Restaurants are adding labor surcharges to help offset minimum wage increases

[Iceweasel]

I bet if people lived like they did in 1968, no cell phones, cable, satellite TV no computers no HBO Amazon or Netflix etc etc that they could get by on MW

That might be a point. If you can find a source that shows that the poverty line is adjusted to include those things, I'll read it.

Poverty was defined by food availability. Not now.


Poverty Redefined?
The federal government is looking at new measures to help define poverty. This is the first time in decades that a new definition is being considered. The current measure, which is mainly of food, is deemed out of date. Other expenses such as clothing, housing, and utilities are likely to be included in the new measure. Host Michel Martin speaks with Algernon Austin, director of the Race, Ethnicity and the Economy program at the Economics Policy Institute.

Mr. ALGERNON AUSTIN (Director of Race, Ethnicity and Economy Program, Economic Policy Institute): Its a pleasure to talk with you.

MARTIN: Whats wrong with the current definition of poverty as its defined by the government? Why do people want to change it?

Mr. AUSTIN: Well, the definition of poverty was basically based on, solely on the cost of food. And it was assumed that poverty would be three times the sort of minimum cost of food for a family.

FRom this link, it was an argument to redefine the poverty line, but not that it was changed.

More facts for you to ignore...

Official Poverty Measure Masks Gains Made Over Last 50 Years
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress.

Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty.

Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase. Income growth has been less dramatic among middle- and lower-income Americans since 1973 than in the years before that.

But, among the bottom fifth of the population, it’s still notable. For this group, incomes grew 19 percent between 1973 and 2007 — years that are comparable because both were peaks of a business cycle.

That's a great link because it shows that poverty has been alleviated, not by wages but by government intervention. SNAP, tax credits, housing subsidies.

"With the Census Bureau due to release updated figures about poverty in America on September 17, some policymakers and commentators surely will compare today’s poverty rate to those of 1960s and conclude that the last half-century of federal efforts to alleviate poverty have largely failed — that, as some critics put it glibly, “the government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” But that’s simply not valid or accurate. Comparing today’s official poverty rate with those of the 1960s yields highly distorted results because the official poverty measure captures so little of the poverty relief that today’s safety net now provides.

A poverty measure that, as most analysts recommend, accounts for (rather than ignores) major non-cash benefits that the official poverty measure leaves out — namely, SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps), rent subsidies, and tax credits for working families — would find that poverty in the United States today is considerably lower than it was throughout the 1960s, despite today’s weaker economy.
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress. Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty. Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase."

Government alleviates poverty, is what your link is saying, so we don't have to raise wages. And here I thought you'd be in favor of doing away with the need for a social safety net.

I thought you were done chickie? Poverty has been redefined to provide subsidies. But it said wages and earnings and you only see government. Thanks for proving you're a drone.

 

[Iceweasel]

The "poverty line" is adjustable, and anyone that is claiming minimum wage earners could raise a family on three is being political, not factual. Nor would it be a reason to offer starting wages for that reason. People in history waited. Poverty these days is having only two giant flat panel TVs, only one computer, one table, one iPhone, etc. etc. Enjoy your smugness.

Wrong. People in the sixties could start a family and buy property on minimum wage. And with property, they actually had a chance at upward mobility.

I was there then and never heard of it. You are brainwashed.

Says the guy who has yet to provide evidence of anything. We're done.

I proved you're a smug no nothing highly opinionated asshole. Now you're done!

It's "know-nothing."

And yes, I am highly opinionated. Are you not? Or is it wrong for me to have an opinion for some other reason? Seems like you're trying to somehow shame me from arguing a point. A point that I have backed up with evidence.

Golly, a typo changes everything. Of course you have the right to be a smug asshole, never implied otherwise.

 

[ricechickie]

That might be a point. If you can find a source that shows that the poverty line is adjusted to include those things, I'll read it.

Poverty was defined by food availability. Not now.


