Republicans and Poverty

[BULLDOG]

You were wrong when you said ".....and it isn't a misconception that minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers"

• The average age of affected workers is 35 years old;

• 88 percent of all affected workers are at least 20 years old;

• 35.5 percent are at least 40 years old;

• 56 percent are women;

• 28 percent have children;

• 55 percent work full-time (35 hours per week or more);

• 44 percent have at least some college experience.

Low-wage Workers Are Older Than You Think 88 Percent of Workers Who Would Benefit From a Higher Minimum Wage Are Older Than 20 One Third Are Over 40 Economic Policy Institute

A gross miss-characterization. No inference is given to the minimum wage worker who is not the primary bread winner in the house. Women with children often prioritize their children over work while the husband remains the primary bread winner. They therefore make minimum wage in part time work/work that accepts a flexible schedule. Second, those statistics only account for "everyone who earns between the current minimum wage and the proposed new one, as well as workers earning just above the new minimum wage" Those minimum wage workers you have in your stats are therefore not all minimum wage workers.

Your implication that our lowest paid workers are all kids who only work for Saturday night money is absurd, A full time job should be enough to keep at least the person working with food, clothing, healthcare, and all the other basic necessities of life without the government having to subsidize their low wages. Don't like welfare? Make the businesses pay a fair wage..

I like how you set up and knocked down that straw-man via the word "implication." Do you always go around purposely miss-characterizing arguments by adding words never said and arguing against an argument never made by the person you're replying to?

I mistakenly assigned your post to the previous answer I received who said specifically "it isn't a misconception that minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers" . My mistake, and I apologize, but to your post, this does include families that specifically DO depend on low income workers

60 Million People Depend on the Incomes of Low-Wage Workers in America Increasing the federal minimum wage would benefit on average more than 135 000 people in each Congressional district Economic Policy Institute
More than 60 million people, including more than 15 million children, live in American households that depend on the earnings of a low-wage worker, according to new research by Oxfam America and the Economic Policy Institute released today. These numbers account for about one quarter of all workers, family members, and children in working households in the United States.

Define "depend" as those studies define it and lets talk. Oh, and I have little sympathy for those who have children while in poverty. it made since when families always lived under the same roof and supported each other as farmers and day laborers but it makes absolutely not sense today. If you're squirting out babies you cannot afford then don't pull on my heart strings with the word "families." With that said I realize that they're families that had every right to assume that their standard of living would not drop. but they are too few and far between.

So you think a person working full time should be denied the right to have a family? A lot of the trite statements made by the right are just dumb under examination.

 

[Publius1787]

I'm not a libertarian but that's neither here nor there. Your position is not grounded in logic but ideology completely separated from logic. no amount of name-calling will change that fact.

Ironic that you blindly support Libertarianism while denying that you are a Libertarian.

And your own posts condemned you as being selfish and greedy. That is your problem, not mine.

Still waiting for the logical argument to spew from your cock-holster. Until then consider yourself ignored.

In other words all you have are vulgarities since you cannot refute the fact that you exposed your own selfish greed in your posts.

Here we go again. Obviously there is a disconnect with respect to definitions. "Name calling" is not "exposing." See now, that's how you logically argue. This lesson is free but the next ones gonna cost you.

Coming from someone who lacks the basic comprehension to understand that taxation is not "stealing" that is amusing.

Are all Libertarians this childlike in their feeble grasp of reality or is it only confined to USMB members?

Taxation is a means to secure funds to support serveries that benefit us all. The military, for example, benefits us all. There may be discussion on how the military benefits us at any given time but it is there for us all nonetheless. Voting money away from one group so as to unduly grant a privilege to another is simply the tyranny of the majority. It's not the general welfare that benefits from such a transaction but the specific welfare of one group or another (Clear distinction). That's exactly what the U.S. Constitution was designed to forbid at the federal level. Now this is not to say that the states can't come up with their own scheme. They have the power to and ought to. But when there is little to no return on our money in the form of people clawing their way out of poverty and becoming productive taxpaying citizens then I think I am justified in asserting that I am not greedy for realizing that paying for the poor is increasing poverty. Besides, there is no such thing as "poor" in the United States. Oh you may have a standard to which you judge is "poor," but I don't see starving people in the streets urinating on the sidewalk as I have in so many other countries. The "poor" of the United States is the worlds middle class. We no longer have debates, for example, about feeding the poor. We only have debates about feeding the poor in a healthy manner. So excuse me if I reject your notions of poverty and entitlement. Everyone can't be winners but if you can't make it here then you are a loser who made too many bad decisions and the taxpayer owes you nothing for your chosen lifestyle.

 

[Publius1787]

A gross miss-characterization. No inference is given to the minimum wage worker who is not the primary bread winner in the house. Women with children often prioritize their children over work while the husband remains the primary bread winner. They therefore make minimum wage in part time work/work that accepts a flexible schedule. Second, those statistics only account for "everyone who earns between the current minimum wage and the proposed new one, as well as workers earning just above the new minimum wage" Those minimum wage workers you have in your stats are therefore not all minimum wage workers.

Your implication that our lowest paid workers are all kids who only work for Saturday night money is absurd, A full time job should be enough to keep at least the person working with food, clothing, healthcare, and all the other basic necessities of life without the government having to subsidize their low wages. Don't like welfare? Make the businesses pay a fair wage..

I like how you set up and knocked down that straw-man via the word "implication." Do you always go around purposely miss-characterizing arguments by adding words never said and arguing against an argument never made by the person you're replying to?

