Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[Skull Pilot]

I am proud of you

Now, if you can only provide another 30 million jobs or so we can get rid of that welfare

There will always be people who are considered "poor" you have yet to realize that the "poor" in this country aren't really poor at all.

They really don't need anymore help than they get already

The people who are poor enough to collect welfare are in fact poor. And some of those people are working for some of our largest corporations.

Yeah just ignore the fact that the government has made it easier to get welfare than ever so as to pad the number of people on welfare in order to push for higher taxes and more government programs.

 

[Brain357]

There will always be people who are considered "poor" you have yet to realize that the "poor" in this country aren't really poor at all.

They really don't need anymore help than they get already

The people who are poor enough to collect welfare are in fact poor. And some of those people are working for some of our largest corporations.

Yeah just ignore the fact that the government has made it easier to get welfare than ever so as to pad the number of people on welfare in order to push for higher taxes and more government programs.

Well do tell us how poor you have to be then and lets look at the numbers. Last time I looked at them I wouldn't be able to live off so little. How about all the corporate welfare? You have no problem with corporations making money off the government, just the poor right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The people who are poor enough to collect welfare are in fact poor. And some of those people are working for some of our largest corporations.

Yeah just ignore the fact that the government has made it easier to get welfare than ever so as to pad the number of people on welfare in order to push for higher taxes and more government programs.

Well do tell us how poor you have to be then and lets look at the numbers. Last time I looked at them I wouldn't be able to live off so little. How about all the corporate welfare? You have no problem with corporations making money off the government, just the poor right?

How do you jump to that conclusion?

I'm not for bail outs. In fact GM should have been left to go belly up for all I care.

I'm not for government subsidies of any business including farmers.

And what if I told you that it was possible to support a family of 6 on 28K a year? Just because you can't do something does not mean it can't be done.

 

[zeke]

Wait a minute. Aren't you the one saying the "poor" are "suffering" despite all the money we have given them?

Actually, it is you who is saying they don't suffer enough

You know.......Microwave ovens, color TVs, VCRs, air conditionng

All the modern conveniences

I'm saying they don't really suffer at all. So we must be doing something right.

And I grew up without a microwave a VCR, cable, or air conditioning and I wouldn't say my childhood was one of suffering.

I really don't understand your definition of suffering. I bet you think a paper cut is a mortal wound.

I bet that you don't understand the definition of the word "exist".. As in lots of poor Americans simply exist.

And you don't seem to understand the definition of the word "prosper". Which was what the goal of America used to be, for individuals and families to enjoy the prosperity that America had to offer.

Look those words up. Educate yourself. You need it.

Btw, did you grow up with food insecurity? Housing insecurity? No medical care? One or no parents? Low expectations of yourself? Poorly educated parents? Drug/alcohol abuse?

You think that people with the situations mentioned above, as long as they have a DVD, a microwave and AC, everything is all right in the households of the poor.

I mean ****, skull dude says you poor got it good. Listen up.

 

[rightwinger]

Wait a minute. Aren't you the one saying the "poor" are "suffering" despite all the money we have given them?

Actually, it is you who is saying they don't suffer enough

You know.......Microwave ovens, color TVs, VCRs, air conditionng

All the modern conveniences

Yet they buy those and more.. and complain that they need assistance with housing, food, health care, and child care??? Seems like a problem in prioritization and understanding need before luxury...

But it is all about libbies and the welfare leeches wanting more and more paid for by others.. because they feel they are owed those luxuries (and they are luxuries)

I'm with you brother

They blow all their money on them newfangled luxuries

If they were willing to live in a one room shack with an outhouse they could save all that money and eventually move next door to you

 

[Brain357]

Yeah just ignore the fact that the government has made it easier to get welfare than ever so as to pad the number of people on welfare in order to push for higher taxes and more government programs.

Well do tell us how poor you have to be then and lets look at the numbers. Last time I looked at them I wouldn't be able to live off so little. How about all the corporate welfare? You have no problem with corporations making money off the government, just the poor right?

How do you jump to that conclusion?

I'm not for bail outs. In fact GM should have been left to go belly up for all I care.

