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

[danielpalos]

I have no agenda. And where did I say anything about hating the Constitution?

Only people who hate the U.S. Constitution attempt to pervert it. People who love the protections and liberty that it provides accept it exactly the way it is.

But in your case, you take the words of the Constitution "written in stone" and you enhance it with Jefferson's explanation as to what "general welfare" means.

Explain "general welfare" using only words written in the Constitution.

50 years from now, no one is going to be arguing over the meaning of "general welfare" because the changes we have seen over the last 50 years in the workforce are going accelerate rapidly resulting in a steady job lost of unskilled, low skilled, as well as many high skill jobs. The need for goverment assistance and job sharing will continue to increase as more and more jobs are eliminated.

Technology and robotics specifically are going to eliminate 6% of US jobs by 2021. By 2050, we lose up to 40% of all jobs, starting with customer service representatives, restaurant workers, retail store clerks, and eventually truck and taxi drivers. Practically all hard goods will either be manufactured abroad or in plants that require only a bare minimum workforce.

Job loses are going to be accompanied by new jobs but those jobs are going to require very high skill levels, college plus specialized training and continual retraining. Most blue collar workers will be working part time and drawing some form of support from the government.

Projections such these may seem to be a doomsday scenario but for many it will be a fulfillment of what people have been dreaming of for centuries, machines that do our work leaving us free for other endeavors. The question of course is how will we adapt?

Robots will eliminate 6% of all US jobs by 2021, report says

I believe in promoting the general welfare, through equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will in our at-will employment States, for unemployment compensation purposes.

 

[OnePercenter]

You can buy things (such as food) from a non-business?

Uh...yeah dude. People have their own gardens and raise their own chickens, cows, etc. They hunt deer.

Also - you have a huge choice of options for foods. Pretending like your fantasy is real for a moment and every single grocery store in America will "fuck you over" (which we all know is not true), they have these things called CSA (Community-Supported Agriculture). You are like an "investor" in the farm. You pay and the farmer provides you with a weekly percentage of the harvest (meats, fruits, vegetables).

You can work for a non-corporation?

Yeah...it's called "self-employment". It's where you sell your own labor for the price you feel is fair.

Do you play the helpless victim in every facet of your life or just when you're on message boards?

Are you going to grow toilet paper?

If you're self-employed you ARE the corporation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The minimum wage was established so employers couldn't screw their employees. Unfortunately for American workers, Republicans have done well in keeping wages low.

Republicans have done that? How?

I would rather have low wage jobs than no jobs at all. Did you ever ask yourself what the main culprits were for jobs leaving the US? If you guessed unions and taxation, you guessed right.

It's not governments job to force industry to pay people who don't want to better themselves. People have to better themselves in the working world. Minimum wage workers are in the 3% range of all US workers, and most of them are kids, retirees looking for something to do, or stay at home moms who can sneak out of the house and make some extra money for the family when the kids are in school.

Those Democrats are not thinking of people when they promote this minimum wage nonsense. They are buying votes and increasing taxation to the government at the same time. As the saying goes, the more you make--the more they take. It's all about them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, Cleveland, I knew that you were radical, but I thought only Hitler forced sterilization on unproductive members of society.

Live, and learn!

I don't suggest anything that non-government dependents do. You get married, get a job, and have a family that your wages support. When you have enough kids, you get yourself fixed so you can't have anymore children because you resources can't support them.

Why is it "Hitleresque" to suggest that people who don't pay for their children do the same? And it's not forced sterilization. If you don't want to get fixed, get a fucken job and support your kids like everybody else does.

This is clear case how Democrats want more poor people for power. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so when you pay poor people to have poor children, how can you expect to eliminate poverty?

You've outed yourself, Clev. Your next step should be to set the equivalent of the Reichstag on fire!

That's it? That's all you got? I expected more, like you addressing one point I made.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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’

Sorry I don't trust the Dailylunch.com, but I don't. Neither do I trust the NY Times which is an arm of the Democrat party.

As for ways to punish the parents instead of the children, I came up with an idea long ago: anybody applying for public assistance has to be fixed before getting one red cent. That's it. No more having children while on welfare.

School lunch? I remember that when I was in school. The kid with the free lunch would sell it at half price to a kid who's parents gave him lunch money. Then he would buy a candy bar or something. The rest of the money both kids saved they used to buy cigarettes or pot. Great program.