I mistakenly assigned your post to the previous answer I received who said specifically "it isn't a misconception that minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers" . My mistake, and I apologize, but to your post, this does include families that specifically DO depend on low income workers

60 Million People Depend on the Incomes of Low-Wage Workers in America Increasing the federal minimum wage would benefit on average more than 135 000 people in each Congressional district Economic Policy Institute
More than 60 million people, including more than 15 million children, live in American households that depend on the earnings of a low-wage worker, according to new research by Oxfam America and the Economic Policy Institute released today. These numbers account for about one quarter of all workers, family members, and children in working households in the United States.

Define "depend" as those studies define it and lets talk. Oh, and I have little sympathy for those who have children while in poverty. it made since when families always lived under the same roof and supported each other as farmers and day laborers but it makes absolutely not sense today. If you're squirting out babies you cannot afford then don't pull on my heart strings with the word "families." With that said I realize that they're families that had every right to assume that their standard of living would not drop. but they are too few and far between.

So you think a person working full time should be denied the right to have a family? A lot of the trite statements made by the right are just dumb under examination.

By all means, procreate at your own risk. Just don't expect me to pay for it. Just because you cannot delay instant gratification by keeping your legs shut or your dick in your pants (perhaps you don't enjoy wearing a rubber), does not grant you the entitlement of my labor. You disagree? Your mentality is clear. "OOPSIE, I got pregnant ... the taxpayer owes me money!" I suppose that's the world you wish to live in?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ironic that you blindly support Libertarianism while denying that you are a Libertarian.

And your own posts condemned you as being selfish and greedy. That is your problem, not mine.

Still waiting for the logical argument to spew from your cock-holster. Until then consider yourself ignored.

In other words all you have are vulgarities since you cannot refute the fact that you exposed your own selfish greed in your posts.

Here we go again. Obviously there is a disconnect with respect to definitions. "Name calling" is not "exposing." See now, that's how you logically argue. This lesson is free but the next ones gonna cost you.

Coming from someone who lacks the basic comprehension to understand that taxation is not "stealing" that is amusing.

Are all Libertarians this childlike in their feeble grasp of reality or is it only confined to USMB members?

Taxation is a means to secure funds to support serveries that benefit us all. The military, for example, benefits us all. There may be discussion on how the military benefits us at any given time but it is there for us all nonetheless. Voting money away from one group so as to unduly grant a privilege to another is simply the tyranny of the majority. It's not the general welfare that benefits from such a transaction but the specific welfare of one group or another (Clear distinction). That's exactly what the U.S. Constitution was designed to forbid at the federal level. Now this is not to say that the states can't come up with their own scheme. They have the power to and ought to. But when there is little to no return on our money in the form of people clawing their way out of poverty and becoming productive taxpaying citizens then I think I am justified in asserting that I am not greedy for realizing that paying for the poor is increasing poverty. Besides, there is no such thing as "poor" in the United States. Oh you may have a standard to which you judge is "poor," but I don't see starving people in the streets urinating on the sidewalk as I have in so many other countries. The "poor" of the United States is the worlds middle class. We no longer have debates, for example, about feeding the poor. We only have debates about feeding the poor in a healthy manner. So excuse me if I reject your notions of poverty and entitlement. Everyone can't be winners but if you can't make it here then you are a loser who made too many bad decisions and the taxpayer owes you nothing for your chosen lifestyle.

Yet another Libertarian screed of selfishness.

What is the alternative to providing support to those less fortunate than you are?

Abject poverty?

Rampant crime?

Diseases and dead people lying in the streets?

Urchins begging on corners?

The poor selling their children?

That is the alternative to your selfish greed. By eliminating what they receive today you will be turning this country into a 3rd world nation.

All because you have a fallacious sense of entitlement that you don't have to pay taxes to live in this civilized society.

Carry on being a selfish Libertarian because you obviously lack the cognitive skills necessary to make the connection as to what will happen here when you cut off all welfare of the less fortunate. You will just blame the victims of your greed because you cannot make the obvious mental leaps.

The OP started by pointing out that he was raised with a sound work ethic and yet, through no fault of his own, he finds himself in poverty. He didn't make a "poor choice" to be afflicted with OCD. That is what happens to some people.

You lack the basic human empathy to put yourself in the OP's shoes and wonder what it would be like to be him.

That is why you are a greedy and selfish Libertarian who doesn't know how to "play nicely with others". You cannot comprehend that for millions of your fellow Americans they never made the "poor choice" to be born into poverty. But you blame them for their circumstances even though they are probably better human beings than you will ever be.

 

[2aguy]

Hey, I'm new. One of the things that confuses me the most about the Republican Party is its stance on poverty. I want to start out by saying that I am an Indiana Republican and I grew up middle class. We lived by two common rules. Work Hard, Believe in God. These two things were not a bad thing to grow up on. I had early success in school, and I got a college degree, but my OCD became increasingly worse. I am now disabled and I am well versed in poverty.

I admit that I like watching Fox News, but people like O'Reily and Hannity seem completely clueless when discussing the poor. They think that if you have two parents and a good attitude that everyone can be successful. This is both naive and quite untrue. I think the biggest misconception is that minimum wage jobs are just for teenagers. The idea of working yourself up some kind of ladder is nice, but it is not reality for millions of people. I know many adults who would be grateful for any kind of work, not just some dream job. I want to focus on the mentally ill and those who have various forms of low IQ. If you have never been before a judge for a disability hearing, then you don't know that getting help for a mental disability is nearly impossible. For every person who cheats, there is at least another person who can't get help.

I'm going to tie everything up by going to the wage debate. I firmly believe that if you work hard for 40 hours a week, then you deserve a living wage. I'm not talking raising a family on one income, I'm talking food, gas, and health care for one person. I don't believe in "bad jobs" or meaningless jobs. I think the first step is to get everyone back to 40 hours a week. It is ridiculous that people have to work three part time jobs. I also think that wages can go up without the world coming to an end. I'm sick of hearing about the 100$ cheeseburger and half of all jobs as we know it will disappear. Instead of clinging so tightly to current wages, I do not think it is too difficult for fellow Republicans to treat minimum wage earners with respect. Bye the way, It is not just Fox, I have yet to see any Republican candidate or political expert view minimum wage jobs as anything other than high school kids who don't really matter.