Poverty Redefined?
The federal government is looking at new measures to help define poverty. This is the first time in decades that a new definition is being considered. The current measure, which is mainly of food, is deemed out of date. Other expenses such as clothing, housing, and utilities are likely to be included in the new measure. Host Michel Martin speaks with Algernon Austin, director of the Race, Ethnicity and the Economy program at the Economics Policy Institute.

Mr. ALGERNON AUSTIN (Director of Race, Ethnicity and Economy Program, Economic Policy Institute): Its a pleasure to talk with you.

MARTIN: Whats wrong with the current definition of poverty as its defined by the government? Why do people want to change it?

Mr. AUSTIN: Well, the definition of poverty was basically based on, solely on the cost of food. And it was assumed that poverty would be three times the sort of minimum cost of food for a family.

FRom this link, it was an argument to redefine the poverty line, but not that it was changed.

More facts for you to ignore...

Official Poverty Measure Masks Gains Made Over Last 50 Years
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress.

Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty.

Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase. Income growth has been less dramatic among middle- and lower-income Americans since 1973 than in the years before that.

But, among the bottom fifth of the population, it’s still notable. For this group, incomes grew 19 percent between 1973 and 2007 — years that are comparable because both were peaks of a business cycle.

That's a great link because it shows that poverty has been alleviated, not by wages but by government intervention. SNAP, tax credits, housing subsidies.

"With the Census Bureau due to release updated figures about poverty in America on September 17, some policymakers and commentators surely will compare today’s poverty rate to those of 1960s and conclude that the last half-century of federal efforts to alleviate poverty have largely failed — that, as some critics put it glibly, “the government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” But that’s simply not valid or accurate. Comparing today’s official poverty rate with those of the 1960s yields highly distorted results because the official poverty measure captures so little of the poverty relief that today’s safety net now provides.

A poverty measure that, as most analysts recommend, accounts for (rather than ignores) major non-cash benefits that the official poverty measure leaves out — namely, SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps), rent subsidies, and tax credits for working families — would find that poverty in the United States today is considerably lower than it was throughout the 1960s, despite today’s weaker economy.
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress. Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty. Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase."

Government alleviates poverty, is what your link is saying, so we don't have to raise wages. And here I thought you'd be in favor of doing away with the need for a social safety net.

I thought you were done chickie? Poverty has been redefined to provide subsidies. But it said wages and earnings and you only see government. Thanks for proving you're a drone.

What can I say? I suffer from Last Word Syndrome.

If both wages AND government programs have alleviated poverty, then do you think wages alone could have done the job? Would that be a reasonable conclusion to make?

 

[Mr Natural]

How about this

Astonishing Numbers: America's Poor Still Live Better Than Most Of The Rest Of Humanity

And that's a big part of what makes us "Exceptional".

Or would you prefer America's poor to be as miserable as Most of the rest of Humanity?

 

[Iceweasel]

Poverty was defined by food availability. Not now.


Poverty Redefined?
The federal government is looking at new measures to help define poverty. This is the first time in decades that a new definition is being considered. The current measure, which is mainly of food, is deemed out of date. Other expenses such as clothing, housing, and utilities are likely to be included in the new measure. Host Michel Martin speaks with Algernon Austin, director of the Race, Ethnicity and the Economy program at the Economics Policy Institute.

Mr. ALGERNON AUSTIN (Director of Race, Ethnicity and Economy Program, Economic Policy Institute): Its a pleasure to talk with you.

MARTIN: Whats wrong with the current definition of poverty as its defined by the government? Why do people want to change it?

Mr. AUSTIN: Well, the definition of poverty was basically based on, solely on the cost of food. And it was assumed that poverty would be three times the sort of minimum cost of food for a family.

FRom this link, it was an argument to redefine the poverty line, but not that it was changed.

More facts for you to ignore...

Official Poverty Measure Masks Gains Made Over Last 50 Years
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress.

Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty.

Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase. Income growth has been less dramatic among middle- and lower-income Americans since 1973 than in the years before that.

