DC's Minimum Wage Really Does Cost Jobs At Walmart

[NYcarbineer]

You don't believe in that. You want a free market in labor where labor costs can be reduced to the lowest the market can provide,

anywhere in the world, the US be damned.

Who the **** are you asshole to tell me what I believe and don't believe. That's the problem with you ******* dumbasses. You think you know more than you do and don't mind showing your idiocy on a regular basis.

You want a market where when you believe someone deserves more than their skills are worth, the government should make a decision on how money that isn't theirs should be spent. You can deny that but you'd be a liar.

Free markets are a core conservative principle. If you disagree, go argue with conservatives, and in the process acknowledge that you agree with me.

I don't agree with incorrect assholes. I don't have a problem with cheap labor as long as they are legally here and being paid what their skills are worth. Like I said, if you have $8/hr skills and get paid $8/hr, no problem. Same goes for $5/hr skills or any wage. If the pay matches the skills, what's wrong with paying that amount. If people don't want low wages don't offer low skills.

You think people should be paid above their skill level. Agree or be considered a lying asshole as if people don't already consider you that.

So manufacturing in China at a buck an hour proves that assembly line work is only worth a buck an hour?

That a business owner that does the paying deciding that something is worth whatever an hour makes it worth whatever an hour. Someone accepting a position knowing what the pay is is what makes it worth that amount.

English please.

 

[Campbell]

Its time to limit a ceo's and the boards ability to collect golden shoots to maybe 5% of the companies yearly profit. Its time to demand that the workers/producers are paid for their work.


I am so ******* sick of you loserterians and your dreams of having oral sex with the super rich ******* over the workers.

Thank you for your input, Comrade!

Keep on keeping on.......you will be taken down. It's not fair nor feasible for the most powerful country in the world to accommodate it's rich people while starving it's less fortunate. This bullshit started with Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy and when George W. Bush cut them two more times it put average Americans into the jaws of death.

One of every four workers in this country is earning less than the determined poverty level. If you think that's anything close to fair you've got your right wing head up your ignorant ass.

So in your world, poor people not having jobs, because you wiped out the corporations that employ people like Walmart, will some how reverse your myths?

My concept seemed to work well in the 90's for Bill Clinton.....'course you wouldn't want to acknowledge that because the first thing he did when he took office was raised taxes. Republicans stand for cutting taxes, a bigger military and god knows what else.....that's it, GOD!!

The most ignorant or uncaring person I've known in my 81 years on this planet was Ronald Reagan. He slashed tax rates to pre depression levels for the richest people in the country and never cut his spending a goddam dime. He quadrupled the national debt. In other words he funneled trillions of borrowed dollars(from foreign banks) into the pockets of the richest people in the country in the form of tax cuts.

2nd Most ignorant or uncaring....George W. Bush:

..............................................Total U S Debt................................................

Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt

US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82

09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32

09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00


Amazing what ending a couple of hot Republican wars will do for spending:

Debt is caused by spending. Not cutting taxes. The amount of money collected by the government under Reagan, and Bush, nearly doubled in both cases. So clearly the cutting of taxes, isn't what caused debt.

What did cause debt was over spending. Unlike the military which is a primary duty of the Federal government, welfare, food stamps, medicare and medicaid are not.

Moreover, blaming the military spending when cutting the military to zero, would still have had us in deficit, is illogical... but that's what you people on the left always are. Illogical.

Lastly, if you look at the budget, all during the Reagan years, he proposed lower budgets, and the Congress, which was democrat, over spent Reagans budget.

Equally during the Clinton years, the Republicans in Congress under cut the Clinton budget. If you look the budgets that Clinton proposed, he never once even attempted to cut the deficit. If not for the Republicans during the 90s, the budget would never have come close to being balanced. It was the Republicans that pushed welfare reform. Not Clinton. It was the Republicans that cut subsidies and grants. Not Clinton.

Similarly, Bush Jr for all his failures, after raising spending for the neccessary and good work of dealing with Saddam and Bin Laden, cut the deficit every single year until 2007 where the budget deficit was only $161 Billion. If not for the left-wing sub-prime mortgage disaster (because everyone should own a home, even if they can't afford it), it would have been almost balanced by the time he left office. And since he left office, it's been in the Trillions.