Without a doubt, if a person works 40 hours per week, they should be able to afford a roof over their head, food on the table, and have an assurance that they will receive proper healthcare should they become sick. I don't care if their job is shoveling shit or shoveling burgers; if they do it full-time, they should be able to afford the simple basics. Republicans seem to have a real big problem with this concept and believe if you cannot better yourself through education, then you have no value to society.

But here's the funny thing about that, Republicans don't have respect for education and views it a "librul bastion".

Funny that.

No....we respect education...what you have now in too many public schools are democrat controlled teachers unions using the education of children to push their political agenda and filter tax money to politicians who pay teachers salaries....

and then they don't educate children and protect bad teachers simply because they are sources of money through their dues....

Schools are supposed to teach children...that is their purpose...it is not to support the salaries of union leadership and to give money to democrat politicians.....

We want children who can survive when they grow up...democrats want adults who vote democrat because they can't provide for themselves, and have to bow their heads to democrat politicians in order to survive...

 

[BULLDOG]

Your implication that our lowest paid workers are all kids who only work for Saturday night money is absurd, A full time job should be enough to keep at least the person working with food, clothing, healthcare, and all the other basic necessities of life without the government having to subsidize their low wages. Don't like welfare? Make the businesses pay a fair wage..

I like how you set up and knocked down that straw-man via the word "implication." Do you always go around purposely miss-characterizing arguments by adding words never said and arguing against an argument never made by the person you're replying to?

I mistakenly assigned your post to the previous answer I received who said specifically "it isn't a misconception that minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers" . My mistake, and I apologize, but to your post, this does include families that specifically DO depend on low income workers

60 Million People Depend on the Incomes of Low-Wage Workers in America Increasing the federal minimum wage would benefit on average more than 135 000 people in each Congressional district Economic Policy Institute
More than 60 million people, including more than 15 million children, live in American households that depend on the earnings of a low-wage worker, according to new research by Oxfam America and the Economic Policy Institute released today. These numbers account for about one quarter of all workers, family members, and children in working households in the United States.

Define "depend" as those studies define it and lets talk. Oh, and I have little sympathy for those who have children while in poverty. it made since when families always lived under the same roof and supported each other as farmers and day laborers but it makes absolutely not sense today. If you're squirting out babies you cannot afford then don't pull on my heart strings with the word "families." With that said I realize that they're families that had every right to assume that their standard of living would not drop. but they are too few and far between.

So you think a person working full time should be denied the right to have a family? A lot of the trite statements made by the right are just dumb under examination.

By all means, procreate at your own risk. Just don't expect me to pay for it. Just because you cannot delay instant gratification by keeping your legs shut or your dick in your pants (perhaps you don't enjoy wearing a rubber), does not grant you the entitlement of my labor. You disagree? Your mentality is clear. "OOPSIE, I got pregnant ... the taxpayer owes me money!" I suppose that's the world you wish to live in?

This from someone who only a couple of posts back was whining about name calling? Exactly what makes you think any of the things you depict have anything to do with me personally? I'm sure you are seen as a profound thinker inside your right wing bubble, but not so much when you get amongst sane people. Your greed and selfishness are less than attractive.

 

[2aguy]

A gross miss-characterization. No inference is given to the minimum wage worker who is not the primary bread winner in the house. Women with children often prioritize their children over work while the husband remains the primary bread winner. They therefore make minimum wage in part time work/work that accepts a flexible schedule. Second, those statistics only account for "everyone who earns between the current minimum wage and the proposed new one, as well as workers earning just above the new minimum wage" Those minimum wage workers you have in your stats are therefore not all minimum wage workers.

Your implication that our lowest paid workers are all kids who only work for Saturday night money is absurd, A full time job should be enough to keep at least the person working with food, clothing, healthcare, and all the other basic necessities of life without the government having to subsidize their low wages. Don't like welfare? Make the businesses pay a fair wage..

I like how you set up and knocked down that straw-man via the word "implication." Do you always go around purposely miss-characterizing arguments by adding words never said and arguing against an argument never made by the person you're replying to?

I mistakenly assigned your post to the previous answer I received who said specifically "it isn't a misconception that minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers" . My mistake, and I apologize, but to your post, this does include families that specifically DO depend on low income workers

60 Million People Depend on the Incomes of Low-Wage Workers in America Increasing the federal minimum wage would benefit on average more than 135 000 people in each Congressional district Economic Policy Institute
More than 60 million people, including more than 15 million children, live in American households that depend on the earnings of a low-wage worker, according to new research by Oxfam America and the Economic Policy Institute released today. These numbers account for about one quarter of all workers, family members, and children in working households in the United States.

Define "depend" as those studies define it and lets talk. Oh, and I have little sympathy for those who have children while in poverty. it made since when families always lived under the same roof and supported each other as farmers and day laborers but it makes absolutely not sense today. If you're squirting out babies you cannot afford then don't pull on my heart strings with the word "families." With that said I realize that they're families that had every right to assume that their standard of living would not drop. but they are too few and far between.

So you think a person working full time should be denied the right to have a family? A lot of the trite statements made by the right are just dumb under examination.

No moron....a person should take it upon themselves to have a family when they can afford a family...that means if you work full time but aren't making enough to support children you should be responsible and not start that family until you can pay for it.

Tell me...is it right if you don't make enough money to support your children to have children anyway...and then take tax money from others to support the children you knew you couldn't support? How is that right? Is that fair? The people who you are taking the money from are also trying to support their children, and if they had extra money that can be taken from them in taxes, you are taking money they could be using to support their children...is it fair to take their money if you choose to have kids when you can't support yours?

