Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[Moonglow]

I've destroyed you on that before. Have you forgotten so quickly?

Seattle's unemployment doesn't support your hypothesis.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

You cannot ignore practical reality. Only in a fantasy world can you quickly jack the MW that high with no or few negative effects. If you want a guaranteed income, be honest and create a welfare program. Companies should not become welfare distribution centers.

I have no issues with doing it incrementally over five years
But you will notice that 50% tax cut for employers was not done incrementally

That's because a tax cut doesn't increase a company's expenses dramatically. There's no massive downside to doing it.

The only downside I see is taking on $1.5 trillion in debt to fund that tax cut
That qualifies as massive

Thats funny though because that's 1.5 trillion over 10 years...and that's unacceptable according to the radical libs. O doing QE to 6 trillion to wall street was all good in the hood.

QE was hugely successful in restoring the economy without inflation or devaluation of the dollar

not enough deflation for my wallet...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I've destroyed you on that before. Have you forgotten so quickly?

Seattle's unemployment doesn't support your hypothesis.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

You cannot ignore practical reality. Only in a fantasy world can you quickly jack the MW that high with no or few negative effects. If you want a guaranteed income, be honest and create a welfare program. Companies should not become welfare distribution centers.

I have no issues with doing it incrementally over five years
But you will notice that 50% tax cut for employers was not done incrementally

That's because a tax cut doesn't increase a company's expenses dramatically. There's no massive downside to doing it.

The only downside I see is taking on $1.5 trillion in debt to fund that tax cut
That qualifies as massive

Thats funny though because that's 1.5 trillion over 10 years...and that's unacceptable according to the radical libs. O doing QE to 6 trillion to wall street was all good in the hood.

QE was hugely successful in restoring the economy without inflation or devaluation of the dollar

It devalued the dollar. Inflation rates should have risen so that money could have been recovered and taken out of the economy. Of course it was successful to wall street. They grew by 8000 points because of QE. Your business would grow too if someone was handing you 40 billion a month.

 

[rightwinger]

Seattle's unemployment doesn't support your hypothesis.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

I have no issues with doing it incrementally over five years
But you will notice that 50% tax cut for employers was not done incrementally

That's because a tax cut doesn't increase a company's expenses dramatically. There's no massive downside to doing it.

The only downside I see is taking on $1.5 trillion in debt to fund that tax cut
That qualifies as massive

Thats funny though because that's 1.5 trillion over 10 years...and that's unacceptable according to the radical libs. O doing QE to 6 trillion to wall street was all good in the hood.

QE was hugely successful in restoring the economy without inflation or devaluation of the dollar

It devalued the dollar. Inflation rates should have risen so that money could have been recovered and taken out of the economy. Of course it was successful to wall street. They grew by 8000 points because of QE. Your business would grow too if someone was handing you 40 billion a month.

The value of the dollar increased compared to other currencies
QE inserted much needed investment into our economy

It worked

 

[danielpalos]

No it wouldn't and neither would a MW increase.

A person working MW lives with their parents or perhaps with another in an apartment. They are barely getting by. But then we increase the MW to $15.00 an hour, and everything is just great.........for now.

But you can't logically force a wage increase on just one group of people. It creates a domino effect.

So while they enjoy the ride while it lasts, eventually everybody has to make more money which means the cost of living soars. Then the people with the new MW of $15.00 an hour find themselves right back where they started which is barely getting by. So they cry to the Democrats that $15.00 is no longer a living wage, and they need to increase the minimum requirements to get back on food stamps, and nothing was solved.

It would be even faster than that. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. The MW advocates like to pretend the only people effected would be those currently earning MW. That is false. Everyone currently making less than $15/hr would get a mandated increase. That's already a lot of workers. But it doesn't stop there. If I'm a somewhat skilled worker that put in the time and effort to make $20/hr, I'm not going to be very happy that a yokel walking in off the street with no skills or training is going to be making almost as much as me. Most of the work force is going to either be effected or demand to be. I've often said that the only way aMW works is if it's kept life enough to not really make much difference. They can raise it, but the higher and faster that they do, the more disruption or will have, and companies will not carry net loss jobs for long.

Don't believe in Capitalism?

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

Don't believe in math?

Paying more for jobs than they are worth to the company costs money. Kill profits, baby, kill.

It is not what the worker is worth....but what an employer can force them to accept
Low skilled workers do not have much bargaining power and are easily exploited

Then the worker can find somebody else to work for. If nobody is going to pay he or she over minimum wage, then are they all exploiting workers?

With a "work or die" ethic from the right wing instead of equal protection of the law?

Who benefits from making fools and horses, work.

 

[danielpalos]

Don't believe in Capitalism?

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

Don't believe in math?

Paying more for jobs than they are worth to the company costs money. Kill profits, baby, kill.

Don't believe in Capitalism like Henry Ford? How socialist of the right wing.

