How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

[P@triot]

So, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, 'splain what implied powers are and why they haven't neutered your enumerated powers misinformed fantasy.

My pleasure! So "implied powers" are fake "powers" created by the fascist left-wing faction of America who were furious that the U.S. Constitution limited their ability to have power and control over others.

See - the U.S. Constitution is a legally binding document, signed into law by the founders and ratified by the representative of the people in the states. Do you understand what "legally binding" means? By your desperate definition of the U.S. Constitution, a player who signs a $10 million contract in the NFL has the "implied powers" to demand $20 million from the team and 50% ownership of the team - even though that was never in the contract.

Of course, in the real world, any player who attempted to make such and idiotic and absurd case would be laughed out of the courtroom and laughed out of society. And yet with the most important legally binding document in the world, you want to pretend that it's completely acceptable to play fast and loose with it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When minimum wage is increased (within sane limits) poor and middle class take home more pay while rich spend more.

If that were even remotely true, there wouldn't be a constant call to raise minimum wage. Think how many times it has been raised in your lifetime - over 8 to 12 times depending on your age.

This is just basic economics - not to mention common sense. When you raise minimum wage, business raises their prices to cover the new costs of labor. Those increased costs for products and services mean that the minimum wage worker is no further ahead (and will actually fall further behind at some point as they enter a higher tax bracket). All minimum wage increases do is cause artificial inflation and devalue the dollar for everyone.

No dumbas, there absolutely would be a call to raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation minimum wage does not cause.

Top REAL minimum wage was ~$10 in the 1960s and the raises never kept up with inflation for the past 50 years.

WTF is "top minimum wage?" As a child of the 60's, I entered the workforce in the 70's and minimum wage was somewhere in the $3.00 an hour range. $10.00 an hour? I would have been in my glory.

Read up on what REAL means, it's not that complicated.
Real vs. Nominal, High School Economics Topics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Minimum was the highest in REAL terms in the 1960s, with equivalent of around $10-11 in today's dollars. Meaning that $1.50 in 1960 bought around $10 in 2016 worth of goods.

Yes, that makes sense when it's explained properly; something you failed to do. However I strongly disagree with it. I remember what you could afford making minimum wage back then.

 

[AntonToo]

When minimum wage is increased (within sane limits) poor and middle class take home more pay while rich spend more.

If that were even remotely true, there wouldn't be a constant call to raise minimum wage. Think how many times it has been raised in your lifetime - over 8 to 12 times depending on your age.

This is just basic economics - not to mention common sense. When you raise minimum wage, business raises their prices to cover the new costs of labor. Those increased costs for products and services mean that the minimum wage worker is no further ahead (and will actually fall further behind at some point as they enter a higher tax bracket). All minimum wage increases do is cause artificial inflation and devalue the dollar for everyone.

No dumbas, there absolutely would be a call to raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation minimum wage does not cause.

Top REAL minimum wage was ~$10 in the 1960s and the raises never kept up with inflation for the past 50 years.

WTF is "top minimum wage?" As a child of the 60's, I entered the workforce in the 70's and minimum wage was somewhere in the $3.00 an hour range. $10.00 an hour? I would have been in my glory.

Read up on what REAL means, it's not that complicated.
Real vs. Nominal, High School Economics Topics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Minimum was the highest in REAL terms in the 1960s, with equivalent of around $10-11 in today's dollars. Meaning that $1.50 in 1960 bought around $10 in 2016 worth of goods.

Yes, that makes sense when it's explained properly; something you failed to do. However I strongly disagree with it. I remember what you could afford making minimum wage back then.

Dude are you serious?

You don't know what REAL is, can't bother to look it up and then blame me for not assuming your ignorance of basic economics? Rediculous.

Dollar's buying power today is a small fraction of what it bought in 1960s. What do you disagree with?

 

[easyt65]

'How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?'


Ever see the movie, 'The running Man'?

 

[easyt65]

How about 'The Purge'?