Explain how that is fair?


and Don't tell me about teen mothers....how is it fair if a teen gets pregnant and we as taxpayers give then WIC and all the other programs to help them.....even with all the fraud waste and abuse...if they then go and have more children after the first.....how is that fair to expect tax payers to pay for more kids....since after the first kid they know how babies are made?

Explain how that is fair....?


and since these kids are already in danger of a horrible life...how are you helping these kids by encouraging the teenager to have more kids?

 

[BULLDOG]

Your implication that our lowest paid workers are all kids who only work for Saturday night money is absurd, A full time job should be enough to keep at least the person working with food, clothing, healthcare, and all the other basic necessities of life without the government having to subsidize their low wages. Don't like welfare? Make the businesses pay a fair wage..

I like how you set up and knocked down that straw-man via the word "implication." Do you always go around purposely miss-characterizing arguments by adding words never said and arguing against an argument never made by the person you're replying to?

I mistakenly assigned your post to the previous answer I received who said specifically "it isn't a misconception that minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers" . My mistake, and I apologize, but to your post, this does include families that specifically DO depend on low income workers

60 Million People Depend on the Incomes of Low-Wage Workers in America Increasing the federal minimum wage would benefit on average more than 135 000 people in each Congressional district Economic Policy Institute
More than 60 million people, including more than 15 million children, live in American households that depend on the earnings of a low-wage worker, according to new research by Oxfam America and the Economic Policy Institute released today. These numbers account for about one quarter of all workers, family members, and children in working households in the United States.

Define "depend" as those studies define it and lets talk. Oh, and I have little sympathy for those who have children while in poverty. it made since when families always lived under the same roof and supported each other as farmers and day laborers but it makes absolutely not sense today. If you're squirting out babies you cannot afford then don't pull on my heart strings with the word "families." With that said I realize that they're families that had every right to assume that their standard of living would not drop. but they are too few and far between.

So you think a person working full time should be denied the right to have a family? A lot of the trite statements made by the right are just dumb under examination.

No moron....a person should take it upon themselves to have a family when they can afford a family...that means if you work full time but aren't making enough to support children you should be responsible and not start that family until you can pay for it.

Tell me...is it right if you don't make enough money to support your children to have children anyway...and then take tax money from others to support the children you knew you couldn't support? How is that right? Is that fair? The people who you are taking the money from are also trying to support their children, and if they had extra money that can be taken from them in taxes, you are taking money they could be using to support their children...is it fair to take their money if you choose to have kids when you can't support yours?

Explain how that is fair?


and Don't tell me about teen mothers....how is it fair if a teen gets pregnant and we as taxpayers give then WIC and all the other programs to help them.....even with all the fraud waste and abuse...if they then go and have more children after the first.....how is that fair to expect tax payers to pay for more kids....since after the first kid they know how babies are made?

Explain how that is fair....?


and since these kids are already in danger of a horrible life...how are you helping these kids by encouraging the teenager to have more kids?

And yet you support cutting access to birth control. Why don't you make up your mind?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much could wages increase of we eliminated the 2 trillion dollars in burdensome regulations placed on businesses?

So you want corporations to be utterly free to pollute your air and water and cheat you without any "burdensome regulations"? Just think that a bank could take all of your deposits for themselves under some made up fee and you wouldn't be able to do anything at all about it. Your family could all die of food poisoning and you wouldn't be able to do anything at all. Your doctor could cut out your kidney and sell it to someone else you wouldn't have any comeback.

Pure nonsensical rhetoric.

You are the one who wants to eliminate all "burdensome regulations". Where you lying when you posted that? Or are you just entering for the backpedaling Olympics?

Eliminating burdensome regulations is NOT equal to wanting to pollute the whole world. It is a lie and a tactic used by people to silence discussion on practical job creation.

It is nonsense, liberally packaged and hence, nonsensical rhetoric.

These are YOUR own words;

"eliminated the 2 trillion dollars in burdensome regulations placed on businesses"

Look at what happened when republicans deregulated the Wall Street Casino. They went wild and caused the largest economic collapse since the great depression out of sheer greed and avarice.

Now you want to repeat that abysmal failure of deregulation clear across every single industry and expect there to be a different result?

Look at what happened when republicans deregulated the Wall Street Casino.

When was Wall Street deregulated?
What happened when the supposed regulation was removed?
Be specific.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey, I'm new. One of the things that confuses me the most about the Republican Party is its stance on poverty. I want to start out by saying that I am an Indiana Republican and I grew up middle class. We lived by two common rules. Work Hard, Believe in God. These two things were not a bad thing to grow up on. I had early success in school, and I got a college degree, but my OCD became increasingly worse. I am now disabled and I am well versed in poverty.

I admit that I like watching Fox News, but people like O'Reily and Hannity seem completely clueless when discussing the poor. They think that if you have two parents and a good attitude that everyone can be successful. This is both naive and quite untrue. I think the biggest misconception is that minimum wage jobs are just for teenagers. The idea of working yourself up some kind of ladder is nice, but it is not reality for millions of people. I know many adults who would be grateful for any kind of work, not just some dream job. I want to focus on the mentally ill and those who have various forms of low IQ. If you have never been before a judge for a disability hearing, then you don't know that getting help for a mental disability is nearly impossible. For every person who cheats, there is at least another person who can't get help.

