Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[Chris]

If the 15 trillion we have spent on anti-poverty programs hasn't helped how is a couple extra dollars an hour going to help?

It helped.

The poverty rate for blacks is half what it was in the 1960's.

What does color matter? Are you racist?
How much has the US poverty rate moved in the last 50+ years?

So you are arguing that poor people would be helped by not helping them?

Amazing.

 

[Chris]

there IS something wrong with that; it's called your petty jealousy.
people are supposed to not want to stay at those jobs; they are supposed to want to get educated and get better jobs; there will always be people richer than others

So you're ok with the Waltons getting rich off corporate welfare? And I suppose you call yourself a conservative?

I love how conservatives are no longer for small government. Now they are for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Corporate welfare and military spending good. Any spending that helps poor people bad. And the government grows.

Do you realize that under the liberal Obama administration of bigger government, the gap between the rich and the poor has expanded beyond anything under any conservative president?
Are you daft, or do you just choose to ignore facts?

Because Republicans in Congress refuse to raise the minimum wage.

 

[Chris]

You and I have different definitions of suffering.

Conservative ideal for poor Americans

^^^^
Liberal accusation of Conservative ideal for poor Americans.

No basis of fact or reality for rightwinger's posted picture and accompanying commentary, but I'm sure he feels good about it, what with his moral superiority and all.

"Let them die!" - Republicans at a 2012 debate.

 

[alan1]

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.

Actually, reducing or eliminating social welfare programs would reduce or eliminate social welfare.

We have a 50 year history of increasing social welfare programs that has showed an increase in social welfare. We also have a proven history of creating and increasing minimum wage and the result is what we have now.
Why the heck do you fools think that doing the same thing over and over will have different results?
Even a child learns to stop putting his hand on a hot stove once he gets burned.

 

[Chris]

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.

Actually, reducing or eliminating social welfare programs would reduce or eliminate social welfare.

We have a 50 year history of increasing social welfare programs that has showed an increase in social welfare. We also have a proven history of creating and increasing minimum wage and the result is what we have now.
Why the heck do you fools think that doing the same thing over and over will have different results?
Even a child learns to stop putting his hand on a hot stove once he gets burned.

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

 

[alan1]

It helped.

The poverty rate for blacks is half what it was in the 1960's.

What does color matter? Are you racist?
How much has the US poverty rate moved in the last 50+ years?

So you are arguing that poor people would be helped by not helping them?

Amazing.

That is exactly what I said.
Oh wait, it isn't what I said by any stretch of the imagination except yours.
Your accusatory statement with an added question mark to make it appear as if you were asking a question is a bullshit tactic.
Go screw with somebody dumb enough to fall for your bullshit tactics.

 

[alan1]

So you're ok with the Waltons getting rich off corporate welfare? And I suppose you call yourself a conservative?

I love how conservatives are no longer for small government. Now they are for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Corporate welfare and military spending good. Any spending that helps poor people bad. And the government grows.

Do you realize that under the liberal Obama administration of bigger government, the gap between the rich and the poor has expanded beyond anything under any conservative president?
Are you daft, or do you just choose to ignore facts?

Because Republicans in Congress refuse to raise the minimum wage.

Right after Mr Obama became president the democrats controlled the house, the senate and the presidency for two years.
Why didn't they raise the minimum wage? The republicans couldn't have stopped them, so what stopped them? Why didn't the democrats do it?

 

[alan1]

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.

Actually, reducing or eliminating social welfare programs would reduce or eliminate social welfare.

We have a 50 year history of increasing social welfare programs that has showed an increase in social welfare. We also have a proven history of creating and increasing minimum wage and the result is what we have now.
Why the heck do you fools think that doing the same thing over and over will have different results?
Even a child learns to stop putting his hand on a hot stove once he gets burned.

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.


Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

As I already pointed out, the wealth gap between the rich and the poor has grown under Mr Obama. Last I looked, he is a liberal democrat.
Edit to add, the rich pay more in taxes than the poor.

 

[Brain357]

Wealth ENVY isn't pretty, is it brainless?

I wouldn't know. All that cheerleading for the rich must be tiring.

And all your whining about the rich left you brainless.