So while you can blather and rave around, the facts really are not on your side at all.

You're so full of shit that you stink. Reagan borrowed enough money to quadruple the national debt from less than one trillion to more than four. Bill Clinton raised taxes, balanced the budget and left a surplus. Then along came George, cut tax rates twice, 2001 and 2003 and doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion. None of them has ever cut their spending a goddam dime!

..............................................Total U S Debt................................................

Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt

US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82

09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32

09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[Conservative65]

Who the **** are you asshole to tell me what I believe and don't believe. That's the problem with you ******* dumbasses. You think you know more than you do and don't mind showing your idiocy on a regular basis.

You want a market where when you believe someone deserves more than their skills are worth, the government should make a decision on how money that isn't theirs should be spent. You can deny that but you'd be a liar.

Free markets are a core conservative principle. If you disagree, go argue with conservatives, and in the process acknowledge that you agree with me.

I don't agree with incorrect assholes. I don't have a problem with cheap labor as long as they are legally here and being paid what their skills are worth. Like I said, if you have $8/hr skills and get paid $8/hr, no problem. Same goes for $5/hr skills or any wage. If the pay matches the skills, what's wrong with paying that amount. If people don't want low wages don't offer low skills.

You think people should be paid above their skill level. Agree or be considered a lying asshole as if people don't already consider you that.

WHO do I believe should be paid above their skill level...be precise.

Do you support the federal minimum wage?

I hate the concept of Minimum Wage.
I favor Education and Employment Opportunity.
I hate Legislation that sweeps Americans out of their careers because CEOs bribed a Representative.

I favor education and employment opportunity. EVERYONE in this country has the opportunity to go through the 12th grade. Many quit. Many finish and don't want to go any further.

Where you and I likely disagree is what you call a lack of opportunity in employment I call the result of choices made earlier in life. If the person quits high school and years later can't get a job making but minimum wage, whose fault is that, his/hers or the employer paying them what they're worth? Too many people confuse lack of marketable skills with lack of opportunity. If you lack skills, you'll lack opportunity. That doesn't mean it's the place of someone else to offset the negative results.

 

[Andylusion]

Who the **** are you asshole to tell me what I believe and don't believe. That's the problem with you ******* dumbasses. You think you know more than you do and don't mind showing your idiocy on a regular basis.

You want a market where when you believe someone deserves more than their skills are worth, the government should make a decision on how money that isn't theirs should be spent. You can deny that but you'd be a liar.

The Government should protect our nation from invaders, economic or otherwise.

The only ones calling what I support as an invasion are your kind and Liberals. It's hard sometimes to tell the difference since you both believe the same thing.

Yes or No...Anyone who hires an Illegal should be fined 35 hours * 7 Days * 52 Weeks * (Minimum Wage - $5.00 hour)

Yes or No...All Americans with advanced degrees are stupid and lazy and need to be replaced by Indian Business Visas

Yes or No...The only Americans who are intelligent are Business Owners and thus all Industries should be off-shored to our Totalitarian Ally China

Not yes/no questions. I thought you didn't like the black or white scenarios. Liar.

I question someone based upon their ability to think and express themselves.
These questions pertain DIRECTLY to Ricardo's definition of Free Trade.

How is fining people who hire illegals going to do anything, when illegals generally have fabricated identities?

How is fining people who hire illegals going to work, when many work in the black market already, and are not reported?

I know a place right now, that will fix your car, for a hundred dollars, and you must pay in cash. No one there is reporting anything.

Quite frankly, I have run into dozens of Americans with advanced degrees, that were in fact stupid and lazy. I can take you to them. The ones that are not... are not replaced with Indians. The ones that are, are.

The Americans that offshore... do so because the other option is to close the company. Yes or No.... laying off a few people to off shore, is better than laying off everyone?

 

[Andylusion]

Thank you for your input, Comrade!

Keep on keeping on.......you will be taken down. It's not fair nor feasible for the most powerful country in the world to accommodate it's rich people while starving it's less fortunate. This bullshit started with Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy and when George W. Bush cut them two more times it put average Americans into the jaws of death.

One of every four workers in this country is earning less than the determined poverty level. If you think that's anything close to fair you've got your right wing head up your ignorant ass.