I'm going to tie everything up by going to the wage debate. I firmly believe that if you work hard for 40 hours a week, then you deserve a living wage. I'm not talking raising a family on one income, I'm talking food, gas, and health care for one person. I don't believe in "bad jobs" or meaningless jobs. I think the first step is to get everyone back to 40 hours a week. It is ridiculous that people have to work three part time jobs. I also think that wages can go up without the world coming to an end. I'm sick of hearing about the 100$ cheeseburger and half of all jobs as we know it will disappear. Instead of clinging so tightly to current wages, I do not think it is too difficult for fellow Republicans to treat minimum wage earners with respect. Bye the way, It is not just Fox, I have yet to see any Republican candidate or political expert view minimum wage jobs as anything other than high school kids who don't really matter.

Exactly why I am an EX republican. Their policies harm the poor,their policies keep the poor poor and they couldn't care less.

Their policies harm the poor,their policies keep the poor poor and they couldn't care less.

I agree, Dems and their policies are awful.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you want corporations to be utterly free to pollute your air and water and cheat you without any "burdensome regulations"? Just think that a bank could take all of your deposits for themselves under some made up fee and you wouldn't be able to do anything at all about it. Your family could all die of food poisoning and you wouldn't be able to do anything at all. Your doctor could cut out your kidney and sell it to someone else you wouldn't have any comeback.

Pure nonsensical rhetoric.

You are the one who wants to eliminate all "burdensome regulations". Where you lying when you posted that? Or are you just entering for the backpedaling Olympics?

Eliminating burdensome regulations is NOT equal to wanting to pollute the whole world. It is a lie and a tactic used by people to silence discussion on practical job creation.

It is nonsense, liberally packaged and hence, nonsensical rhetoric.

These are YOUR own words;

"eliminated the 2 trillion dollars in burdensome regulations placed on businesses"

Look at what happened when republicans deregulated the Wall Street Casino. They went wild and caused the largest economic collapse since the great depression out of sheer greed and avarice.

Now you want to repeat that abysmal failure of deregulation clear across every single industry and expect there to be a different result?

Look at what happened when republicans deregulated the Wall Street Casino.

When was Wall Street deregulated?
What happened when the supposed regulation was removed?
Be specific.

Bush s polices of Wall Street deregulation and allowing Frannie Freddie to expand with another 440 Billion American Dream act caused the Crash of 2008.

In 2001, Speculation was deregulated, controls set in place by FDR to prevent another Great Depression were removed. Speculation increased 400%(leveraging at 20:1), with WS holding 80% of the futures, speculating oil, food prices up as much as 400%. Health insurance increased 300%. Increases not seen over decades!

 

[2aguy]

I like how you set up and knocked down that straw-man via the word "implication." Do you always go around purposely miss-characterizing arguments by adding words never said and arguing against an argument never made by the person you're replying to?

I mistakenly assigned your post to the previous answer I received who said specifically "it isn't a misconception that minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers" . My mistake, and I apologize, but to your post, this does include families that specifically DO depend on low income workers

60 Million People Depend on the Incomes of Low-Wage Workers in America Increasing the federal minimum wage would benefit on average more than 135 000 people in each Congressional district Economic Policy Institute
More than 60 million people, including more than 15 million children, live in American households that depend on the earnings of a low-wage worker, according to new research by Oxfam America and the Economic Policy Institute released today. These numbers account for about one quarter of all workers, family members, and children in working households in the United States.

Define "depend" as those studies define it and lets talk. Oh, and I have little sympathy for those who have children while in poverty. it made since when families always lived under the same roof and supported each other as farmers and day laborers but it makes absolutely not sense today. If you're squirting out babies you cannot afford then don't pull on my heart strings with the word "families." With that said I realize that they're families that had every right to assume that their standard of living would not drop. but they are too few and far between.

So you think a person working full time should be denied the right to have a family? A lot of the trite statements made by the right are just dumb under examination.

No moron....a person should take it upon themselves to have a family when they can afford a family...that means if you work full time but aren't making enough to support children you should be responsible and not start that family until you can pay for it.

Tell me...is it right if you don't make enough money to support your children to have children anyway...and then take tax money from others to support the children you knew you couldn't support? How is that right? Is that fair? The people who you are taking the money from are also trying to support their children, and if they had extra money that can be taken from them in taxes, you are taking money they could be using to support their children...is it fair to take their money if you choose to have kids when you can't support yours?

Explain how that is fair?


and Don't tell me about teen mothers....how is it fair if a teen gets pregnant and we as taxpayers give then WIC and all the other programs to help them.....even with all the fraud waste and abuse...if they then go and have more children after the first.....how is that fair to expect tax payers to pay for more kids....since after the first kid they know how babies are made?

Explain how that is fair....?


and since these kids are already in danger of a horrible life...how are you helping these kids by encouraging the teenager to have more kids?

And yet you support cutting access to birth control. Why don't you make up your mind?

no moron...again...if you want to have sex don't force other people to pay for your birth control....is that so hard to comprehend...you can pop birth control like M & Ms for all I care...but don't use the government to mandate that others provide it for you....

is it fair that we take money from one person to pay for your birth control? and Forget the crap,about I need birth controlfor everything else too....you still want others to pay for it.......and it isn't expensive....your abortion factories should be giving it away right? as part of the effort to keep killing babies rare....right?

 

[Publius1787]

Still waiting for the logical argument to spew from your cock-holster. Until then consider yourself ignored.

In other words all you have are vulgarities since you cannot refute the fact that you exposed your own selfish greed in your posts.

Here we go again. Obviously there is a disconnect with respect to definitions. "Name calling" is not "exposing." See now, that's how you logically argue. This lesson is free but the next ones gonna cost you.

Coming from someone who lacks the basic comprehension to understand that taxation is not "stealing" that is amusing.

Are all Libertarians this childlike in their feeble grasp of reality or is it only confined to USMB members?

