Reality sets in for Oregon governor

[NYcarbineer]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

Ask SassyAss how many thousands of dollars worth of tax breaks she gets for her 6 kids, that she has publicly stated she has.

 

[Rustic]

That damn reality slaps the left in the face every time.

Oregon Governor Abandons $15+ Minimum Wage

Facing a barrage of criticism from business, and labor skepticism over threats of higher unemployment, Oregon Governor Kate Brown is scaling back her $15.52 minimum wage proposal.

A November report by the Manhattan Institute, “Counterproductive: The Employment and Income Effects of Raising America’s Minimum Wage to $12 and to $15 per Hour,” concludes that raising minimum wages is likely to result in adverse consequences that would lower total national income levels.

“The earnings gained for those who would keep their jobs would be outweighed by the earnings lost by those who would become jobless,” the report detailed. “As a result, the net income gains tend to be smaller or more negative when using the annual earnings approach than when using the wage approach.”

Facing concerns from the right and the left that her minimum wage proposal was an obvious job killer in Oregon, Gov. Brown blinked on January 28 and has scaled back her proposal to only a $.50 raise per hour statewide July increase, from $9.25 to $9.75-per-hour. The Portland metro area would see an increase in July 2017 to $11.25 an hour, with the rest of the state’s minimum wages rising to $10.25 an hour.

Oregon Governor Abandons $15+ Minimum Wage - Breitbart

When will people realize living within your means, is the only way to live??
Quit listening to the federal government, they have less than zero credibility anything least of all spending...
Lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

That's the eugenicist theory.

 

[NYcarbineer]

it seems to me that we would do a lot better by SUBSIDIZING the very basic
requirements of life in the USA ----ie making them AFFORDABLE to the broad base
of working people than trying to patch things up by getting employers to bankrupt
themselves by forcing them to GIVE IT AWAY. The targets are------housing, food,
health care and--------cheap internet service for all ----basic stuff for all as low prices

No.

why not? everyone should be able to afford to feed their kids

By their own funds, or charity. Not government redistributing other people's money.

What if the voters want a government food assistance program?

So long as voluntary, no problem. Stealing money from Peter to pay Paul, however, is simple theft, and what the voters want be damned. Let them amend the Constitution.

Congress has the authority to levy taxes ONLY for those purposes mandated to it by the Constitution, and as you know those purposes are quite limited.

They don't have to amend the Constitution. The food stamp program hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Iceweasel]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

COLD-------very cold. You are either very young, or very old and constipated
or just stupid. Circumstances change-------if you are very young you will learn----
if you are old -----you are HARD HEARTED

Wrong, you are. You think you are entitled to other people's money. That's as cold as it gets.

 

[irosie91]

No.

why not? everyone should be able to afford to feed their kids

By their own funds, or charity. Not government redistributing other people's money.

What if the voters want a government food assistance program?

So long as voluntary, no problem. Stealing money from Peter to pay Paul, however, is simple theft, and what the voters want be damned. Let them amend the Constitution.

Congress has the authority to levy taxes ONLY for those purposes mandated to it by the Constitution, and as you know those purposes are quite limited.

They don't have to amend the Constitution. The food stamp program hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

Many, many people-------are out to cut food stamps

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

COLD-------very cold. You are either very young, or very old and constipated
or just stupid. Circumstances change-------if you are very young you will learn----
if you are old -----you are HARD HEARTED

What's cold about it? If you can't afford a child then don't have one. Get an education that provides meaningful employment and then have children

 

[irosie91]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

COLD-------very cold. You are either very young, or very old and constipated
or just stupid. Circumstances change-------if you are very young you will learn----
if you are old -----you are HARD HEARTED

Wrong, you are. You think you are entitled to other people's money. That's as cold as it gets.

where have I said "I am entitled to other people's money"?-----

 

[Iceweasel]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

Ask SassyAss how many thousands of dollars worth of tax breaks she gets for her 6 kids, that she has publicly stated she has.

A tax break isn't a gift, it's less money the government confiscates. Who's money is it anyway?

 

[SwimExpert]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

COLD-------very cold. You are either very young, or very old and constipated
or just stupid. Circumstances change-------if you are very young you will learn----
if you are old -----you are HARD HEARTED

Ice weasel is often a crotchety ass, but that post isn't one of those ocassions. It's very simple....why can't people take control of their reproductive behaviors? I don't have any children. Even after many years of being a male slut I still am not a parent. Why? Because I was careful enough to make sure it didn't happen. And why did I do that? Because I don't want to create a child that I'm not prepared for.