I don't know what school lunch costs today because it's subsidized by the taxpayers anyway, but let's say that a lunch costs four dollars. Four dollars is twenty bucks a week. If a parent doesn't have twenty bucks to give to their kid, that kid should be taken away from the parents.

Plus I would be willing to bet anything that many of those kids with free lunch belong to a family that uses food stamps and can easily make a lunch from that stipend. And I would bet that most of those kids getting free lunch have a cell phone with data for pictures, internet and video chat with their friends.

You must have been away from school a long time. In almost all schools today, lunchrooms have a account for each kid in which either the parent or district deposits funds monthly. No cash or lunch vouchers changes hands.

The National School Lunch Program was not a program to feed the poor. Conservatives have characterized it as such but that is entirely false. The sole purpose was to improve student performance in schools and reduce disciple problems.

The program was started in the US in 1946. It is based on sound research as well as empirical evidence that goes back several hundred years. It's value has been confirm over and over. When kids don't receive adequate meals at breakfast and lunch, no matter the reason, they do poorly in school and create discipline problems.

Anyone that has taught kids understands how hard it is to teach hungry kids. They don't pay attention and cause classroom disruptions. Even just a couple of hungry kids can destroy the learning experience for a class.

Today school lunch programs very similar to the US program are operating in over 60 countries.

I see. So now it's the taxpayers liability to feed kids so they can learn in taxpayer schools?

Do you think kids could learn better if we also had taxpayer cars so they could get to school? How about taxpayer cigarettes? After all, how can a kid learn if he or she craves tar and nicotine? Do you think kids can learn better if they were dressed nicely? Shouldn't we have taxpayer clothing as well?

I swear, liberals are doing everything they can to relieve parents from their obligations and burdening taxpayers with those obligations instead. 20 trillion in debt, but what about the kids?????

You're working from the premise that the only one that benefits from the education of the child is the child and thus government should not pay any expenses in that regard. All costs should be born by the child or parents.

I, on the other hand believe the child's education benefits more than just the child. Therefore government should pay a portion of the costs because society as well as the child benefits.

Since we have completely opposite philosophical beliefs, I don't think we will agree on any point in this discussion.

We certainly don't, and let me explain why:

A woman has kids she can't support nor intended to support, so she goes to the taxpayers for that support.

So we pay for her kids food, shelter and medical bills. If she does work, we pay for her kids childcare at childcare centers.

Then the kid goes to taxpayer funded schools. At least where I live, over half of my property tax goes to educate other people's kids in a school that I nor any of my tenants have kids in.

So the kid graduates, and if left to Democrats, we would be paying for this kids college until they graduated which could take anywhere from two to eight years.

Society should pay for the advantages this person could offer.........Until the age of 26 ????

The average US life expectancy is 78 years old. What you are suggesting is that we (the taxpayers) take care of people over one-third of their life. Sorry, but some of us have to take care of ourselves first. I've already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support other people's kids. Asking those people to fund the rest is not asking all that much.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I don't hate you. I don't care for the things you say, but hating you personally, that would be dumb. I don't know you personally. So no, I don't hate you.

Well, I'm a Laker fan. I hate the Celtics more than I hate you.

"The best part about telling the truth is never having to remember what you said."
Author unknown.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Okay, is that because minimum wage is so low or because environmentalists were so smart they thought burning up our food supply would not drastically increase the cost of food?

lol.

Look buddy, before your mind runs too far away just take this with you - inflation happens with or without minimum wage, so just because minimum wage gets raised once in a while doesn't mean it is actually growing in real terms.

We've had REAL $10 minimum wage before and somehow those years still managed to be the good ol' days we keep hearing about from conservatives.

Personally I'm against any minimum wage yet alone a government increased one.

The solution to getting more money should not be government. The solution to getting more money is making yourself worth more money. Secondly of course is being responsible with the money you make regardless how much money that is.

 

[BrokeLoser]

What if a business can't afford to pay $15 minimum wage? This is common, even in states with high costs of living like California.

Name one business that can't afford to pay a $15.00 minimum wage.

Every small business in the country barely making a profit and or breaking even.
Do you think there are any of those?

Business in this country is making profit at record levels.