I'm not for government subsidies of any business including farmers.

And what if I told you that it was possible to support a family of 6 on 28K a year? Just because you can't do something does not mean it can't be done.

Of course you would let GM go belly up, those are union jobs.

So Walmart pays so little that employees are on welfare. I look at that as corporate welfare because the government it fitting the bill to ensure their employees are fit and healthy enough to work. Just one Walmart in WI cost tax payers over a million dollars a year. Now the Walton's make over $3 billion a year, the execs are making millions a year, plus the shareholders are making probably billions too. So Walmart could afford to pay enough to get employees off welfare. Instead they are getting rich off corporate welfare. But you're ok with that right?

 

[zeke]

Yeah just ignore the fact that the government has made it easier to get welfare than ever so as to pad the number of people on welfare in order to push for higher taxes and more government programs.

Well do tell us how poor you have to be then and lets look at the numbers. Last time I looked at them I wouldn't be able to live off so little. How about all the corporate welfare? You have no problem with corporations making money off the government, just the poor right?

How do you jump to that conclusion?

I'm not for bail outs. In fact GM should have been left to go belly up for all I care.

I'm not for government subsidies of any business including farmers.

And what if I told you that it was possible to support a family of 6 on 28K a year? Just because you can't do something does not mean it can't be done.

And and and what if I told you that it is possible to support a family of 12, send them all to Ivy League schools and buy them a new Lexus before they go. All on 12 grand a year.
Yep, that's right. I said so.

Because you can't do that does not mean that I can't. Right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Actually, it is you who is saying they don't suffer enough

You know.......Microwave ovens, color TVs, VCRs, air conditionng

All the modern conveniences

I'm saying they don't really suffer at all. So we must be doing something right.

And I grew up without a microwave a VCR, cable, or air conditioning and I wouldn't say my childhood was one of suffering.

I really don't understand your definition of suffering. I bet you think a paper cut is a mortal wound.

I bet that you don't understand the definition of the word "exist".. As in lots of poor Americans simply exist.

How many? And I take it by merely existing that they live in a straw hovel and eat bugs right?

And you don't seem to understand the definition of the word "prosper". Which was what the goal of America used to be, for individuals and families to enjoy the prosperity that America had to offer.

No one prospers on charity. Sooner or later people have to decide to prosper and do something to make it so

Btw, did you grow up with food insecurity? Housing insecurity? No medical care? One or no parents? Low expectations of yourself? Poorly educated parents? Drug/alcohol abuse?

Single parent household with a bipolar psycho mother.
Then an abusive step father was added into the mix.

So don't lecture me.

You think that people with the situations mentioned above, as long as they have a DVD, a microwave and AC, everything is all right in the households of the poor.

Not only poor people have that shit happen to them so it's not really "suffering" is it?

I mean ****, skull dude says you poor got it good. Listen up.

Never said that I said they don't really suffer unless of course you subscribe to the paper cut is a mortal wound philosophy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well do tell us how poor you have to be then and lets look at the numbers. Last time I looked at them I wouldn't be able to live off so little. How about all the corporate welfare? You have no problem with corporations making money off the government, just the poor right?

How do you jump to that conclusion?

I'm not for bail outs. In fact GM should have been left to go belly up for all I care.

I'm not for government subsidies of any business including farmers.

And what if I told you that it was possible to support a family of 6 on 28K a year? Just because you can't do something does not mean it can't be done.

And and and what if I told you that it is possible to support a family of 12, send them all to Ivy League schools and buy them a new Lexus before they go. All on 12 grand a year.
Yep, that's right. I said so.

Because you can't do that does not mean that I can't. Right?

You find it impossible right?

If I showed you one person who lives with a husband and 4 kids on 28K a year would that be enough for you?

 

[RKMBrown]

Now we are talking baby!

Conservatives want to bring jobs to low income neighborhoods....When do you start?

I started when I was 10.