 

[danielpalos]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

Extermination is the only logical option I see.

right wing fantasy, like usual?

But who would pay for the extermination facilities?

Costly infrastructure is costly.

yeah, the right wing can't go for it, if it requires higher taxes.

Some of the cost could be ofset by melting down any jewelry or gold fillings that are taken from the poor prior to their extermination.

And thanks to trump, we don't need to worry about pollution caused by the cremation facilities, as there is no such thing as pollution.

I am pretty sure, it will require, real times of war Tax rates, to get the, "capital ball", rolling.

 

[danielpalos]

Kill, kill, kill, kill the poor.....

Just right wing fantasy?

 

[danielpalos]

Extermination is the only logical option I see.

right wing fantasy, like usual?

But who would pay for the extermination facilities?

Costly infrastructure is costly.

yeah, the right wing can't go for it, if it requires higher taxes.

Some of the cost could be ofset by melting down any jewelry or gold fillings that are taken from the poor prior to their extermination.

And thanks to trump, we don't need to worry about pollution caused by the cremation facilities, as there is no such thing as pollution.

Ground up pulverized bones and cremated ashes can be used as fertilizer. Flesh and muscle can be used as pet food. Skins can be used as a material for making lamp shades and various ornaments.

Wartime tax rates may not be enough. It may require, "doomsday" tax rates.

 

[danielpalos]

Do Trumpettes really expect Fruit of the Loom underwear to return to South Carolina with their robotic automated textile works and hire all those women to sit around and watch them manufacture underwear?

Should we ask management if the women can work in the nude in the summer time, to save on cooling costs?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If that were even remotely true, there wouldn't be a constant call to raise minimum wage. Think how many times it has been raised in your lifetime - over 8 to 12 times depending on your age.

This is just basic economics - not to mention common sense. When you raise minimum wage, business raises their prices to cover the new costs of labor. Those increased costs for products and services mean that the minimum wage worker is no further ahead (and will actually fall further behind at some point as they enter a higher tax bracket). All minimum wage increases do is cause artificial inflation and devalue the dollar for everyone.

No dumbas, there absolutely would be a call to raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation minimum wage does not cause.

Top REAL minimum wage was ~$10 in the 1960s and the raises never kept up with inflation for the past 50 years.

WTF is "top minimum wage?" As a child of the 60's, I entered the workforce in the 70's and minimum wage was somewhere in the $3.00 an hour range. $10.00 an hour? I would have been in my glory.

Read up on what REAL means, it's not that complicated.
Real vs. Nominal, High School Economics Topics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Minimum was the highest in REAL terms in the 1960s, with equivalent of around $10-11 in today's dollars. Meaning that $1.50 in 1960 bought around $10 in 2016 worth of goods.

Yes, that makes sense when it's explained properly; something you failed to do. However I strongly disagree with it. I remember what you could afford making minimum wage back then.

Dude are you serious?

You don't know what REAL is, can't bother to look it up and then blame me for not assuming your ignorance of basic economics? Rediculous.

Dollar's buying power today is a small fraction of what it bought in 1960s. What do you disagree with?

I disagree with the buying power. I was in the workforce in 76 when (according to your chart) was about nine bucks an hour today. I think you can buy more things today on nine bucks an hour than minimum wage back then.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Camp]

right wing fantasy, like usual?

But who would pay for the extermination facilities?

Costly infrastructure is costly.

yeah, the right wing can't go for it, if it requires higher taxes.

Some of the cost could be ofset by melting down any jewelry or gold fillings that are taken from the poor prior to their extermination.

And thanks to trump, we don't need to worry about pollution caused by the cremation facilities, as there is no such thing as pollution.

Ground up pulverized bones and cremated ashes can be used as fertilizer. Flesh and muscle can be used as pet food. Skins can be used as a material for making lamp shades and various ornaments.

Wartime tax rates may not be enough. It may require, "doomsday" tax rates.

