interject the Federal government into the mix which only drives up the price of that hamburger and will, in the end, make mom and pop think twice about hiring Susie Cheerleader.

Jobs that are traditionally low-end should be used as a spring board for gaining experience and education where you can get to those jobs that do pay more. Take a young man that comes out of high school and doesn't want to go to college. He takes a laborers job at a construction site. Yep, the pay is going to really suck. If this is the limit of his aspirations then he is really stuck working for what that construction company will pay him. As he learns he may become a carpenter, a framer, or work with concrete or something. Experience and ability will guide his wages. BUT, while he is working construction, if he goes to trade school and learns to say weld, when he completes that school he has a job waiting that starts at $60,000 a year.

Where the problem occurs is when you have those that have NO EDUCATION and NO DESIRE to actively pursue something better. Because you think you have a big heart, you want everyone to be paid a living wage for picking up trash. If they do, you take away one of the biggest motivators to make yourself better. That is the problem with trying to "help". In the end you don't help them, you just enable them to stay at a low-end job.

 

[zeke]

BUT, while he is working construction, if he goes to trade school and learns to say weld, when he completes that school he has a job waiting that starts at $60,000 a year.

Where the problem occurs is when you have those that have NO EDUCATION and NO DESIRE to actively pursue something better. Because you think you have a big heart, you want everyone to be paid a living wage for picking up trash.

Go to trade school while he is working 50-60 hours a week. Trying to get by on minimum wage. And how would this person pay for that trade school. On a minimum wage job.

And around where I live, graduates of the Hobart School of Welding are lucky to start at 12 an hour. Maybe 13 if they are real good. A far cry from 60k a year.

And you really think minimum wage is a "living wage"? Could you live on 7 bucks an hour?
With no bennies. Minus taxes, why I bet they take home 200.00 dollars a week.

 

[HUGGY]

That tells you a lot.

Even Obama can't give us reasons to vote for him. He's just doing scorched Earth against Republicans.

Expect more of this and expect it to get more and more hysterically pitched as election day gets closer.

The paid lackies for Obama will just SPAM THIS BOARD with stuff against the GOP candidates.

Next they will tell us Santorum has sex with chickens.

Obama doesn't have ANYTHING TO RUN ON. He can't give us reasons to vote for him.

His record is ABYSMAL.

All he can do is try to scare us about voting GOP.

That usually doesn't work.

Link please.

 

[Sallow]

Naw..she wouldn't.

She's part of the "Let em eat cake" crowd. She's a little like Ayn Rand..who blathered on about Social programs constantly..until she needed one.

Wouldn't a conservative believe that employers should be paying their employees enough so that they can feed their families so that taxpayers don't have to step in and make up the difference?

No, a conservative would believe that the, and I'm going to use a term here that will send shivers down your spine, "FREE MARKET" should determine what an employer will pay their employees. Minimum wages do nothing except spur on price hikes for those employers most affected by their implementation.

For example, I am not so worried about a big national chain that has to pay minimum wages, they can make up a lot in quantity, what I am worried about is the mom and pop hamburger stand on the corner that is forced to pay a high school student minimum wage. At $7.00 an hour, at 20 hours a week, Susie Cheerleader is earning $140.00 a week. Now tell me that somehow you have helped the "working poor" when you force a mom and pop hamburger stand to meet that minimum wage. You haven't, and you know you haven't. You haven't saved anyone. What you have done is interject the Federal government into the mix which only drives up the price of that hamburger and will, in the end, make mom and pop think twice about hiring Susie Cheerleader.

Jobs that are traditionally low-end should be used as a spring board for gaining experience and education where you can get to those jobs that do pay more. Take a young man that comes out of high school and doesn't want to go to college. He takes a laborers job at a construction site. Yep, the pay is going to really suck. If this is the limit of his aspirations then he is really stuck working for what that construction company will pay him. As he learns he may become a carpenter, a framer, or work with concrete or something. Experience and ability will guide his wages. BUT, while he is working construction, if he goes to trade school and learns to say weld, when he completes that school he has a job waiting that starts at $60,000 a year.