So in your world, poor people not having jobs, because you wiped out the corporations that employ people like Walmart, will some how reverse your myths?

My concept seemed to work well in the 90's for Bill Clinton.....'course you wouldn't want to acknowledge that because the first thing he did when he took office was raised taxes. Republicans stand for cutting taxes, a bigger military and god knows what else.....that's it, GOD!!

The most ignorant or uncaring person I've known in my 81 years on this planet was Ronald Reagan. He slashed tax rates to pre depression levels for the richest people in the country and never cut his spending a goddam dime. He quadrupled the national debt. In other words he funneled trillions of borrowed dollars(from foreign banks) into the pockets of the richest people in the country in the form of tax cuts.

2nd Most ignorant or uncaring....George W. Bush:

..............................................Total U S Debt................................................

Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt

US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82

09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32

09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00


Amazing what ending a couple of hot Republican wars will do for spending:

Debt is caused by spending. Not cutting taxes. The amount of money collected by the government under Reagan, and Bush, nearly doubled in both cases. So clearly the cutting of taxes, isn't what caused debt.

What did cause debt was over spending. Unlike the military which is a primary duty of the Federal government, welfare, food stamps, medicare and medicaid are not.

Moreover, blaming the military spending when cutting the military to zero, would still have had us in deficit, is illogical... but that's what you people on the left always are. Illogical.

Lastly, if you look at the budget, all during the Reagan years, he proposed lower budgets, and the Congress, which was democrat, over spent Reagans budget.

Equally during the Clinton years, the Republicans in Congress under cut the Clinton budget. If you look the budgets that Clinton proposed, he never once even attempted to cut the deficit. If not for the Republicans during the 90s, the budget would never have come close to being balanced. It was the Republicans that pushed welfare reform. Not Clinton. It was the Republicans that cut subsidies and grants. Not Clinton.

Similarly, Bush Jr for all his failures, after raising spending for the neccessary and good work of dealing with Saddam and Bin Laden, cut the deficit every single year until 2007 where the budget deficit was only $161 Billion. If not for the left-wing sub-prime mortgage disaster (because everyone should own a home, even if they can't afford it), it would have been almost balanced by the time he left office. And since he left office, it's been in the Trillions.

So while you can blather and rave around, the facts really are not on your side at all.

You're so full of shit that you stink. Reagan borrowed enough money to quadruple the national debt from less than one trillion to more than four. Bill Clinton raised taxes, balanced the budget and left a surplus. Then along came George, cut tax rates twice, 2001 and 2003 and doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion. None of them has ever cut their spending a goddam dime!

..............................................Total U S Debt................................................

Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt

US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82

09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32

09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

I've already pointed out the error in this mindless repeat of ignorance. Thanks, but you clearly have nothing more to add to the conversation.

 

[Conservative65]

Who the **** are you asshole to tell me what I believe and don't believe. That's the problem with you ******* dumbasses. You think you know more than you do and don't mind showing your idiocy on a regular basis.

You want a market where when you believe someone deserves more than their skills are worth, the government should make a decision on how money that isn't theirs should be spent. You can deny that but you'd be a liar.

Free markets are a core conservative principle. If you disagree, go argue with conservatives, and in the process acknowledge that you agree with me.

I don't agree with incorrect assholes. I don't have a problem with cheap labor as long as they are legally here and being paid what their skills are worth. Like I said, if you have $8/hr skills and get paid $8/hr, no problem. Same goes for $5/hr skills or any wage. If the pay matches the skills, what's wrong with paying that amount. If people don't want low wages don't offer low skills.

You think people should be paid above their skill level. Agree or be considered a lying asshole as if people don't already consider you that.

So manufacturing in China at a buck an hour proves that assembly line work is only worth a buck an hour?

That a business owner that does the paying deciding that something is worth whatever an hour makes it worth whatever an hour. Someone accepting a position knowing what the pay is is what makes it worth that amount.

English please.

None of your ******* business what an employer is paying a worker. What the one doing the paying says a job is worth is what it's worth not what you say.

If the person accepts a position knowing the pay, they have no leg to stand on complaining after the fact. **** them.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't agree with incorrect assholes. I don't have a problem with cheap labor as long as they are legally here and being paid what their skills are worth. Like I said, if you have $8/hr skills and get paid $8/hr, no problem. Same goes for $5/hr skills or any wage. If the pay matches the skills, what's wrong with paying that amount. If people don't want low wages don't offer low skills.