Well it's a problem when they are collecting corporate welfare. If they get rich without it I have no problem.

 

[Brain357]

there IS something wrong with that; it's called your petty jealousy.
people are supposed to not want to stay at those jobs; they are supposed to want to get educated and get better jobs; there will always be people richer than others

So you're ok with the Waltons getting rich off corporate welfare? And I suppose you call yourself a conservative?

I love how conservatives are no longer for small government. Now they are for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Corporate welfare and military spending good. Any spending that helps poor people bad. And the government grows.

Do you realize that under the liberal Obama administration of bigger government, the gap between the rich and the poor has expanded beyond anything under any conservative president?
Are you daft, or do you just choose to ignore facts?

Do you realize that government spending has been going up since Reagan with Clinton being the only one to slow it? That's a lot of big spending republicans. As long as our largest corporations are collecting so much corporate welfare the government will continue to grow. I prefer companies take care of their own workers and the government gets smaller. Not sure either party is going to do that.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Actually, reducing or eliminating social welfare programs would reduce or eliminate social welfare.

We have a 50 year history of increasing social welfare programs that has showed an increase in social welfare. We also have a proven history of creating and increasing minimum wage and the result is what we have now.
Why the heck do you fools think that doing the same thing over and over will have different results?
Even a child learns to stop putting his hand on a hot stove once he gets burned.

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

Chrissie, do you need a tissue?

 

[Brain357]

If the 15 trillion we have spent on anti-poverty programs hasn't helped how is a couple extra dollars an hour going to help?

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

What is you alternative? let them die?

I may let them die.
If their family and friends voluntarily wants to house, feed and clothe them, then they are free to do so. I don't have a problem with that. The moment one uses the government as a means to force me to support another, yeah, I have a problem with that.

So you must hate all that corporate welfare that goes to Walmart and supports those billionaires.

 

[alan1]

So you're ok with the Waltons getting rich off corporate welfare? And I suppose you call yourself a conservative?

I love how conservatives are no longer for small government. Now they are for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Corporate welfare and military spending good. Any spending that helps poor people bad. And the government grows.

Do you realize that under the liberal Obama administration of bigger government, the gap between the rich and the poor has expanded beyond anything under any conservative president?
Are you daft, or do you just choose to ignore facts?

Do you realize that government spending has been going up since Reagan with Clinton being the only one to slow it? That's a lot of big spending republicans. As long as our largest corporations are collecting so much corporate welfare the government will continue to grow. I prefer companies take care of their own workers and the government gets smaller. Not sure either party is going to do that.

Did Clinton slow it, or was it the republican house and senate during Clinton's term that slowed it?
The government needs to get smaller.
Neither government or companies are responsible for or going to take care of people. People that need to be taken care of are not responsible adults and probably not good good for the gene pool.

 

[alan1]

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

What is you alternative? let them die?

I may let them die.
If their family and friends voluntarily wants to house, feed and clothe them, then they are free to do so. I don't have a problem with that. The moment one uses the government as a means to force me to support another, yeah, I have a problem with that.

So you must hate all that corporate welfare that goes to Walmart and supports those billionaires.

It's not the government (tax payer) responsibility to support individuals or corporations. Do you think there is a difference?

 

[Brain357]

Do you realize that under the liberal Obama administration of bigger government, the gap between the rich and the poor has expanded beyond anything under any conservative president?
Are you daft, or do you just choose to ignore facts?

Do you realize that government spending has been going up since Reagan with Clinton being the only one to slow it? That's a lot of big spending republicans. As long as our largest corporations are collecting so much corporate welfare the government will continue to grow. I prefer companies take care of their own workers and the government gets smaller. Not sure either party is going to do that.

Did Clinton slow it, or was it the republican house and senate during Clinton's term that slowed it?
The government needs to get smaller.
Neither government or companies are responsible for or going to take care of people. People that need to be taken care of are not responsible adults and probably not good good for the gene pool.

Are you in the real world? The government is doing lots of taking care of now because companies like walmart don't take care of their employees. Instead they let the government do it while they make billions. We vote in this country. That means people are going to be taken care of whether you think it is right or not. It's just a fact. So either companies can do it and government will shrink or the government will do it. So as long as the Waltons make billions while paying so little their emloyees are on welfare the government will grow.