Where the problem occurs is when you have those that have NO EDUCATION and NO DESIRE to actively pursue something better. Because you think you have a big heart, you want everyone to be paid a living wage for picking up trash. If they do, you take away one of the biggest motivators to make yourself better. That is the problem with trying to "help". In the end you don't help them, you just enable them to stay at a low-end job.

I like this scenario better..

A Virginia coal mining plant owner decides instead of producing 5 tons a day..he's going to up that to 6 tons a day. He lets the foreman know this and the foreman informs him that the men are already working 16 hours a day..and six days a week. They will either have to hire more people, which is near impossible, since everyone in town works for him or have the men work longer hours. The owner says, "Nonsense, you tell them it's my way or the highway". The foreman tells the men..and they go wild. That night they have a meeting and organize. Everyone is told not to report for work. The foreman informs the owner that no one has shown up. The owner then orders his guards to go round up the men. Unfortunately for the owner, the right to bear arms, extends to his employees and some of his guards come back with extra lead in their bodies, but no men. Not only that, the men are mad now and are coming to introduce him to their shot guns.

What does the owner do? Calls the governor. The governor sends the national guard to protect him. So..a few days go by..no coal. This reaches the ear of the President.

What do you suppose happens next?

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

BUT, while he is working construction, if he goes to trade school and learns to say weld, when he completes that school he has a job waiting that starts at $60,000 a year.

Where the problem occurs is when you have those that have NO EDUCATION and NO DESIRE to actively pursue something better. Because you think you have a big heart, you want everyone to be paid a living wage for picking up trash.

Go to trade school while he is working 50-60 hours a week. Trying to get by on minimum wage. And how would this person pay for that trade school. On a minimum wage job.

And around where I live, graduates of the Hobart School of Welding are lucky to start at 12 an hour. Maybe 13 if they are real good. A far cry from 60k a year.

And you really think minimum wage is a "living wage"? Could you live on 7 bucks an hour?
With no bennies. Minus taxes, why I bet they take home 200.00 dollars a week.

EXACTLY what I am talking about. Enable people to do NO MORE than they absolutely have to do to get by and place the burden on those that make the sacrifices and do better. You're absolutely right, $7.00 is NOT a living wage. The amount earned at these low-end and entry level jobs are not supposed to be. Forcing a company to pay a laborer $7.00 or even $10.00 an hour is only ensuring that those types of jobs are few and far between. Or, you ensure that some illegal alien is paid in cash under the table. IF your desire is to have a low-end job and you do NOTHING to make that better, then that is your decision. It is a term that sends our friends from the left into shivering fits: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

I worked 60 hour weeks and went to school at night ever day for five years to get my degree in Computer Information Systems. I had a wife and three very small kids at the time. My son worked two jobs and went to trade school during the day and became a certified welder. And guess what, the company that my son went to work for, paid the tuition if he promised to work for them for 5 years. I get emails from the people at that school asking if I know anyone who wants to learn to weld. They can't find enough people fast enough. Course, here again, if you want a good job, you aren't going to walk out of the school and go to work down the block. The jobs are in North Dakota, Cushing, Oklahoma, and other places. But $60,000 is the low end.

The problem is, you think you're helping people. You are not. Everything has unintended consequences. And let's remember something very important: NO ONE OWES YOU ANYTHING. If you're going to make it, you have to do it yourself. My son had the hardest time understanding that. The left still doesn't understand it.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Wouldn't a conservative believe that employers should be paying their employees enough so that they can feed their families so that taxpayers don't have to step in and make up the difference?

No, a conservative would believe that the, and I'm going to use a term here that will send shivers down your spine, "FREE MARKET" should determine what an employer will pay their employees. Minimum wages do nothing except spur on price hikes for those employers most affected by their implementation.

For example, I am not so worried about a big national chain that has to pay minimum wages, they can make up a lot in quantity, what I am worried about is the mom and pop hamburger stand on the corner that is forced to pay a high school student minimum wage. At $7.00 an hour, at 20 hours a week, Susie Cheerleader is earning $140.00 a week. Now tell me that somehow you have helped the "working poor" when you force a mom and pop hamburger stand to meet that minimum wage. You haven't, and you know you haven't. You haven't saved anyone. What you have done is interject the Federal government into the mix which only drives up the price of that hamburger and will, in the end, make mom and pop think twice about hiring Susie Cheerleader.