You think people should be paid above their skill level. Agree or be considered a lying asshole as if people don't already consider you that.

WHO do I believe should be paid above their skill level...be precise.

Do you support the federal minimum wage?

I hate the concept of Minimum Wage.
I favor Education and Employment Opportunity.
I hate Legislation that sweeps Americans out of their careers because CEOs bribed a Representative.

Name one American "swept out of their career" because a CEO bribed someone.

Are you ******* kidding?
Over 3 million Programmers, Engineers, College professors, Doctors.
Yes, Doctors being brought in by MBAs running hospitals and Clinics.
Where the hell do you live? In a cave?

If you think there was a bribe, take it to the next step. That's illegal. Calling it a bribe because you don't like the way it was done doesn't make it one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Free markets are a core conservative principle. If you disagree, go argue with conservatives, and in the process acknowledge that you agree with me.

I don't agree with incorrect assholes. I don't have a problem with cheap labor as long as they are legally here and being paid what their skills are worth. Like I said, if you have $8/hr skills and get paid $8/hr, no problem. Same goes for $5/hr skills or any wage. If the pay matches the skills, what's wrong with paying that amount. If people don't want low wages don't offer low skills.

You think people should be paid above their skill level. Agree or be considered a lying asshole as if people don't already consider you that.

So manufacturing in China at a buck an hour proves that assembly line work is only worth a buck an hour?

That a business owner that does the paying deciding that something is worth whatever an hour makes it worth whatever an hour. Someone accepting a position knowing what the pay is is what makes it worth that amount.

English please.

None of your ******* business what an employer is paying a worker. What the one doing the paying says a job is worth is what it's worth not what you say.

If the person accepts a position knowing the pay, they have no leg to stand on complaining after the fact. **** them.

So if a 12 year old can make a few hundred bucks a pop selling sex to some guy,

it's none of my business?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Thank you for your input, Comrade!

Keep on keeping on.......you will be taken down. It's not fair nor feasible for the most powerful country in the world to accommodate it's rich people while starving it's less fortunate. This bullshit started with Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy and when George W. Bush cut them two more times it put average Americans into the jaws of death.

One of every four workers in this country is earning less than the determined poverty level. If you think that's anything close to fair you've got your right wing head up your ignorant ass.

So in your world, poor people not having jobs, because you wiped out the corporations that employ people like Walmart, will some how reverse your myths?

My concept seemed to work well in the 90's for Bill Clinton.....'course you wouldn't want to acknowledge that because the first thing he did when he took office was raised taxes. Republicans stand for cutting taxes, a bigger military and god knows what else.....that's it, GOD!!

The most ignorant or uncaring person I've known in my 81 years on this planet was Ronald Reagan. He slashed tax rates to pre depression levels for the richest people in the country and never cut his spending a goddam dime. He quadrupled the national debt. In other words he funneled trillions of borrowed dollars(from foreign banks) into the pockets of the richest people in the country in the form of tax cuts.

2nd Most ignorant or uncaring....George W. Bush:

..............................................Total U S Debt................................................

Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt

US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82

09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32

09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00


Amazing what ending a couple of hot Republican wars will do for spending:

Debt is caused by spending. Not cutting taxes. The amount of money collected by the government under Reagan, and Bush, nearly doubled in both cases. So clearly the cutting of taxes, isn't what caused debt.

What did cause debt was over spending. Unlike the military which is a primary duty of the Federal government, welfare, food stamps, medicare and medicaid are not.

Moreover, blaming the military spending when cutting the military to zero, would still have had us in deficit, is illogical... but that's what you people on the left always are. Illogical.

Lastly, if you look at the budget, all during the Reagan years, he proposed lower budgets, and the Congress, which was democrat, over spent Reagans budget.

Equally during the Clinton years, the Republicans in Congress under cut the Clinton budget. If you look the budgets that Clinton proposed, he never once even attempted to cut the deficit. If not for the Republicans during the 90s, the budget would never have come close to being balanced. It was the Republicans that pushed welfare reform. Not Clinton. It was the Republicans that cut subsidies and grants. Not Clinton.