NEGATIVE.
That's an awfully ambiguous statement...nice try.
Your right, Google, Apple, Microsoft and the like are killing it.
There's about 19,000 companies with 500 or more employees and 28 million "small businesses". Small businesses create 64% of new private sector jobs.
Most small businesses do not become profitable until their third year in business. I know many small business owners who definitely are not getting rich...they employ many people, turn lots of cash but at the end of the day they aren't taking much home.
You people really need to stop categorizing all businesses in with McDonald's and the majors. Small business is the heart and soul of this nation.

-Any business that is properly 'proceedured' and financed makes profit day one.

-If you open a business without the goal of being wealthy, why would you open the business?

-Smart business owners don't take 'much home.' OPM (the company) pays their bills. Why do you think Trump doesn't want to release his taxes?

'You people" need to understand that the heart and soul of this nation are it's workers. Why do you and yours continue to back those (Republicans) that continue to fuck them?

Sadly, you've been misleading yourself....it's what all bitter "workers" who can't / don't excel end up doing.
You see, in the real world, outside of Shark Tank small business start-ups are not properly "financed" nor are most founders looking to become "wealthy" and certainly not in the short term. Most start-ups are privately under funded with someone's life savings and most founders of start-ups are driven by an entrepreneurial spirit and not the wealth potential.
Founders can not "pay their bills" with company money. The last thing a corporate head should want to do is commingle personal funds with corp funds...that's a huge no-no and corp 101 sort of shit.
NEXT!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, Cleveland, I knew that you were radical, but I thought only Hitler forced sterilization on unproductive members of society.

Live, and learn!

I don't suggest anything that non-government dependents do. You get married, get a job, and have a family that your wages support. When you have enough kids, you get yourself fixed so you can't have anymore children because you resources can't support them.

Why is it "Hitleresque" to suggest that people who don't pay for their children do the same? And it's not forced sterilization. If you don't want to get fixed, get a fucken job and support your kids like everybody else does.

This is clear case how Democrats want more poor people for power. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so when you pay poor people to have poor children, how can you expect to eliminate poverty?

You've outed yourself, Clev. Your next step should be to set the equivalent of the Reichstag on fire!

That's it? That's all you got? I expected more, like you addressing one point I made.

Seriously, Ray, sterilizing the poor is so over the top as to render any point you make to to be not worthy of discussion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, Cleveland, I knew that you were radical, but I thought only Hitler forced sterilization on unproductive members of society.

Live, and learn!

I don't suggest anything that non-government dependents do. You get married, get a job, and have a family that your wages support. When you have enough kids, you get yourself fixed so you can't have anymore children because you resources can't support them.

Why is it "Hitleresque" to suggest that people who don't pay for their children do the same? And it's not forced sterilization. If you don't want to get fixed, get a fucken job and support your kids like everybody else does.

This is clear case how Democrats want more poor people for power. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so when you pay poor people to have poor children, how can you expect to eliminate poverty?

You've outed yourself, Clev. Your next step should be to set the equivalent of the Reichstag on fire!

That's it? That's all you got? I expected more, like you addressing one point I made.

Seriously, Ray, sterilizing the poor is so over the top as to render any point you make to to be not worthy of discussion.

Yep, just as I expected from you. But in your leftist world, promoting the expansion of poverty is not over the top.

 

[BrokeLoser]

What if a business can't afford to pay $15 minimum wage? This is common, even in states with high costs of living like California.

Name one business that can't afford to pay a $15.00 minimum wage.

Every small business in the country barely making a profit and or breaking even.
Do you think there are any of those?

Business in this country is making profit at record levels.

NEGATIVE.
That's an awfully ambiguous statement...nice try.
Your right, Google, Apple, Microsoft and the like are killing it.
There's about 19,000 companies with 500 or more employees and 28 million "small businesses". Small businesses create 64% of new private sector jobs.
Most small businesses do not become profitable until their third year in business. I know many small business owners who definitely are not getting rich...they employ many people, turn lots of cash but at the end of the day they aren't taking much home.
You people really need to stop categorizing all businesses in with McDonald's and the majors. Small business is the heart and soul of this nation.

Small businesses should probably stop throwing their political weight in with those large corporations. Like you said, they are a different breed, and have different needs.

Huh? Different needs?
I've never heard the owner of John's Cycle Repair "throw his political weight" in with Google.
What does that even mean?