Jobs that are traditionally low-end should be used as a spring board for gaining experience and education where you can get to those jobs that do pay more. Take a young man that comes out of high school and doesn't want to go to college. He takes a laborers job at a construction site. Yep, the pay is going to really suck. If this is the limit of his aspirations then he is really stuck working for what that construction company will pay him. As he learns he may become a carpenter, a framer, or work with concrete or something. Experience and ability will guide his wages. BUT, while he is working construction, if he goes to trade school and learns to say weld, when he completes that school he has a job waiting that starts at $60,000 a year.

Where the problem occurs is when you have those that have NO EDUCATION and NO DESIRE to actively pursue something better. Because you think you have a big heart, you want everyone to be paid a living wage for picking up trash. If they do, you take away one of the biggest motivators to make yourself better. That is the problem with trying to "help". In the end you don't help them, you just enable them to stay at a low-end job.

I like this scenario better..

A Virginia coal mining plant owner decides instead of producing 5 tons a day..he's going to up that to 6 tons a day. He lets the foreman know this and the foreman informs him that the men are already working 16 hours a day..and six days a week. They will either have to hire more people, which is near impossible, since everyone in town works for him or have the men work longer hours. The owner says, "Nonsense, you tell them it's my way or the highway". The foreman tells the men..and they go wild. That night they have a meeting and organize. Everyone is told not to report for work. The foreman informs the owner that no one has shown up. The owner then orders his guards to go round up the men. Unfortunately for the owner, the right to bear arms, extends to his employees and some of his guards come back with extra lead in their bodies, but no men. Not only that, the men are mad now and are coming to introduce him to their shot guns.

What does the owner do? Calls the governor. The governor sends the national guard to protect him. So..a few days go by..no coal. This reaches the ear of the President.

What do you suppose happens next?

Sallow, that does not become an arguement for a minimum wage. Has what you described happend? Of course, I've read and I understand the issues in some Appalacian towns. In those situations they are NOT workers. Because in this scenario, I can tell you that those mines are probably not safe at all. AND if you recall, the owner of the mines also ran the "company store" in town. When the miners got paid, it all went to the company store. In effect what you had was indentured servitude. That is and should be illegal. That is NOT the free market.

A minimum wage may be targeted to help those in situations that you describe, but it's affect is far-reaching and very intrusive into areas where it was not intended. It is exactly what happens when the federal government gets involved. Many, many unintended consequences.

 

[Sallow]

No, a conservative would believe that the, and I'm going to use a term here that will send shivers down your spine, "FREE MARKET" should determine what an employer will pay their employees. Minimum wages do nothing except spur on price hikes for those employers most affected by their implementation.

For example, I am not so worried about a big national chain that has to pay minimum wages, they can make up a lot in quantity, what I am worried about is the mom and pop hamburger stand on the corner that is forced to pay a high school student minimum wage. At $7.00 an hour, at 20 hours a week, Susie Cheerleader is earning $140.00 a week. Now tell me that somehow you have helped the "working poor" when you force a mom and pop hamburger stand to meet that minimum wage. You haven't, and you know you haven't. You haven't saved anyone. What you have done is interject the Federal government into the mix which only drives up the price of that hamburger and will, in the end, make mom and pop think twice about hiring Susie Cheerleader.

Jobs that are traditionally low-end should be used as a spring board for gaining experience and education where you can get to those jobs that do pay more. Take a young man that comes out of high school and doesn't want to go to college. He takes a laborers job at a construction site. Yep, the pay is going to really suck. If this is the limit of his aspirations then he is really stuck working for what that construction company will pay him. As he learns he may become a carpenter, a framer, or work with concrete or something. Experience and ability will guide his wages. BUT, while he is working construction, if he goes to trade school and learns to say weld, when he completes that school he has a job waiting that starts at $60,000 a year.

Where the problem occurs is when you have those that have NO EDUCATION and NO DESIRE to actively pursue something better. Because you think you have a big heart, you want everyone to be paid a living wage for picking up trash. If they do, you take away one of the biggest motivators to make yourself better. That is the problem with trying to "help". In the end you don't help them, you just enable them to stay at a low-end job.