Similarly, Bush Jr for all his failures, after raising spending for the neccessary and good work of dealing with Saddam and Bin Laden, cut the deficit every single year until 2007 where the budget deficit was only $161 Billion. If not for the left-wing sub-prime mortgage disaster (because everyone should own a home, even if they can't afford it), it would have been almost balanced by the time he left office. And since he left office, it's been in the Trillions.

So while you can blather and rave around, the facts really are not on your side at all.

You're so full of shit that you stink. Reagan borrowed enough money to quadruple the national debt from less than one trillion to more than four. Bill Clinton raised taxes, balanced the budget and left a surplus. Then along came George, cut tax rates twice, 2001 and 2003 and doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion. None of them has ever cut their spending a goddam dime!

..............................................Total U S Debt................................................

Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt

US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82

09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32

09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

But the loserterians want to cut the shit out of infrastructure, science, r&d and education that never caused the debt. And at the same time hand out massive tax cuts to the top 5% o the population and nation build in the middle east.

America doesn't really matter to these assholes.

 

[Andylusion]

Who the **** are you asshole to tell me what I believe and don't believe. That's the problem with you ******* dumbasses. You think you know more than you do and don't mind showing your idiocy on a regular basis.

You want a market where when you believe someone deserves more than their skills are worth, the government should make a decision on how money that isn't theirs should be spent. You can deny that but you'd be a liar.

Free markets are a core conservative principle. If you disagree, go argue with conservatives, and in the process acknowledge that you agree with me.

I don't agree with incorrect assholes. I don't have a problem with cheap labor as long as they are legally here and being paid what their skills are worth. Like I said, if you have $8/hr skills and get paid $8/hr, no problem. Same goes for $5/hr skills or any wage. If the pay matches the skills, what's wrong with paying that amount. If people don't want low wages don't offer low skills.

You think people should be paid above their skill level. Agree or be considered a lying asshole as if people don't already consider you that.

So manufacturing in China at a buck an hour proves that assembly line work is only worth a buck an hour?

That a business owner that does the paying deciding that something is worth whatever an hour makes it worth whatever an hour. Someone accepting a position knowing what the pay is is what makes it worth that amount.

English please.

Nonya.

Nonya bizness. That's what he's saying.

If I open a store, and someone comes in looking for a job, the only two people on the face of this planet, that has any business in how much me and that person agree to exchange labor for wage... is ME... and HIM. Not you. You don't have even the right to question it.

What's ironic, is that if we can and started bickering with your employer about how much your paid... you'd freak out. But somehow the people on the left always think they should be able to shove their noses up everyone else's butt, and get in their business.

Nonya! Zip it.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't agree with incorrect assholes. I don't have a problem with cheap labor as long as they are legally here and being paid what their skills are worth. Like I said, if you have $8/hr skills and get paid $8/hr, no problem. Same goes for $5/hr skills or any wage. If the pay matches the skills, what's wrong with paying that amount. If people don't want low wages don't offer low skills.

You think people should be paid above their skill level. Agree or be considered a lying asshole as if people don't already consider you that.

So manufacturing in China at a buck an hour proves that assembly line work is only worth a buck an hour?

That a business owner that does the paying deciding that something is worth whatever an hour makes it worth whatever an hour. Someone accepting a position knowing what the pay is is what makes it worth that amount.

English please.

None of your ******* business what an employer is paying a worker. What the one doing the paying says a job is worth is what it's worth not what you say.

If the person accepts a position knowing the pay, they have no leg to stand on complaining after the fact. **** them.

So if a 12 year old can make a few hundred bucks a pop selling sex to some guy,

it's none of my business?

Really.... you think that's an argument?

"so if I agree to pay someone to shoot people on the street... then that's a brilliant left-wing argument......"

Come on man... grow up.

 

[Indeependent]

The Government should protect our nation from invaders, economic or otherwise.

The only ones calling what I support as an invasion are your kind and Liberals. It's hard sometimes to tell the difference since you both believe the same thing.