 

[Brain357]

I may let them die.
If their family and friends voluntarily wants to house, feed and clothe them, then they are free to do so. I don't have a problem with that. The moment one uses the government as a means to force me to support another, yeah, I have a problem with that.

So you must hate all that corporate welfare that goes to Walmart and supports those billionaires.

It's not the government (tax payer) responsibility to support individuals or corporations. Do you think there is a difference?

I think they should be very limited in supporting the poor and certainly shouldn't be supporting billionaires. But the billionaires are the ones who create the need for the government to help people. Walmart is making billions, they could pay more, but don't. Instead they tell employees to collect welfare.

 

[Darkwind]

I wouldn't know. All that cheerleading for the rich must be tiring.

And all your whining about the rich left you brainless.

Well it's a problem when they are collecting corporate welfare. If they get rich without it I have no problem.

What corporate welfare?

 

[Listening]

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.



Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

Not everyone's situation is the same.

And that is what makes this question so difficult.

But there are certain classes of people who are more prone than others.

In many instances, if a woman with children gets divorced she heads right for the poverty line. Marriage, is among other things, an economic efficiency. Don't want to be married any more....better be ready to pay the price (literally).

And if you are young black woman who is having kids to get more cash, you can forget it. If you don't give up the name of the dad (so we can go bill his ass for his kid and put him under obligation to pay child support), then you can forget help. Think your baby might suffer...give up the rights to it.

 

[protectionist]

there IS something wrong with that; it's called your petty jealousy.
people are supposed to not want to stay at those jobs; they are supposed to want to get educated and get better jobs; there will always be people richer than others

So you're ok with the Waltons getting rich off corporate welfare? And I suppose you call yourself a conservative?

I love how conservatives are no longer for small government. Now they are for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Corporate welfare and military spending good. Any spending that helps poor people bad. And the government grows.

Do you realize that under the liberal Obama administration of bigger government, the gap between the rich and the poor has expanded beyond anything under any conservative president?
Are you daft, or do you just choose to ignore facts?

It HASN'T been under "the liberal Obama administration of bigger government", it's been under the liberal Obama administration of unrestrained immigration (AKA domestic outsourcing), racist affirmative action discrimination, and Republican Congressional obstructionism. Take those 3 nasty items out, and it could well have been a major reduction in the gap between the rich and the poor, as well as a strong growth economy.

 

[AntiParty]

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.



Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

At some point we have to separate large corporations making millions/billions off of their employee's work and not paying them a fair wage vs. the small country store.

One thing is certain, Wal-Mart and others cannot make their profit without their workers who are part of the team who help create this profit. In fact, the ones making this profit probably never enter the buildings earning the majority of this profit, only the workers are there. The workers are replaceable, but again, these businesses can't stay afloat without the workers. So there is ALWAYS a team of workers helping create this profit that aren't getting a decent share.

I'm absolutely confused about people fighting for the few dozen people's mega billions when the few dozen millions aren't able to make ends meet. But that's because I was raised Christian and I'm not greedy.

The mega rich will still be mega rich if they pay a good wage and they won't have to raise prices.......Anyone who says differently is uninformed on the topic.

Addressing WalMart vs local country store: The minimum wage already has numerous exceptions, including an exception for any enterprise under $500k in revenue.

For the rest, there's a wonderful quote from FDR:

"Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000.00 a day, who has been turning his employees over to the Government relief rolls in order to preserve his company’s undistributed reserves, tell you — using his stockholders’ money to pay the postage for his personal opinions — tell you that a wage of $11.00 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry. "​

THIS is why I am on Forums about politics. I want to learn.

This person uses a historical quote based on a time period that is much like today, the great depression, where the rich were keeping all profits and letting Poor/Middle America suffer.

I'm curious why the Right Wing only holds debates that involve, "You are stupid". I'm curious why Fox news is, "You are stupid if you don't agree with us" all day every day.

Shouldn't information be a factor here in America? I don't really care if people are bias. But I can't stand people that are bias and have no understanding of why they are bias.