I am proud of you

Now, if you can only provide another 30 million jobs or so we can get rid of that welfare

Getting rid of welfare is easy. You just stop writing checks. Most of those 30million will then get work. Hunger is a strong motivator. The ones that can't work... let their families or local charities take care of them or ship them to canada.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well do tell us how poor you have to be then and lets look at the numbers. Last time I looked at them I wouldn't be able to live off so little. How about all the corporate welfare? You have no problem with corporations making money off the government, just the poor right?

How do you jump to that conclusion?

I'm not for bail outs. In fact GM should have been left to go belly up for all I care.

I'm not for government subsidies of any business including farmers.

And what if I told you that it was possible to support a family of 6 on 28K a year? Just because you can't do something does not mean it can't be done.

And and and what if I told you that it is possible to support a family of 12, send them all to Ivy League schools and buy them a new Lexus before they go. All on 12 grand a year.
Yep, that's right. I said so.

Because you can't do that does not mean that I can't. Right?

You can buy 12 new lexus cars for 1k per year? What would that be a 50year loan?

 

[rightwinger]

I started when I was 10.

I am proud of you

Now, if you can only provide another 30 million jobs or so we can get rid of that welfare

Getting rid of welfare is easy. You just stop writing checks. Most of those 30million will then get work. Hunger is a strong motivator. The ones that can't work... let their families or local charities take care of them or ship them to canada.

There are not 30 million unfilled jobs out there. Right now, our economy is adding about 200,000 jobs a month

Cutting off support will not encourage people to work. It will only encourage them to be hungry

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well do tell us how poor you have to be then and lets look at the numbers. Last time I looked at them I wouldn't be able to live off so little. How about all the corporate welfare? You have no problem with corporations making money off the government, just the poor right?

How do you jump to that conclusion?

I'm not for bail outs. In fact GM should have been left to go belly up for all I care.

I'm not for government subsidies of any business including farmers.

And what if I told you that it was possible to support a family of 6 on 28K a year? Just because you can't do something does not mean it can't be done.

Of course you would let GM go belly up, those are union jobs.

So Walmart pays so little that employees are on welfare. I look at that as corporate welfare because the government it fitting the bill to ensure their employees are fit and healthy enough to work. Just one Walmart in WI cost tax payers over a million dollars a year. Now the Walton's make over $3 billion a year, the execs are making millions a year, plus the shareholders are making probably billions too. So Walmart could afford to pay enough to get employees off welfare. Instead they are getting rich off corporate welfare. But you're ok with that right?

I'd let any private business go belly up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am proud of you

Now, if you can only provide another 30 million jobs or so we can get rid of that welfare

Getting rid of welfare is easy. You just stop writing checks. Most of those 30million will then get work. Hunger is a strong motivator. The ones that can't work... let their families or local charities take care of them or ship them to canada.

There are not 30 million unfilled jobs out there. Right now, our economy is adding about 200,000 jobs a month

Cutting off support will not encourage people to work. It will only encourage them to be hungry

So those 30 million are all unemployed or are they working at a job you think pays too little?

 

[SAYIT]

Well do tell us how poor you have to be then and lets look at the numbers. Last time I looked at them I wouldn't be able to live off so little. How about all the corporate welfare? You have no problem with corporations making money off the government, just the poor right?

How do you jump to that conclusion?

I'm not for bail outs. In fact GM should have been left to go belly up for all I care.

I'm not for government subsidies of any business including farmers.

And what if I told you that it was possible to support a family of 6 on 28K a year? Just because you can't do something does not mean it can't be done.

Of course you would let GM go belly up, those are union jobs.

So Walmart pays so little that employees are on welfare. I look at that as corporate welfare because the government it fitting the bill to ensure their employees are fit and healthy enough to work. Just one Walmart in WI cost tax payers over a million dollars a year. Now the Walton's make over $3 billion a year, the execs are making millions a year, plus the shareholders are making probably billions too. So Walmart could afford to pay enough to get employees off welfare. Instead they are getting rich off corporate welfare. But you're ok with that right?

It isn't a matter of what Walmart can afford (that's not your biz) and their wage policies are theirs to make ... not mine or yours. Walmart pays what is legally required. Anything above that - and certainly many of their employees earn more than min wage - is rightfully determined by Walmart. Just because you look at it as "corporate welfare" doesn't make it so.
What would those poor, put-upon Walmart employees cost WI if Walmart did not employ them? You can make a difference, however, by not shopping or working at Walmart. It's called freedom of choice and expression and in America it's still yours to use as you choose.
Ain't it grand?