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

I've destroyed you on that before. Have you forgotten so quickly?

Seattle's unemployment doesn't support your hypothesis.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

Profit or die. Work or die. What is the difference.

 

[danielpalos]

Once they're enslaved to the dems through trinkets and other handouts, they're indebted with their vote.

What are Republicans offering them?

Its not the responsibility of the govt to offer trinkets.

It is a responsibility of Government to provide for the General Welfare of We the People

It doesn't say "fund" the general welfare.

It says to pay the debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do conservatives make shit up and lie all the time ?

Why do you deny what you are and what you believe in?

I don't believe your lying I just believe you were brainwashed to the point of total idiocy. On this front, Democrats want to text the rich more like their fair share and invest in training and cheap education For technical jobs that are going going begging under this stupid GOP policy, dumbass. We also want to cut taxes in a real way on the middle class and the working class so we can generate some demand for product. The last thing we need is more tax cuts on the bloated rich and giant corporations. Idiot.

Correct. We certainly don't want to give tax cuts to those who have been paying all of the taxes for the rest of us. The people that don't pay taxes should get a cut. The question is, how do you cut something that nobody was giving in the first place?

That is only true if you only count federal income taxes, super dupe. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 18 and 29% and the richest have been ending up with all the New Wealth for 35 years now, and you are an idiot yes.

Once again, income taxes are the money used to pay for stuff like welfare. Your Social Security doesn't go to pay for welfare, your Medicare taxes don't go to pay for welfare, your FICA taxes don't go to pay for welfare, and neither do your state or city taxes.

Income taxes are what supports just about everything in our country, and almost half of our country doesn't pay those taxes.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage! so more people can pay more taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

You're ignoring the fact that over 60% of the American work force makes $20/hr or less, and most, if not all, of them are going to demand raises. I know I would if I was making $17/hr and all of a sudden I'm making only 2 bucks more than minimum. That's a huge impact.

Those making less than $20 an hour are the ones needing government assistance. They have been ignored in the economic recovery as much as those making minimum wage

You cannot ignore practical reality. Only in a fantasy world can you quickly jack the MW that high with no or few negative effects. If you want a guaranteed income, be honest and create a welfare program. Companies should not become welfare distribution centers.

Choose your poison
Have employers support their employees or have the taxpayer do it

You ignored the best option, which is to sustain an economy that enables everyone to support themselves.

Since when has it become society's responsibility to support everyone? Down that road lies ultimate collapse when the goose is killed.

Very good option until you realize employers get to decide how much profit trickles down to those who create it

For example, we have sustained an economy for the last eight years in which corporations have tripled their value yet maintained the same pay scales
Those same corporations just received a 50 percent tax cut. How much will make it down to the employees?

So we have sustained that economy and those employees are still making a fucking $7.25 an hour

How much has management pay risen, over the same time period.

 

[danielpalos]

Seattle's unemployment doesn't support your hypothesis.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

I have no issues with doing it incrementally over five years
But you will notice that 50% tax cut for employers was not done incrementally

That's because a tax cut doesn't increase a company's expenses dramatically. There's no massive downside to doing it.

The only downside I see is taking on $1.5 trillion in debt to fund that tax cut
That qualifies as massive

Thats funny though because that's 1.5 trillion over 10 years...and that's unacceptable according to the radical libs. O doing QE to 6 trillion to wall street was all good in the hood.

QE was hugely successful in restoring the economy without inflation or devaluation of the dollar

It devalued the dollar. Inflation rates should have risen so that money could have been recovered and taken out of the economy. Of course it was successful to wall street. They grew by 8000 points because of QE. Your business would grow too if someone was handing you 40 billion a month.

In other words, the Fed can handle inflation, not stagnation.

 

[danielpalos]

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.

That's because a tax cut doesn't increase a company's expenses dramatically. There's no massive downside to doing it.

The only downside I see is taking on $1.5 trillion in debt to fund that tax cut
That qualifies as massive

Thats funny though because that's 1.5 trillion over 10 years...and that's unacceptable according to the radical libs. O doing QE to 6 trillion to wall street was all good in the hood.

QE was hugely successful in restoring the economy without inflation or devaluation of the dollar

It devalued the dollar. Inflation rates should have risen so that money could have been recovered and taken out of the economy. Of course it was successful to wall street. They grew by 8000 points because of QE. Your business would grow too if someone was handing you 40 billion a month.

The value of the dollar increased compared to other currencies
QE inserted much needed investment into our economy

It worked

yes, and it is still, income redistribution that the right wing likes to complain so much about, when it may benefit the poor.

 

[rightwinger]

Those making less than $20 an hour are the ones needing government assistance. They have been ignored in the economic recovery as much as those making minimum wage

You cannot ignore practical reality. Only in a fantasy world can you quickly jack the MW that high with no or few negative effects. If you want a guaranteed income, be honest and create a welfare program. Companies should not become welfare distribution centers.