Why is that so damn difficult for some people to get through their heads? Why whiny people like you call it "cold" to simply expect someone to take perfectly reasonable action to avoid negative consequences?

 

[irosie91]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

COLD-------very cold. You are either very young, or very old and constipated
or just stupid. Circumstances change-------if you are very young you will learn----
if you are old -----you are HARD HEARTED

What's cold about it? If you can't afford a child then don't have one. Get an education that provides meaningful employment and then have children

sassy--------PEOPLE are subject to changing fortunes for ALL KINDS OF
REASONS

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

That's the eugenicist theory.

Nonsense.

 

[Iceweasel]

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

COLD-------very cold. You are either very young, or very old and constipated
or just stupid. Circumstances change-------if you are very young you will learn----
if you are old -----you are HARD HEARTED

Wrong, you are. You think you are entitled to other people's money. That's as cold as it gets.

where have I said "I am entitled to other people's money"?-----

You don't understand your own words if you don't know. What does subsidy mean to you?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

COLD-------very cold. You are either very young, or very old and constipated
or just stupid. Circumstances change-------if you are very young you will learn----
if you are old -----you are HARD HEARTED

What's cold about it? If you can't afford a child then don't have one. Get an education that provides meaningful employment and then have children

sassy--------PEOPLE are subject to changing fortunes for ALL KINDS OF
REASONS

Personal responsibility goes a long way

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No.

why not? everyone should be able to afford to feed their kids

By their own funds, or charity. Not government redistributing other people's money.

What if the voters want a government food assistance program?

So long as voluntary, no problem. Stealing money from Peter to pay Paul, however, is simple theft, and what the voters want be damned. Let them amend the Constitution.

Congress has the authority to levy taxes ONLY for those purposes mandated to it by the Constitution, and as you know those purposes are quite limited.

They don't have to amend the Constitution. The food stamp program hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

But it is. Charity at gunpoint is not within the Constitutional authority of the government.

 

[irosie91]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

COLD-------very cold. You are either very young, or very old and constipated
or just stupid. Circumstances change-------if you are very young you will learn----
if you are old -----you are HARD HEARTED

Ice weasel is often a crotchety ass, but that post isn't one of those ocassions. It's very simple....why can't people take control of their reproductive behaviors? I don't have any children. Even after many years of being a male slut I still am not a parent. Why? Because I was careful enough to make sure it didn't happen. And why did I do that? Because I don't want to create a child that I'm not prepared for.

Why is that so damn difficult for some people to get through their heads? Why whiny people like you call it "cold" to simply expect someone to take perfectly reasonable action to avoid negative consequences?

you would be amazed at the kinds of pressures some people face and the
INJUSTICE of their own communities------and ALSO------just how STUPID
lots of people are. For fun-----watch TV "paternity court"---

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

Ask SassyAss how many thousands of dollars worth of tax breaks she gets for her 6 kids, that she has publicly stated she has.

LOL Lame argument, toad. Any tax break we get for our children is far out weighed by the amount of taxes we pay a year. Hell we pay more in capital gains than you probably make in a year

 

[irosie91]

why not? everyone should be able to afford to feed their kids

By their own funds, or charity. Not government redistributing other people's money.

What if the voters want a government food assistance program?

So long as voluntary, no problem. Stealing money from Peter to pay Paul, however, is simple theft, and what the voters want be damned. Let them amend the Constitution.

Congress has the authority to levy taxes ONLY for those purposes mandated to it by the Constitution, and as you know those purposes are quite limited.

They don't have to amend the Constitution. The food stamp program hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

But it is. Charity at gunpoint is not within the Constitutional authority of the government.

It is the POPULAR answer-----in fact-----Congenital Liberal democrat that I am----
I have noted that charity at gunpoint is the SANDERS appeal and it works for him

 

[NYcarbineer]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

That's the eugenicist theory.

Nonsense.

One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[23][24]

So either

1. Margaret Sanger's promotion of birth control for the poor was a form of eugenics, or,

2. Sanger was not the eugenicist she is routinely accused of being, for such promotion.

 

[SwimExpert]

you would be amazed at the kinds of pressures some people face and the INJUSTICE of their own communities------and ALSO------just how STUPID lots of people are. For fun-----watch TV "paternity court"---

Wow. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I said. Nothing.

Stick to the topic. Why is it "cold" to expect people to take reasonable measures to prevent themselves from becoming parents when they can't afford to be parents?