Taxes are not the solution. Trump leans towards fascist tenets and the old fascist had a great way of boosting the economy. Gather the undesirables, including the poor. Place them in slave labor camps, steal everything they own and use them until it is unprofitable to keep them alive. At that point recycle their corpses. Of course, focusing on the poor will have limited results. It is necessary to pick a faction of citizens that possess wealth to make a real profit. Successful African Americans, Latino's, and even Liberals can fill that roll. Free money.

 

[ricechickie]

No dumbas, there absolutely would be a call to raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation minimum wage does not cause.

Top REAL minimum wage was ~$10 in the 1960s and the raises never kept up with inflation for the past 50 years.

WTF is "top minimum wage?" As a child of the 60's, I entered the workforce in the 70's and minimum wage was somewhere in the $3.00 an hour range. $10.00 an hour? I would have been in my glory.

Read up on what REAL means, it's not that complicated.
Real vs. Nominal, High School Economics Topics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Minimum was the highest in REAL terms in the 1960s, with equivalent of around $10-11 in today's dollars. Meaning that $1.50 in 1960 bought around $10 in 2016 worth of goods.

Yes, that makes sense when it's explained properly; something you failed to do. However I strongly disagree with it. I remember what you could afford making minimum wage back then.

Dude are you serious?

You don't know what REAL is, can't bother to look it up and then blame me for not assuming your ignorance of basic economics? Rediculous.

Dollar's buying power today is a small fraction of what it bought in 1960s. What do you disagree with?

I disagree with the buying power. I was in the workforce in 76 when (according to your chart) was about nine bucks an hour today. I think you can buy more things today on nine bucks an hour than minimum wage back then.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You thought no so, but antontoo has the chart, the data, the source.

 

[danielpalos]

But who would pay for the extermination facilities?

Costly infrastructure is costly.

yeah, the right wing can't go for it, if it requires higher taxes.

Some of the cost could be ofset by melting down any jewelry or gold fillings that are taken from the poor prior to their extermination.

And thanks to trump, we don't need to worry about pollution caused by the cremation facilities, as there is no such thing as pollution.

Ground up pulverized bones and cremated ashes can be used as fertilizer. Flesh and muscle can be used as pet food. Skins can be used as a material for making lamp shades and various ornaments.

Wartime tax rates may not be enough. It may require, "doomsday" tax rates.

Taxes are not the solution. Trump leans towards fascist tenets and the old fascist had a great way of boosting the economy. Gather the undesirables, including the poor. Place them in slave labor camps, steal everything they own and use them until it is unprofitable to keep them alive. At that point recycle their corpses. Of course, focusing on the poor will have limited results. It is necessary to pick a faction of citizens that possess wealth to make a real profit. Successful African Americans, Latino's, and even Liberals can fill that roll. Free money.

Just right wing fantasy.

This is what it takes, to accomplish anything, in a Historical manner:

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I love people on welfare, people on welfare are awesome "in their own way"....We need to make it easier on people to qualify for welfare. We need to give more to people on welfare. I hope to see more people on welfare. People on welfare actually help our economics. I am committed to doing all I can for people on welfare so long as I can use other people's checking accounts to do so. People on welfare are positive contributors "in their own way"...they make awesome parents and they never ever engage in criminal activity. They tend to have clean well kept homes and their neighborhoods never have trash scattered throughout. They take great care of their multiple animals and rarely will you find domestic abuse within a "welfare home".
WELFARE IS AWESOME AND SO ARE WELFARE RECIPIENTS!

(do you whacktards ever stop to think about what you sound like to NORMAL legitimate people?)

 

[danielpalos]

I love people on welfare, people on welfare are awesome "in their own way"....We need to make it easier on people to qualify for welfare. We need to give more to people on welfare. I hope to see more people on welfare. People on welfare actually help our economics. I am committed to doing all I can for people on welfare so long as I can use other people's checking accounts to do so. People on welfare are positive contributors "in their own way"...they make awesome parents and they never ever engage in criminal activity. They tend to have clean well kept homes and their neighborhoods never have trash scattered throughout. They take great care of their multiple animals and rarely will you find domestic abuse within a "welfare home".
WELFARE IS AWESOME AND SO ARE WELFARE RECIPIENTS!