Taxation is a means to secure funds to support serveries that benefit us all. The military, for example, benefits us all. There may be discussion on how the military benefits us at any given time but it is there for us all nonetheless. Voting money away from one group so as to unduly grant a privilege to another is simply the tyranny of the majority. It's not the general welfare that benefits from such a transaction but the specific welfare of one group or another (Clear distinction). That's exactly what the U.S. Constitution was designed to forbid at the federal level. Now this is not to say that the states can't come up with their own scheme. They have the power to and ought to. But when there is little to no return on our money in the form of people clawing their way out of poverty and becoming productive taxpaying citizens then I think I am justified in asserting that I am not greedy for realizing that paying for the poor is increasing poverty. Besides, there is no such thing as "poor" in the United States. Oh you may have a standard to which you judge is "poor," but I don't see starving people in the streets urinating on the sidewalk as I have in so many other countries. The "poor" of the United States is the worlds middle class. We no longer have debates, for example, about feeding the poor. We only have debates about feeding the poor in a healthy manner. So excuse me if I reject your notions of poverty and entitlement. Everyone can't be winners but if you can't make it here then you are a loser who made too many bad decisions and the taxpayer owes you nothing for your chosen lifestyle.

Yet another Libertarian screed of selfishness.

What is the alternative to providing support to those less fortunate than you are?

Abject poverty?

Rampant crime?

Diseases and dead people lying in the streets?

Urchins begging on corners?

The poor selling their children?

That is the alternative to your selfish greed. By eliminating what they receive today you will be turning this country into a 3rd world nation.

All because you have a fallacious sense of entitlement that you don't have to pay taxes to live in this civilized society.

Carry on being a selfish Libertarian because you obviously lack the cognitive skills necessary to make the connection as to what will happen here when you cut off all welfare of the less fortunate. You will just blame the victims of your greed because you cannot make the obvious mental leaps.

The OP started by pointing out that he was raised with a sound work ethic and yet, through no fault of his own, he finds himself in poverty. He didn't make a "poor choice" to be afflicted with OCD. That is what happens to some people.

You lack the basic human empathy to put yourself in the OP's shoes and wonder what it would be like to be him.

That is why you are a greedy and selfish Libertarian who doesn't know how to "play nicely with others". You cannot comprehend that for millions of your fellow Americans they never made the "poor choice" to be born into poverty. But you blame them for their circumstances even though they are probably better human beings than you will ever be.

There you go again. Making a point on empathy is completely separate from making a point on logic. In the end your argument rests on feelings, and that makes it a poor argument. Essentially, you're beef is that I don't "feel" the way you do. And, of course, those that err on the side of logic instead of your feelings should be what? Condemned? Ridiculed?

A selfish and/or greedy act is an act that takes without compensation at the expense of another. I advocate for none of that whilst you demand it. Who's selfish again?

Now with that out of the way might I push you into a realm in which your argument becomes logical? How does "everyone" benefit from making the poor comfortable in their poverty?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pure nonsensical rhetoric.

You are the one who wants to eliminate all "burdensome regulations". Where you lying when you posted that? Or are you just entering for the backpedaling Olympics?

Eliminating burdensome regulations is NOT equal to wanting to pollute the whole world. It is a lie and a tactic used by people to silence discussion on practical job creation.

It is nonsense, liberally packaged and hence, nonsensical rhetoric.

These are YOUR own words;

"eliminated the 2 trillion dollars in burdensome regulations placed on businesses"

Look at what happened when republicans deregulated the Wall Street Casino. They went wild and caused the largest economic collapse since the great depression out of sheer greed and avarice.

Now you want to repeat that abysmal failure of deregulation clear across every single industry and expect there to be a different result?

Look at what happened when republicans deregulated the Wall Street Casino.

When was Wall Street deregulated?
What happened when the supposed regulation was removed?
Be specific.

Bush s polices of Wall Street deregulation and allowing Frannie Freddie to expand with another 440 Billion American Dream act caused the Crash of 2008.

In 2001, Speculation was deregulated, controls set in place by FDR to prevent another Great Depression were removed. Speculation increased 400%(leveraging at 20:1), with WS holding 80% of the futures, speculating oil, food prices up as much as 400%. Health insurance increased 300%. Increases not seen over decades!

In 2001, Speculation was deregulated,

That's an interesting claim, but I didn't see any specifics in your link.

Speculation increased 400%

That's awful, but speculation was allowed, even under FDR.

 

[Publius1787]

I like how you set up and knocked down that straw-man via the word "implication." Do you always go around purposely miss-characterizing arguments by adding words never said and arguing against an argument never made by the person you're replying to?

I mistakenly assigned your post to the previous answer I received who said specifically "it isn't a misconception that minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers" . My mistake, and I apologize, but to your post, this does include families that specifically DO depend on low income workers

60 Million People Depend on the Incomes of Low-Wage Workers in America Increasing the federal minimum wage would benefit on average more than 135 000 people in each Congressional district Economic Policy Institute
More than 60 million people, including more than 15 million children, live in American households that depend on the earnings of a low-wage worker, according to new research by Oxfam America and the Economic Policy Institute released today. These numbers account for about one quarter of all workers, family members, and children in working households in the United States.

Define "depend" as those studies define it and lets talk. Oh, and I have little sympathy for those who have children while in poverty. it made since when families always lived under the same roof and supported each other as farmers and day laborers but it makes absolutely not sense today. If you're squirting out babies you cannot afford then don't pull on my heart strings with the word "families." With that said I realize that they're families that had every right to assume that their standard of living would not drop. but they are too few and far between.

So you think a person working full time should be denied the right to have a family? A lot of the trite statements made by the right are just dumb under examination.

By all means, procreate at your own risk. Just don't expect me to pay for it. Just because you cannot delay instant gratification by keeping your legs shut or your dick in your pants (perhaps you don't enjoy wearing a rubber), does not grant you the entitlement of my labor. You disagree? Your mentality is clear. "OOPSIE, I got pregnant ... the taxpayer owes me money!" I suppose that's the world you wish to live in?