 

[AntonToo]

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

Okay, is that because minimum wage is so low or because environmentalists were so smart they thought burning up our food supply would not drastically increase the cost of food?

lol.

Look buddy, before your mind runs too far away just take this with you - inflation happens with or without minimum wage, so just because minimum wage gets raised once in a while doesn't mean it is actually growing in real terms.

We've had REAL $10 minimum wage before and somehow those years still managed to be the good ol' days we keep hearing about from conservatives.

Personally I'm against any minimum wage yet alone a government increased one.

The solution to getting more money should not be government. The solution to getting more money is making yourself worth more money. Secondly of course is being responsible with the money you make regardless how much money that is.

I'm against slavery and I'm against slave-grade labor compensation. The two are not equal obviously but they are both immoral. I'm ok with government making slavery illegal, I'm ok with government setting minimal compensation standards.

Even young and even feckless, stupid people deserve a minimal pay for their work. They may not work smarter, but they do work at least as hard as anyone else, maybe even more so considering the usual on-your-feet hussle of the industries where minim wage is most prevalent.

 

[danielpalos]

The minimum wage was established so employers couldn't screw their employees. Unfortunately for American workers, Republicans have done well in keeping wages low.

Republicans have done that? How?

I would rather have low wage jobs than no jobs at all. Did you ever ask yourself what the main culprits were for jobs leaving the US? If you guessed unions and taxation, you guessed right.

It's not governments job to force industry to pay people who don't want to better themselves. People have to better themselves in the working world. Minimum wage workers are in the 3% range of all US workers, and most of them are kids, retirees looking for something to do, or stay at home moms who can sneak out of the house and make some extra money for the family when the kids are in school.

Those Democrats are not thinking of people when they promote this minimum wage nonsense. They are buying votes and increasing taxation to the government at the same time. As the saying goes, the more you make--the more they take. It's all about them.

Congress loves to micromanage our tax codes. Why are wealthy firms leaving, again?

 

[OnePercenter]

The minimum wage was established so employers couldn't screw their employees. Unfortunately for American workers, Republicans have done well in keeping wages low.

Republicans have done that? How?

I would rather have low wage jobs than no jobs at all. Did you ever ask yourself what the main culprits were for jobs leaving the US? If you guessed unions and taxation, you guessed right.

It's not governments job to force industry to pay people who don't want to better themselves. People have to better themselves in the working world. Minimum wage workers are in the 3% range of all US workers, and most of them are kids, retirees looking for something to do, or stay at home moms who can sneak out of the house and make some extra money for the family when the kids are in school.

Those Democrats are not thinking of people when they promote this minimum wage nonsense. They are buying votes and increasing taxation to the government at the same time. As the saying goes, the more you make--the more they take. It's all about them.

Blocking minimum wage increases.

Google

You'd rather have low wage jobs than no jobs at all? Isn't that what Americans have now?

If employers are screwing their employees, it is the governments job to make things right.

 

[Crixus]

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?

Soilent Green...... Nuff said.

 

[OnePercenter]

Name one business that can't afford to pay a $15.00 minimum wage.

Every small business in the country barely making a profit and or breaking even.
Do you think there are any of those?

Business in this country is making profit at record levels.

NEGATIVE.
That's an awfully ambiguous statement...nice try.
Your right, Google, Apple, Microsoft and the like are killing it.
There's about 19,000 companies with 500 or more employees and 28 million "small businesses". Small businesses create 64% of new private sector jobs.
Most small businesses do not become profitable until their third year in business. I know many small business owners who definitely are not getting rich...they employ many people, turn lots of cash but at the end of the day they aren't taking much home.
You people really need to stop categorizing all businesses in with McDonald's and the majors. Small business is the heart and soul of this nation.

-Any business that is properly 'proceedured' and financed makes profit day one.

-If you open a business without the goal of being wealthy, why would you open the business?

-Smart business owners don't take 'much home.' OPM (the company) pays their bills. Why do you think Trump doesn't want to release his taxes?

'You people" need to understand that the heart and soul of this nation are it's workers. Why do you and yours continue to back those (Republicans) that continue to fuck them?