Yes or No...Anyone who hires an Illegal should be fined 35 hours * 7 Days * 52 Weeks * (Minimum Wage - $5.00 hour)

Yes or No...All Americans with advanced degrees are stupid and lazy and need to be replaced by Indian Business Visas

Yes or No...The only Americans who are intelligent are Business Owners and thus all Industries should be off-shored to our Totalitarian Ally China

Not yes/no questions. I thought you didn't like the black or white scenarios. Liar.

I question someone based upon their ability to think and express themselves.
These questions pertain DIRECTLY to Ricardo's definition of Free Trade.

How is fining people who hire illegals going to do anything, when illegals generally have fabricated identities?

How is fining people who hire illegals going to work, when many work in the black market already, and are not reported?

I know a place right now, that will fix your car, for a hundred dollars, and you must pay in cash. No one there is reporting anything.

Quite frankly, I have run into dozens of Americans with advanced degrees, that were in fact stupid and lazy. I can take you to them. The ones that are not... are not replaced with Indians. The ones that are, are.

The Americans that offshore... do so because the other option is to close the company. Yes or No.... laying off a few people to off shore, is better than laying off everyone?

I agree with you that SOME people with Advanced degrees, not 3 million.
Bloomberg replaced 700 engineers...700 engineers who worked for Bloomberg for over 20 years.
Bloomberg is obviously not running a very tight ship if it takes his Highness 20 years to realize he has 700 bozos working for him.

Sorry...no dice.
Too many people in too few years with too much Legislation making it easier every year.

 

[Andylusion]

Keep on keeping on.......you will be taken down. It's not fair nor feasible for the most powerful country in the world to accommodate it's rich people while starving it's less fortunate. This bullshit started with Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy and when George W. Bush cut them two more times it put average Americans into the jaws of death.

One of every four workers in this country is earning less than the determined poverty level. If you think that's anything close to fair you've got your right wing head up your ignorant ass.

So in your world, poor people not having jobs, because you wiped out the corporations that employ people like Walmart, will some how reverse your myths?

My concept seemed to work well in the 90's for Bill Clinton.....'course you wouldn't want to acknowledge that because the first thing he did when he took office was raised taxes. Republicans stand for cutting taxes, a bigger military and god knows what else.....that's it, GOD!!

The most ignorant or uncaring person I've known in my 81 years on this planet was Ronald Reagan. He slashed tax rates to pre depression levels for the richest people in the country and never cut his spending a goddam dime. He quadrupled the national debt. In other words he funneled trillions of borrowed dollars(from foreign banks) into the pockets of the richest people in the country in the form of tax cuts.

2nd Most ignorant or uncaring....George W. Bush:

..............................................Total U S Debt................................................

Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt

US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82

09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32

09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00


Amazing what ending a couple of hot Republican wars will do for spending:

Debt is caused by spending. Not cutting taxes. The amount of money collected by the government under Reagan, and Bush, nearly doubled in both cases. So clearly the cutting of taxes, isn't what caused debt.

What did cause debt was over spending. Unlike the military which is a primary duty of the Federal government, welfare, food stamps, medicare and medicaid are not.

Moreover, blaming the military spending when cutting the military to zero, would still have had us in deficit, is illogical... but that's what you people on the left always are. Illogical.

Lastly, if you look at the budget, all during the Reagan years, he proposed lower budgets, and the Congress, which was democrat, over spent Reagans budget.

Equally during the Clinton years, the Republicans in Congress under cut the Clinton budget. If you look the budgets that Clinton proposed, he never once even attempted to cut the deficit. If not for the Republicans during the 90s, the budget would never have come close to being balanced. It was the Republicans that pushed welfare reform. Not Clinton. It was the Republicans that cut subsidies and grants. Not Clinton.

Similarly, Bush Jr for all his failures, after raising spending for the neccessary and good work of dealing with Saddam and Bin Laden, cut the deficit every single year until 2007 where the budget deficit was only $161 Billion. If not for the left-wing sub-prime mortgage disaster (because everyone should own a home, even if they can't afford it), it would have been almost balanced by the time he left office. And since he left office, it's been in the Trillions.

So while you can blather and rave around, the facts really are not on your side at all.

You're so full of shit that you stink. Reagan borrowed enough money to quadruple the national debt from less than one trillion to more than four. Bill Clinton raised taxes, balanced the budget and left a surplus. Then along came George, cut tax rates twice, 2001 and 2003 and doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion. None of them has ever cut their spending a goddam dime!