This from someone who only a couple of posts back was whining about name calling? Exactly what makes you think any of the things you depict have anything to do with me personally? I'm sure you are seen as a profound thinker inside your right wing bubble, but not so much when you get amongst sane people. Your greed and selfishness are less than attractive.

Once again, a selfish/greedy act is an act that takes from one against their will in order to unjustifiably benefit another. I advocate none of that whilst you demand it.

Define "Greed."

 

[Clementine]

Hey, I'm new. One of the things that confuses me the most about the Republican Party is its stance on poverty. I want to start out by saying that I am an Indiana Republican and I grew up middle class. We lived by two common rules. Work Hard, Believe in God. These two things were not a bad thing to grow up on. I had early success in school, and I got a college degree, but my OCD became increasingly worse. I am now disabled and I am well versed in poverty.

I admit that I like watching Fox News, but people like O'Reily and Hannity seem completely clueless when discussing the poor. They think that if you have two parents and a good attitude that everyone can be successful. This is both naive and quite untrue. I think the biggest misconception is that minimum wage jobs are just for teenagers. The idea of working yourself up some kind of ladder is nice, but it is not reality for millions of people. I know many adults who would be grateful for any kind of work, not just some dream job. I want to focus on the mentally ill and those who have various forms of low IQ. If you have never been before a judge for a disability hearing, then you don't know that getting help for a mental disability is nearly impossible. For every person who cheats, there is at least another person who can't get help.

I'm going to tie everything up by going to the wage debate. I firmly believe that if you work hard for 40 hours a week, then you deserve a living wage. I'm not talking raising a family on one income, I'm talking food, gas, and health care for one person. I don't believe in "bad jobs" or meaningless jobs. I think the first step is to get everyone back to 40 hours a week. It is ridiculous that people have to work three part time jobs. I also think that wages can go up without the world coming to an end. I'm sick of hearing about the 100$ cheeseburger and half of all jobs as we know it will disappear. Instead of clinging so tightly to current wages, I do not think it is too difficult for fellow Republicans to treat minimum wage earners with respect. Bye the way, It is not just Fox, I have yet to see any Republican candidate or political expert view minimum wage jobs as anything other than high school kids who don't really matter.

I think if you stay the course by finishing high school, staying out of trouble and taking advantage of the programs in place to go to college, you will be a hell of a lot better off than if you quit school and make other stupid choices.

A high school drop out might make $12,000 a year to start, which is below the poverty level. A high school graduate might make over $35,000 and a college grad is looking at around $50,000 to start. So, a functional home with parents or a parent who actually disciplines their children and teaches them good habits is likely to help their children do better than they did. Yes, attitude is everything and young people need to have a good influence early on if they are to create a good future for themselves.

Some people need a nudge. No one said that minimum wage earners shouldn't get respect. Working is working. But people need to understand that they must make themselves more attractive to employers if they want the better paying jobs. Instead of doing nothing and waiting for government to get you a raise, why not do more on your own to get a really good job?

 

[Theowl32]

This damn minimum wage subject is just another issue thought up in the democrat/socialist/Marxist think tank where they find another poignant opportunity to cast themselves as a mythical Robin Hood and the evil republicans as the evil white greedy rich.

These pieces of shit are indeed clever. Then again, they really are not all that clever. What they are is relentless. They are unceasing in their ways to reach the agenda. The socialist Marxist manifesto and dream of the academic elites.

Their fucking useful idiots actually think the democrats care about the poor. Pushed by the media and the schools brainwash the kids.

Everything, and I mean everything g democrats do is to utterly destroy the free market system which is most friendly to the middle class, who are the biggest obstacle for democrats to achieve their dubious goals.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In other words all you have are vulgarities since you cannot refute the fact that you exposed your own selfish greed in your posts.

Here we go again. Obviously there is a disconnect with respect to definitions. "Name calling" is not "exposing." See now, that's how you logically argue. This lesson is free but the next ones gonna cost you.

Coming from someone who lacks the basic comprehension to understand that taxation is not "stealing" that is amusing.

Are all Libertarians this childlike in their feeble grasp of reality or is it only confined to USMB members?

Taxation is a means to secure funds to support serveries that benefit us all. The military, for example, benefits us all. There may be discussion on how the military benefits us at any given time but it is there for us all nonetheless. Voting money away from one group so as to unduly grant a privilege to another is simply the tyranny of the majority. It's not the general welfare that benefits from such a transaction but the specific welfare of one group or another (Clear distinction). That's exactly what the U.S. Constitution was designed to forbid at the federal level. Now this is not to say that the states can't come up with their own scheme. They have the power to and ought to. But when there is little to no return on our money in the form of people clawing their way out of poverty and becoming productive taxpaying citizens then I think I am justified in asserting that I am not greedy for realizing that paying for the poor is increasing poverty. Besides, there is no such thing as "poor" in the United States. Oh you may have a standard to which you judge is "poor," but I don't see starving people in the streets urinating on the sidewalk as I have in so many other countries. The "poor" of the United States is the worlds middle class. We no longer have debates, for example, about feeding the poor. We only have debates about feeding the poor in a healthy manner. So excuse me if I reject your notions of poverty and entitlement. Everyone can't be winners but if you can't make it here then you are a loser who made too many bad decisions and the taxpayer owes you nothing for your chosen lifestyle.

Yet another Libertarian screed of selfishness.

What is the alternative to providing support to those less fortunate than you are?

Abject poverty?

Rampant crime?

Diseases and dead people lying in the streets?

Urchins begging on corners?

The poor selling their children?

That is the alternative to your selfish greed. By eliminating what they receive today you will be turning this country into a 3rd world nation.