I like this scenario better..

A Virginia coal mining plant owner decides instead of producing 5 tons a day..he's going to up that to 6 tons a day. He lets the foreman know this and the foreman informs him that the men are already working 16 hours a day..and six days a week. They will either have to hire more people, which is near impossible, since everyone in town works for him or have the men work longer hours. The owner says, "Nonsense, you tell them it's my way or the highway". The foreman tells the men..and they go wild. That night they have a meeting and organize. Everyone is told not to report for work. The foreman informs the owner that no one has shown up. The owner then orders his guards to go round up the men. Unfortunately for the owner, the right to bear arms, extends to his employees and some of his guards come back with extra lead in their bodies, but no men. Not only that, the men are mad now and are coming to introduce him to their shot guns.

What does the owner do? Calls the governor. The governor sends the national guard to protect him. So..a few days go by..no coal. This reaches the ear of the President.

What do you suppose happens next?

Sallow, that does not become an arguement for a minimum wage. Has what you described happend? Of course, I've read and I understand the issues in some Appalacian towns. In those situations they are NOT workers. Because in this scenario, I can tell you that those mines are probably not safe at all. AND if you recall, the owner of the mines also ran the "company store" in town. When the miners got paid, it all went to the company store. In effect what you had was indentured servitude. That is and should be illegal. That is NOT the free market.

A minimum wage may be targeted to help those in situations that you describe, but it's affect is far-reaching and very intrusive into areas where it was not intended. It is exactly what happens when the federal government gets involved. Many, many unintended consequences.

I was referring to the coal miner strike during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency. After he intervened, basically saving the lives of the owners, the men got shorter hours and more pay.

Of late, government intervention has been giving deference to corporation/company owners. But have no doubt that the government does and will get involved in commerce. It's in the constitution. And, for all the yammering about it, business owners do want that to be the case. Because without the government, they would be tarred, feathered and shipped out of most towns on a rail.

 

[Sallow]

No, a conservative would believe that the, and I'm going to use a term here that will send shivers down your spine, "FREE MARKET" should determine what an employer will pay their employees. Minimum wages do nothing except spur on price hikes for those employers most affected by their implementation.

For example, I am not so worried about a big national chain that has to pay minimum wages, they can make up a lot in quantity, what I am worried about is the mom and pop hamburger stand on the corner that is forced to pay a high school student minimum wage. At $7.00 an hour, at 20 hours a week, Susie Cheerleader is earning $140.00 a week. Now tell me that somehow you have helped the "working poor" when you force a mom and pop hamburger stand to meet that minimum wage. You haven't, and you know you haven't. You haven't saved anyone. What you have done is interject the Federal government into the mix which only drives up the price of that hamburger and will, in the end, make mom and pop think twice about hiring Susie Cheerleader.

Jobs that are traditionally low-end should be used as a spring board for gaining experience and education where you can get to those jobs that do pay more. Take a young man that comes out of high school and doesn't want to go to college. He takes a laborers job at a construction site. Yep, the pay is going to really suck. If this is the limit of his aspirations then he is really stuck working for what that construction company will pay him. As he learns he may become a carpenter, a framer, or work with concrete or something. Experience and ability will guide his wages. BUT, while he is working construction, if he goes to trade school and learns to say weld, when he completes that school he has a job waiting that starts at $60,000 a year.

Where the problem occurs is when you have those that have NO EDUCATION and NO DESIRE to actively pursue something better. Because you think you have a big heart, you want everyone to be paid a living wage for picking up trash. If they do, you take away one of the biggest motivators to make yourself better. That is the problem with trying to "help". In the end you don't help them, you just enable them to stay at a low-end job.

I like this scenario better..

A Virginia coal mining plant owner decides instead of producing 5 tons a day..he's going to up that to 6 tons a day. He lets the foreman know this and the foreman informs him that the men are already working 16 hours a day..and six days a week. They will either have to hire more people, which is near impossible, since everyone in town works for him or have the men work longer hours. The owner says, "Nonsense, you tell them it's my way or the highway". The foreman tells the men..and they go wild. That night they have a meeting and organize. Everyone is told not to report for work. The foreman informs the owner that no one has shown up. The owner then orders his guards to go round up the men. Unfortunately for the owner, the right to bear arms, extends to his employees and some of his guards come back with extra lead in their bodies, but no men. Not only that, the men are mad now and are coming to introduce him to their shot guns.