..............................................Total U S Debt................................................

Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt

US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82

09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32

09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

But the loserterians want to cut the shit out of infrastructure, science, r&d and education that never caused the debt. And at the same time hand out massive tax cuts to the top 5% o the population and nation build in the middle east.

America doesn't really matter to these assholes.

See you just made my point.... you left wingers you lie constantly that you care about the debt, and deficits... but the moment we try and do anything "Can't cut that! Can't cut infrastructure! (as if that worked...) Can't cut R&D! Can't cut education!"

You morons would doom the entire country into a soviet hell, and then lie that it's our fault we're broke? Idiots. You can't open your mouth without proving the other side correct about your position.

 

[Indeependent]

The Government should protect our nation from invaders, economic or otherwise.

The only ones calling what I support as an invasion are your kind and Liberals. It's hard sometimes to tell the difference since you both believe the same thing.

Yes or No...Anyone who hires an Illegal should be fined 35 hours * 7 Days * 52 Weeks * (Minimum Wage - $5.00 hour)

Yes or No...All Americans with advanced degrees are stupid and lazy and need to be replaced by Indian Business Visas

Yes or No...The only Americans who are intelligent are Business Owners and thus all Industries should be off-shored to our Totalitarian Ally China

Not yes/no questions. I thought you didn't like the black or white scenarios. Liar.

I question someone based upon their ability to think and express themselves.
These questions pertain DIRECTLY to Ricardo's definition of Free Trade.

How is fining people who hire illegals going to do anything, when illegals generally have fabricated identities?

How is fining people who hire illegals going to work, when many work in the black market already, and are not reported?

I know a place right now, that will fix your car, for a hundred dollars, and you must pay in cash. No one there is reporting anything.

Quite frankly, I have run into dozens of Americans with advanced degrees, that were in fact stupid and lazy. I can take you to them. The ones that are not... are not replaced with Indians. The ones that are, are.

The Americans that offshore... do so because the other option is to close the company. Yes or No.... laying off a few people to off shore, is better than laying off everyone?

Why arrest murderers and drug lords?
Why, more will take their place.
What are you smoking?

 

[whitehall]

Everybody in freaking Washington D.C. is on the federal teat. They would be unemployable in a simple job like Walmart.

 

[Indeependent]

Everybody in freaking Washington D.C. is on the federal teat. They would be unemployable in a simple job like Walmart.

Is ANYONE advocating for the residents?
Is perpetual poverty an answer for an American city?

 

[Papageorgio]

Within 20 miles in any direction, I can get to more than a dozen Walmart stores whether it be a Market, Sam's or a Superstore.

You have my sympathies.

I personally prefer Costco...
Aluminum pans of superior quality 30 lasagna panes for $5.95.
Professional Size Aluminum foil for $11.00 lasts for months.
Top quality Paper plates, cups...great prices and last for months.

Yeah, big box stores, there is the ticket, screw the small businesses in the area.

You mean the fact that I will ONLY...
fill up my tank by the neighborhood gas station
get my hair cut at the local barber
buy my groceries at the SAME market
go to the same Cleaners, and
am loyal to my local small stores that DON'T provide the 8 items I get at Costco?

No, I'm not a pig Conservative like you who doesn't give a sh!t that America's being destroyed piece by piece as long as MY Portfolio swells.
And yes, I have read enough of your postings to know where you're coming from.

All I know is you know nothing about me. What is my portfolio? Do you know what I do or do not invest in? Please tell me what I believe in or what I care and don't care about.

I don't know if you are a pig conservative or a pig liberal, I think you are an idiot asshole that knows nothing and you prove it every post.

I read your postings.

Surprised you can read and you still know nothing about me. What do I invest in? What do I believe? What do I care about? Care to answer or you just going to answer with the empty responses.

 

[Andylusion]

The only ones calling what I support as an invasion are your kind and Liberals. It's hard sometimes to tell the difference since you both believe the same thing.

Yes or No...Anyone who hires an Illegal should be fined 35 hours * 7 Days * 52 Weeks * (Minimum Wage - $5.00 hour)

Yes or No...All Americans with advanced degrees are stupid and lazy and need to be replaced by Indian Business Visas

Yes or No...The only Americans who are intelligent are Business Owners and thus all Industries should be off-shored to our Totalitarian Ally China

Not yes/no questions. I thought you didn't like the black or white scenarios. Liar.