Sadly, you've been misleading yourself....it's what all bitter "workers" who can't / don't excel end up doing.
You see, in the real world, outside of Shark Tank small business start-ups are not properly "financed" nor are most founders looking to become "wealthy" and certainly not in the short term. Most start-ups are privately under funded with someone's life savings and most founders of start-ups are driven by an entrepreneurial spirit and not the wealth potential.
Founders can not "pay their bills" with company money. The last thing a corporate head should want to do is commingle personal funds with corp funds...that's a huge no-no and corp 101 sort of shit.
NEXT!

Yes, 80% of new start-ups will fail because they are not properly 'procedured' or financed.

Yes, you can pay your bills using company funds as long as you do it correctly. Business owners are paid in many ways. A distribution on net profits, payroll distribution, as well as enjoying investments made by the company. A company owned property where you live, vacation home, company car, corporate trust, etc.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The minimum wage was established so employers couldn't screw their employees. Unfortunately for American workers, Republicans have done well in keeping wages low.

Republicans have done that? How?

I would rather have low wage jobs than no jobs at all. Did you ever ask yourself what the main culprits were for jobs leaving the US? If you guessed unions and taxation, you guessed right.

It's not governments job to force industry to pay people who don't want to better themselves. People have to better themselves in the working world. Minimum wage workers are in the 3% range of all US workers, and most of them are kids, retirees looking for something to do, or stay at home moms who can sneak out of the house and make some extra money for the family when the kids are in school.

Those Democrats are not thinking of people when they promote this minimum wage nonsense. They are buying votes and increasing taxation to the government at the same time. As the saying goes, the more you make--the more they take. It's all about them.

Blocking minimum wage increases.

Google

You'd rather have low wage jobs than no jobs at all? Isn't that what Americans have now?

If employers are screwing their employees, it is the governments job to make things right.

But employers are not screwing their workers. Screwing their workers is when they put in a week of work and not get paid.

If you were selling a used car for $15,000, and I agree to buy your car for $15,000, did you screw me??? Of course not. You set a price for your car and I gladly paid the price you asked for it.

So if a person willingly accepts a job for $10.00 an hour, how is the employer screwing that person who accepted that job?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The minimum wage was established so employers couldn't screw their employees. Unfortunately for American workers, Republicans have done well in keeping wages low.

Republicans have done that? How?

I would rather have low wage jobs than no jobs at all. Did you ever ask yourself what the main culprits were for jobs leaving the US? If you guessed unions and taxation, you guessed right.

It's not governments job to force industry to pay people who don't want to better themselves. People have to better themselves in the working world. Minimum wage workers are in the 3% range of all US workers, and most of them are kids, retirees looking for something to do, or stay at home moms who can sneak out of the house and make some extra money for the family when the kids are in school.

Those Democrats are not thinking of people when they promote this minimum wage nonsense. They are buying votes and increasing taxation to the government at the same time. As the saying goes, the more you make--the more they take. It's all about them.

Congress loves to micromanage our tax codes. Why are wealthy firms leaving, again?

If you ever get a chance, pick up a copy of the US Constitution sometime. There you will see that one of Congresses main jobs is to set taxation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Okay, is that because minimum wage is so low or because environmentalists were so smart they thought burning up our food supply would not drastically increase the cost of food?

lol.

Look buddy, before your mind runs too far away just take this with you - inflation happens with or without minimum wage, so just because minimum wage gets raised once in a while doesn't mean it is actually growing in real terms.

We've had REAL $10 minimum wage before and somehow those years still managed to be the good ol' days we keep hearing about from conservatives.

Personally I'm against any minimum wage yet alone a government increased one.

The solution to getting more money should not be government. The solution to getting more money is making yourself worth more money. Secondly of course is being responsible with the money you make regardless how much money that is.

I'm against slavery and I'm against slave-grade labor compensation. The two are not equal obviously but they are both immoral. I'm ok with government making slavery illegal, I'm ok with government setting minimal compensation standards.

Even young and even feckless, stupid people deserve a minimal pay for their work. They may not work smarter, but they do work at least as hard as anyone else, maybe even more so considering the usual on-your-feet hussle of the industries where minim wage is most prevalent.

If you're against slavery and "slave grade labor compensation" then don't accept any of those jobs. Even with our minimum wage as it is, many companies can't find people to work for that money--at least American ones.

Nobody gets paid by how hard they work. People get paid by the value of their work to the company.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no unemployment in the US, only underpayment.