 

[SAYIT]

A low minimum wage that has failed to keep up with inflation or worker productivity creates a taxpayer subsidy to low-wage employers.

Raising the minimum wage would reduce the cost of social welfare programs, foster economic growth, and strengthen families - all virtues extolled by conservatives.

Raising the min wage is the responsibility of our lawmakers and must be done with an eye toward the market and reality. A dramatic increase would squeeze out some min wage jobs forcing many more onto the welfare and unemployment rolls. How does that reduce welfare and foster economic growth?
They are valuable entry level and supplementary jobs and you'd be hurting the very peeps you liberals claim to be defending.

 

[SAYIT]

Fed a lot of people, provided homes, education, healthcare, jobs programs

What is you alternative? let them die?

The alternative is they all get better jobs and lift this country up vs dragging it down.

Now we are talking baby!

Conservatives want to bring jobs to low income neighborhoods....When do you start?

Job creation anywhere in America is hardly ever a function of liberals because if one is sharp enough and ambitious enough to create a biz and jobs, one is generally smart enough not to be a liberal.

 

[SAYIT]

Our "poor" are the richest "poor" people in the world.

No question our poor people do not suffer enough

Republicans are looking to rectify that situation

Actually you do it to yourself and blame the Republicans.

At least they blame everyone but themselves.

 

[SAYIT]

Which is what you've trained him to do. What he should do is work harder, invest in his own training and/or find a better job. You sadly don't even consider those possibilities, you jump right to that he'll go for welfare. Do people not have any responsibility for their own lives?

As an employer, I can tell you the #1 issue with low end workers is they don't care. Now I know you're going to come back with they don't care because they are paid so low, but you're wrong, they are paid so low because they don't care. Paying them more gives us zero care, it just gives them a fatter paycheck. Workers who care have no problem making more than minimum wage.

Man is trained to survive. He doesnt need training. If a man is hungry and there is a meal in front of him he's not going to turn it down because YOU think he should. If there is assistance hes not going to wave it away because YOU think its bad. He's hungry and a rumbling belly beats your outrage everytime.

But you can pretend that it's all my fault if you like. Gotta blame someone for your fantasyland bullshit not making sense in reality

That isn't what I blame you for. I blame you for plundering money from one person who earned it to give it to someone else who didn't. Charity is an act which cannot be performed with someone else's money.

Yet doing just that is the Dem Party platform in a concise sentence. Thank you.

 

[Brain357]

How do you jump to that conclusion?

I'm not for bail outs. In fact GM should have been left to go belly up for all I care.

I'm not for government subsidies of any business including farmers.

And what if I told you that it was possible to support a family of 6 on 28K a year? Just because you can't do something does not mean it can't be done.

Of course you would let GM go belly up, those are union jobs.

So Walmart pays so little that employees are on welfare. I look at that as corporate welfare because the government it fitting the bill to ensure their employees are fit and healthy enough to work. Just one Walmart in WI cost tax payers over a million dollars a year. Now the Walton's make over $3 billion a year, the execs are making millions a year, plus the shareholders are making probably billions too. So Walmart could afford to pay enough to get employees off welfare. Instead they are getting rich off corporate welfare. But you're ok with that right?

It isn't a matter of what Walmart can afford (that's not your biz) and their wage policies are theirs to make ... not mine or yours. Walmart pays what is legally required. Anything above that - and certainly many of their employees earn more than min wage - is rightfully determined by Walmart. Just because you look at it as "corporate welfare" doesn't make it so.
What would those poor, put-upon Walmart employees cost WI if Walmart did not employ them? You can make a difference, however, by not shopping or working at Walmart. It's called freedom of choice and expression and in America it's still yours to use as you choose.
Ain't it grand?

You make a good argument to raise minimum wage.

I don't shop there, but my tax dollars are still helping to make the Walton's richer. See the problem? They are rich enough that they shouldn't be collecting welfare.