(do you whacktards ever stop to think about what you sound like to NORMAL legitimate people?)

I think we need to muster enough faith, to be legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of morals, to have something to "show for it" to any god.

We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy, merely by mustering enough faith in the execution of our own laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis, as that form of, "capital gains" preference for the poor.

 

[AntonToo]

No dumbas, there absolutely would be a call to raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation minimum wage does not cause.

Top REAL minimum wage was ~$10 in the 1960s and the raises never kept up with inflation for the past 50 years.

WTF is "top minimum wage?" As a child of the 60's, I entered the workforce in the 70's and minimum wage was somewhere in the $3.00 an hour range. $10.00 an hour? I would have been in my glory.

Read up on what REAL means, it's not that complicated.
Real vs. Nominal, High School Economics Topics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Minimum was the highest in REAL terms in the 1960s, with equivalent of around $10-11 in today's dollars. Meaning that $1.50 in 1960 bought around $10 in 2016 worth of goods.

Yes, that makes sense when it's explained properly; something you failed to do. However I strongly disagree with it. I remember what you could afford making minimum wage back then.

Dude are you serious?

You don't know what REAL is, can't bother to look it up and then blame me for not assuming your ignorance of basic economics? Rediculous.

Dollar's buying power today is a small fraction of what it bought in 1960s. What do you disagree with?

I disagree with the buying power. I was in the workforce in 76 when (according to your chart) was about nine bucks an hour today. I think you can buy more things today on nine bucks an hour than minimum wage back then.

There are people who's job it is to estimate inflation, broken down by type of consumption (low end in this case). I will take their expert estimates over your guesstimation...so should you.

Here are some food price comparisons:

Supermarket Food Prices In 1976 As Compared To 2016

 

[Flopper]

The fact is most people, particular young people think that there will be better times ahead. Somehow they will go back school, marry some rich dude, get this incredible job, and live happily ever after. However, with each year there hopes slip away.

Suzy, the waitress marries John who works in the car wash. Suzy's mom gives them money to live on. Then Suzy has a kid. John's decide he prefers drinking with the guys to dirty diapers. Suzy's solution is to have another kid which sends John off to seek his fortune and Suzy is left with a new born and a toddler and no way to support herself. This story is happening every day in very town in the country over and over.

So who is at fault with your scenario?

Maybe if Suzy didn't have the federal government to depend on taking care of her kids while her husband went out and drank, she would have never chanced having a kid in the first place unless she knew her relationship and future were secure.

What difference does it make? Unless we are planning on extracting some form of punishment or retribution, fault is irreverent.

Assuming these people are teens or in their early twenties, they are not considering goverment support when they have sex. In fact, it's probably the last thing on their mind.

It's the last thing on their mind as is being irresponsible and careless because there is always a lending hand in our government unfortunately.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised if you end up with more irresponsible people. Now let me ask: do you think we have more irresponsible people today or more in 1960?

Even kids have to make life changing decisions. You can get your kid a drivers license at the age of 16 in most states, but that doesn't stop them from getting drunk one night and killing a family in an auto accident. Their age doesn't excuse their actions. They have to pay one way or another for making that mistake.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Getting drunk and killing someone in a car accident is a criminal offense. Having a child is not. In fact, 37% of all children born in the US are unexpected or an accident.

A surprising number of people consider the birth of child, even to poor people to be a good thing.

When we're talking about tax payer dollars to support children in poverty, what their parents did or did not do is irrelevant unless you consider punishing the children is the proper course of action.

So the parents get immunity because of their children???