All because you have a fallacious sense of entitlement that you don't have to pay taxes to live in this civilized society.

Carry on being a selfish Libertarian because you obviously lack the cognitive skills necessary to make the connection as to what will happen here when you cut off all welfare of the less fortunate. You will just blame the victims of your greed because you cannot make the obvious mental leaps.

The OP started by pointing out that he was raised with a sound work ethic and yet, through no fault of his own, he finds himself in poverty. He didn't make a "poor choice" to be afflicted with OCD. That is what happens to some people.

You lack the basic human empathy to put yourself in the OP's shoes and wonder what it would be like to be him.

That is why you are a greedy and selfish Libertarian who doesn't know how to "play nicely with others". You cannot comprehend that for millions of your fellow Americans they never made the "poor choice" to be born into poverty. But you blame them for their circumstances even though they are probably better human beings than you will ever be.

There you go again. Making a point on empathy is completely separate from making a point on logic. In the end your argument rests on feelings, and that makes it a poor argument. Essentially, you're beef is that I don't "feel" the way you do. And, of course, those that err on the side of logic instead of your feelings should be what? Condemned? Ridiculed?

A selfish and/or greedy act is an act that takes without compensation at the expense of another. I advocate for none of that whilst you demand it. Who's selfish again?

Now with that out of the way might I push you into a realm in which your argument becomes logical? How does "everyone" benefit from making the poor comfortable in their poverty?

Yet another deflection because you cannot address your Libertarian selfishness and greed.

Answer the question.

What is your viable and feasible alternative to eliminating support for the less fortunate?

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are the one who wants to eliminate all "burdensome regulations". Where you lying when you posted that? Or are you just entering for the backpedaling Olympics?

Eliminating burdensome regulations is NOT equal to wanting to pollute the whole world. It is a lie and a tactic used by people to silence discussion on practical job creation.

It is nonsense, liberally packaged and hence, nonsensical rhetoric.

These are YOUR own words;

"eliminated the 2 trillion dollars in burdensome regulations placed on businesses"

Look at what happened when republicans deregulated the Wall Street Casino. They went wild and caused the largest economic collapse since the great depression out of sheer greed and avarice.

Now you want to repeat that abysmal failure of deregulation clear across every single industry and expect there to be a different result?

Look at what happened when republicans deregulated the Wall Street Casino.

When was Wall Street deregulated?
What happened when the supposed regulation was removed?
Be specific.

Bush s polices of Wall Street deregulation and allowing Frannie Freddie to expand with another 440 Billion American Dream act caused the Crash of 2008.

In 2001, Speculation was deregulated, controls set in place by FDR to prevent another Great Depression were removed. Speculation increased 400%(leveraging at 20:1), with WS holding 80% of the futures, speculating oil, food prices up as much as 400%. Health insurance increased 300%. Increases not seen over decades!

In 2001, Speculation was deregulated,

That's an interesting claim, but I didn't see any specifics in your link.

Speculation increased 400%

That's awful, but speculation was allowed, even under FDR.

As expected you never bothered to read the linked article and by failing to do so you disqualified yourself from any further meaningful participation since you have nothing of any value to add. Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hey, I'm new. One of the things that confuses me the most about the Republican Party is its stance on poverty. I want to start out by saying that I am an Indiana Republican and I grew up middle class. We lived by two common rules. Work Hard, Believe in God. These two things were not a bad thing to grow up on. I had early success in school, and I got a college degree, but my OCD became increasingly worse. I am now disabled and I am well versed in poverty.

I admit that I like watching Fox News, but people like O'Reily and Hannity seem completely clueless when discussing the poor. They think that if you have two parents and a good attitude that everyone can be successful. This is both naive and quite untrue. I think the biggest misconception is that minimum wage jobs are just for teenagers. The idea of working yourself up some kind of ladder is nice, but it is not reality for millions of people. I know many adults who would be grateful for any kind of work, not just some dream job. I want to focus on the mentally ill and those who have various forms of low IQ. If you have never been before a judge for a disability hearing, then you don't know that getting help for a mental disability is nearly impossible. For every person who cheats, there is at least another person who can't get help.

I'm going to tie everything up by going to the wage debate. I firmly believe that if you work hard for 40 hours a week, then you deserve a living wage. I'm not talking raising a family on one income, I'm talking food, gas, and health care for one person. I don't believe in "bad jobs" or meaningless jobs. I think the first step is to get everyone back to 40 hours a week. It is ridiculous that people have to work three part time jobs. I also think that wages can go up without the world coming to an end. I'm sick of hearing about the 100$ cheeseburger and half of all jobs as we know it will disappear. Instead of clinging so tightly to current wages, I do not think it is too difficult for fellow Republicans to treat minimum wage earners with respect. Bye the way, It is not just Fox, I have yet to see any Republican candidate or political expert view minimum wage jobs as anything other than high school kids who don't really matter.

I think if you stay the course by finishing high school, staying out of trouble and taking advantage of the programs in place to go to college, you will be a hell of a lot better off than if you quit school and make other stupid choices.

A high school drop out might make $12,000 a year to start, which is below the poverty level. A high school graduate might make over $35,000 and a college grad is looking at around $50,000 to start. So, a functional home with parents or a parent who actually disciplines their children and teaches them good habits is likely to help their children do better than they did. Yes, attitude is everything and young people need to have a good influence early on if they are to create a good future for themselves.

Some people need a nudge. No one said that minimum wage earners shouldn't get respect. Working is working. But people need to understand that they must make themselves more attractive to employers if they want the better paying jobs. Instead of doing nothing and waiting for government to get you a raise, why not do more on your own to get a really good job?

Yet another extremist rightwinger who failed to comprehend the OP.

He already has a college degree.

He is in this situation because of a medical condition.

Sheesh!!!