What does the owner do? Calls the governor. The governor sends the national guard to protect him. So..a few days go by..no coal. This reaches the ear of the President.

What do you suppose happens next?

Why are you suggesting the president be shot?

Why are you off your meds?

 

[Dot Com]

I like this scenario better..

A Virginia coal mining plant owner decides instead of producing 5 tons a day..he's going to up that to 6 tons a day. He lets the foreman know this and the foreman informs him that the men are already working 16 hours a day..and six days a week. They will either have to hire more people, which is near impossible, since everyone in town works for him or have the men work longer hours. The owner says, "Nonsense, you tell them it's my way or the highway". The foreman tells the men..and they go wild. That night they have a meeting and organize. Everyone is told not to report for work. The foreman informs the owner that no one has shown up. The owner then orders his guards to go round up the men. Unfortunately for the owner, the right to bear arms, extends to his employees and some of his guards come back with extra lead in their bodies, but no men. Not only that, the men are mad now and are coming to introduce him to their shot guns.

What does the owner do? Calls the governor. The governor sends the national guard to protect him. So..a few days go by..no coal. This reaches the ear of the President.

What do you suppose happens next?

Why are you suggesting the president be shot?

Why are you off your meds?

saveliberty has hit a NEW low

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Notice liberals will spam this bored flaming Repubs but they won't talk about Obama?

....As if the White Wingers need any help.

"Whew! Tucker Carlson’s Daily Callgirl couldn’t quite figure out how to blame Barack Obama for Trayvon Martin’s death, but thankfully star “reporter” Matthew Boyle came up with the next best thing: President Barack Obama only commented on the death of a young man shot by a guy muttering “fucking coons” because the Black Panthers told him to."

Alcohol-Poisoning/Hallucinations;
It's Not Just For Skinheads​

 

[The T]

That tells you a lot.

Even Obama can't give us reasons to vote for him. He's just doing scorched Earth against Republicans.

Expect more of this and expect it to get more and more hysterically pitched as election day gets closer.

The paid lackies for Obama will just SPAM THIS BOARD with stuff against the GOP candidates.

Next they will tell us Santorum has sex with chickens.

Obama doesn't have ANYTHING TO RUN ON. He can't give us reasons to vote for him.

His record is ABYSMAL.

All he can do is try to scare us about voting GOP.

That usually doesn't work.

He's a radical...Professional Shit-disturbing Community Organizer.

What do you expect giving the reigns of power to a known Communist sympathesizer as his parents were?

 

[Syphon]

That tells you a lot.

Even Obama can't give us reasons to vote for him. He's just doing scorched Earth against Republicans.

Expect more of this and expect it to get more and more hysterically pitched as election day gets closer.

The paid lackies for Obama will just SPAM THIS BOARD with stuff against the GOP candidates.

Next they will tell us Santorum has sex with chickens.

Obama doesn't have ANYTHING TO RUN ON. He can't give us reasons to vote for him.

His record is ABYSMAL.

All he can do is try to scare us about voting GOP.

That usually doesn't work.

He's a radical...Professional Shit-disturbing Community Organizer.

What do you expect giving the reigns of power to a known Communist sympathesizer as his parents were?

lie much????

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That tells you a lot.

Even Obama can't give us reasons to vote for him. He's just doing scorched Earth against Republicans.

Expect more of this and expect it to get more and more hysterically pitched as election day gets closer.

The paid lackies for Obama will just SPAM THIS BOARD with stuff against the GOP candidates.

Next they will tell us Santorum has sex with chickens.

Obama doesn't have ANYTHING TO RUN ON. He can't give us reasons to vote for him.

His record is ABYSMAL.

All he can do is try to scare us about voting GOP.

That usually doesn't work.

He's a radical...Professional Shit-disturbing Community Organizer.

What do you expect giving the reigns of power to a known Communist sympathesizer as his parents were?

No.....he (actually) sounds (more) like average, ordinary, garden-variety....

....White Trash.