It's not apples and oranges in the sense of responsibility. You kill people because you got drunk and drove a vehicle, you pay. You get pregnant and have a child you can't support--taxpayers pay? Where is the equity in that?

There is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy. An accidental pregnancy implies that you got pregnant through no fault of your own. Kind of like you were just walking down the street minding your own business and tripped over something.

Unfortunately, yes parents do get immunity; that is they get food and shelter because they have children to raise. Conservatives have never been able to come up with a way of punishing the parents for being poor without punishing the children.

Conservative's war against the poor has reached a new low. In red states like Alabama, where many students are on reduced price lunches, school officials put tags on children that say, "I need lunch money", so kids will be shamed by their classmates in hopes that will cause parents to come up with lunch money.

New Mexico recently passed a law forbidden schools from punishing children with negative lunchroom balances. Some school serve kids without money the "sandwich of same" which is a slice of cheese between two slices of white bread. Other schools force children without lunch money to clean the lunchrooms in front of their classmates to work off the debt. Probably the worst incident was a 3rd grader who was forced to wear a sign that his parents were deadbeats resulting in a beating by classmates and his removal from the school.
New Mexico Outlaws School ‘Lunch Shaming’

 

[ricechickie]

I love people on welfare, people on welfare are awesome "in their own way"....We need to make it easier on people to qualify for welfare. We need to give more to people on welfare. I hope to see more people on welfare. People on welfare actually help our economics. I am committed to doing all I can for people on welfare so long as I can use other people's checking accounts to do so. People on welfare are positive contributors "in their own way"...they make awesome parents and they never ever engage in criminal activity. They tend to have clean well kept homes and their neighborhoods never have trash scattered throughout. They take great care of their multiple animals and rarely will you find domestic abuse within a "welfare home".
WELFARE IS AWESOME AND SO ARE WELFARE RECIPIENTS!

(do you whacktards ever stop to think about what you sound like to NORMAL legitimate people?)

You sound like someone who has fallen prey to the either-or fallacy.

By the way, find an actual person who has written any of those things on this mesage board. I dare you.

Otherwise, admit that you're the only whackjob who said any of that on here.

 

[P@triot]

Folks...take a step back for a moment. Take a deep breath. And now consider the position of the left - which is essentially this:

If a person has a "need" they have every right to take by force (though government) that which does not belong to them. This is completely and totally "rational" in the mind of a left-wing lunatic. If you can't afford healthcare, you have a right to steal it from someone else. If you can't afford housing, you have a right to steal it from someone else.

Now let's just apply their "logic" equally here. Let's just say that I'm not terribly successful with the ladies. Let's say I've gone a year without having sex. By left-wing "logic", since they are entitled to take 20% of my healthcare, I'm equally entitled to take 20% of their wife. I mean....what about my "needs"? I should be able to take 20% of their wife by force. So 73 days per year I can have a left-wingers wife ANY way I want to have her.

And what if you can't have children? Some couples can't. Well, again, by left-wing "logic" I am entitled to their children 73 days per year. They must stay in my home, entertain me, etc. And there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. I'm entitled to it by their own logic. Just like I can't stop them from stealing my income for housing, food, healthcare, etc., they can't stop me from stealing their wife and children 20% of the time. The U.S. Constitution says so!

 

[P@triot]

Conservatives have never been able to come up with a way of punishing the parents for being poor without punishing the children.

First of all - conservatives have no desire to punish anyone for being poor. People are as welcome to be as poor as they'd like to be in America.

As far as what to do for the "children" (the favorite faux tragedy of the disingenuous left-wing) - well I solved that years ago. You simply place the parents in prison for "child endangerment" if they don't properly provide food, shelter, and healthcare for their children. Then you place those parents in prison on a chain-gang and you work them 12 hours per days on various forms of public infrastructure. The tax-payer dollars saved on that public infrastructure goes to the basic needs of their children (i.e. the healthcare, food, etc. that the parent wasn't providing).

So simple...only a Dumbocrat could find it an "unsolvable" problem.