I question someone based upon their ability to think and express themselves.
These questions pertain DIRECTLY to Ricardo's definition of Free Trade.

How is fining people who hire illegals going to do anything, when illegals generally have fabricated identities?

How is fining people who hire illegals going to work, when many work in the black market already, and are not reported?

I know a place right now, that will fix your car, for a hundred dollars, and you must pay in cash. No one there is reporting anything.

Quite frankly, I have run into dozens of Americans with advanced degrees, that were in fact stupid and lazy. I can take you to them. The ones that are not... are not replaced with Indians. The ones that are, are.

The Americans that offshore... do so because the other option is to close the company. Yes or No.... laying off a few people to off shore, is better than laying off everyone?

I agree with you that SOME people with Advanced degrees, not 3 million.
Bloomberg replaced 700 engineers...700 engineers who worked for Bloomberg for over 20 years.
Bloomberg is obviously not running a very tight ship if it takes his Highness 20 years to realize he has 700 bozos working for him.

Sorry...no dice.
Too many people in too few years with too much Legislation making it easier every year.

Bloomberg replaced 700 engineers over 20 years..... 0.o... Bloomberg has over 4,000 engineers. 700 divided by 20 years, is 35.

Dude... that's normal turnover. 35 out of 4,000 engineers? How many retired, and were replaced? I worked at a company of only 20 people, and one of the software engineers retired in the 3 years I was working there. And a second might be retiring soon as well.

How many quit, because they found a better job somewhere else?

How many were fired with cause?

And then tell me how many were laid off.

You get me those numbers, and maybe we'll talk.

By the way... EVEN THEN....... My company had three interns. All of them were working on software drivers for Windows 8. After the roll out of Windows 10 (ugh)... The company decided that we did not need a Windows 8 driver at all. (for various reasons). We no longer needed Windows programmers. We needed Java and script programmers. Two of the three left. The third moved over to the other position.

Do you know of perhaps Bloomberg got rid of some engineers, because they were coders for things that were no longer needed? Maybe they were replaced by programmers in the language they had need of.

Do you know any of these things? Or did you just mindlessly "They replaced 700 engineers over 20 years, and that's awful!"?

 

[Indeependent]

700 in one shot.
I know a few of them; they were replaced by Indians.
No discussion; just cheap a$$ labor.
And yes, Windows 10 is just ANOTHER example of how the Best & The Brightest who are replacing us AREN'T the Best & the Brightest.
I should have known I was having a discussion with someone who makes money from H1-Bs.

Java is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO tough to learn.
Why not fire EVERY programmer every 6 months.
Give me a break, I programmed in at least 5 languages over a 16 year period and the concepts were all the same.
Then Gates came along.

 

[Andylusion]

Everybody in freaking Washington D.C. is on the federal teat. They would be unemployable in a simple job like Walmart.

Is ANYONE advocating for the residents?
Is perpetual poverty an answer for an American city?

Yeah we are. We're the ones advocating for the residents.

There is only one way for a person to get out of poverty. Work their way out.

You make them unemployable, because you raise the minimum wage above the value of their skills.... so they are left completely unemployable.

Now they are doomed to poverty until they die. That's where your system leads.

I have a friend in Kentucky. She worked at Walmart for 5 years. She banked a ton of Walmart stock and 401K... but more importantly it was the best paying job around. She was able to use Walmart's tuition reimbursement to go to classes at night. She now has a degree in civil engineering.

If you people have screwed her over, ruined that Walmart job, there was no other place that offered tuition reimbursement... she would still be earning minimum wage with no degree to this day. And no 401K and Walmart stock either.

*YOU* are the people that screw over the poor. Not us.

I have another friend... he worked at Advance Auto Parts. Started out minimum wage, stocking shelves. He entered the Advance corporate training program. He worked there for years. Now he's a store manager, making $70K a year (when you include the profit bonus at year end).

If you had screwed him over, eliminated those jobs, he wouldn't be there making good money.

YOU are the ones that screw over the poor. Not us. We are the ones that advocate for the poor, by allowing opportunity. You eliminate opportunity. Not us.