Choose your poison
Have employers support their employees or have the taxpayer do it

You ignored the best option, which is to sustain an economy that enables everyone to support themselves.

Since when has it become society's responsibility to support everyone? Down that road lies ultimate collapse when the goose is killed.

Very good option until you realize employers get to decide how much profit trickles down to those who create it

For example, we have sustained an economy for the last eight years in which corporations have tripled their value yet maintained the same pay scales
Those same corporations just received a 50 percent tax cut. How much will make it down to the employees?

So we have sustained that economy and those employees are still making a fucking $7.25 an hour

How much has management pay risen, over the same time period.

significantly more than the workers

Meanwhile, executive pay has skyrocketed off of profits made from an underpaid workforce

 

[hadit]

Don't believe in math?

Paying more for jobs than they are worth to the company costs money. Kill profits, baby, kill.

Don't believe in Capitalism like Henry Ford? How socialist of the right wing.

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

I've destroyed you on that before. Have you forgotten so quickly?

Seattle's unemployment doesn't support your hypothesis.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Also different in different areas.

 

[danielpalos]

You cannot ignore practical reality. Only in a fantasy world can you quickly jack the MW that high with no or few negative effects. If you want a guaranteed income, be honest and create a welfare program. Companies should not become welfare distribution centers.

Choose your poison
Have employers support their employees or have the taxpayer do it

You ignored the best option, which is to sustain an economy that enables everyone to support themselves.

Since when has it become society's responsibility to support everyone? Down that road lies ultimate collapse when the goose is killed.

Very good option until you realize employers get to decide how much profit trickles down to those who create it

For example, we have sustained an economy for the last eight years in which corporations have tripled their value yet maintained the same pay scales
Those same corporations just received a 50 percent tax cut. How much will make it down to the employees?

So we have sustained that economy and those employees are still making a fucking $7.25 an hour

How much has management pay risen, over the same time period.

significantly more than the workers

Meanwhile, executive pay has skyrocketed off of profits made from an underpaid workforce

Only the disingenuous right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

Don't believe in Capitalism like Henry Ford? How socialist of the right wing.

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

I've destroyed you on that before. Have you forgotten so quickly?

Seattle's unemployment doesn't support your hypothesis.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Also different in different areas.

Why not work with averages?

 

[hadit]

Don't believe in math?

Paying more for jobs than they are worth to the company costs money. Kill profits, baby, kill.

Don't believe in Capitalism like Henry Ford? How socialist of the right wing.

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

I've destroyed you on that before. Have you forgotten so quickly?

Seattle's unemployment doesn't support your hypothesis.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

Profit or die. Work or die. What is the difference.

More blargling.

 

[danielpalos]

Don't believe in Capitalism like Henry Ford? How socialist of the right wing.

Higher paid labor spends more; profits, baby, profits.

I've destroyed you on that before. Have you forgotten so quickly?

Seattle's unemployment doesn't support your hypothesis.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

Profit or die. Work or die. What is the difference.

More blargling.

Just the clueless and Causeless right wing, trying to inspire confidence in their sincerity, with nothing but fallacy.

 

[hadit]

I've destroyed you on that before. Have you forgotten so quickly?

Seattle's unemployment doesn't support your hypothesis.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Also different in different areas.

Why not work with averages?

Because averages don't meet real life needs. Let's say that we decide to set a national MW at a level sufficient for one person to live comfortably. In rural Alabama, we discover that amount is $10/hr while in downtown Manhattan it is $50/hr. We take the average and set it at $30/hr. What happens? In Alabama, jobs are lost and people laid off. In Manhattan, people still can't live on MW. That's why.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lets face it.......those who go with the DUMS frequently are the miserable amongst us. People who have made fucked up personal decisions leading them to a shitty lot in life. So they have to blame somebody for their misery. Never did get that? I couldn't give a crap what rich people make. Most work their balls off.........I harbor no ill will. Trying to make the rest of the world miserable because you are is ghey.

 

[danielpalos]

Seattle's unemployment doesn't support your hypothesis.

You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Also different in different areas.

Why not work with averages?

Because averages don't meet real life needs. Let's say that we decide to set a national MW at a level sufficient for one person to live comfortably. In rural Alabama, we discover that amount is $10/hr while in downtown Manhattan it is $50/hr. We take the average and set it at $30/hr. What happens? In Alabama, jobs are lost and people laid off. In Manhattan, people still can't live on MW. That's why.

States should be able to handle the rest.

 

[danielpalos]

Lets face it.......those who go with the DUMS frequently are the miserable amongst us. People who have made fucked up personal decisions leading them to a shitty lot in life. So they have to blame somebody for their misery. Never did get that? I couldn't give a crap what rich people make. Most work their balls off.........I harbor no ill will. Trying to make the rest of the world miserable because you are is ghey.

typical, right wing hate on the poor.