But, among the bottom fifth of the population, it’s still notable. For this group, incomes grew 19 percent between 1973 and 2007 — years that are comparable because both were peaks of a business cycle.

That's a great link because it shows that poverty has been alleviated, not by wages but by government intervention. SNAP, tax credits, housing subsidies.

"With the Census Bureau due to release updated figures about poverty in America on September 17, some policymakers and commentators surely will compare today’s poverty rate to those of 1960s and conclude that the last half-century of federal efforts to alleviate poverty have largely failed — that, as some critics put it glibly, “the government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” But that’s simply not valid or accurate. Comparing today’s official poverty rate with those of the 1960s yields highly distorted results because the official poverty measure captures so little of the poverty relief that today’s safety net now provides.

A poverty measure that, as most analysts recommend, accounts for (rather than ignores) major non-cash benefits that the official poverty measure leaves out — namely, SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps), rent subsidies, and tax credits for working families — would find that poverty in the United States today is considerably lower than it was throughout the 1960s, despite today’s weaker economy.
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress. Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty. Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase."

Government alleviates poverty, is what your link is saying, so we don't have to raise wages. And here I thought you'd be in favor of doing away with the need for a social safety net.

I thought you were done chickie? Poverty has been redefined to provide subsidies. But it said wages and earnings and you only see government. Thanks for proving you're a drone.

What can I say? I suffer from Last Word Syndrome.

If both wages AND government programs have alleviated poverty, then do you think wages alone could have done the job? Would that be a reasonable conclusion to make?

I just explained that they adjust the poverty line. Poor today is not poor 1960s era. The line based on food.

"Mr. AUSTIN: Well, the definition of poverty was basically based on, solely on the cost of food. And it was assumed that poverty would be three times the sort of minimum cost of food for a family."

"Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase. Income growth has been less dramatic among middle- and lower-income Americans since 1973 than in the years before that."

 

[Papageorgio]

No offense, but that's absolute greedy white Republican BULLSHITE! Most Workers take all the hours they can get. Y'all really do live in some bizarre greedy fantasy bubble. You seem to hate poor folks. It's pretty evil.

have you ever employed anyone?

Have you ever made a dozen phone calls to try to get someone in to cover a sick call and have no one say yes?

Most folks i've ever known, work as many hours available to them. They're far from being 'Lazy Welfare' folks. Y'all are demonizing people who are just struggling to get by. Hopefully one day you'll see the error of your ways.

so you've never employed anyone and had everyone you call to ask to come in say no

thanks for admitting that

and where did I call anyone lazy?

You always have those that say no, it is the way it is.

which contradicts the idiot who says people will work as much as they can

That is true, I know a guy that took less pay because he went to a job he like. Money wasn't he motivating force, people that are motivated by money only, like Deschrute3 don't get that.

 

[ricechickie]

FRom this link, it was an argument to redefine the poverty line, but not that it was changed.

More facts for you to ignore...

Official Poverty Measure Masks Gains Made Over Last 50 Years
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress.

Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty.

Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase. Income growth has been less dramatic among middle- and lower-income Americans since 1973 than in the years before that.

But, among the bottom fifth of the population, it’s still notable. For this group, incomes grew 19 percent between 1973 and 2007 — years that are comparable because both were peaks of a business cycle.

That's a great link because it shows that poverty has been alleviated, not by wages but by government intervention. SNAP, tax credits, housing subsidies.

"With the Census Bureau due to release updated figures about poverty in America on September 17, some policymakers and commentators surely will compare today’s poverty rate to those of 1960s and conclude that the last half-century of federal efforts to alleviate poverty have largely failed — that, as some critics put it glibly, “the government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” But that’s simply not valid or accurate. Comparing today’s official poverty rate with those of the 1960s yields highly distorted results because the official poverty measure captures so little of the poverty relief that today’s safety net now provides.

A poverty measure that, as most analysts recommend, accounts for (rather than ignores) major non-cash benefits that the official poverty measure leaves out — namely, SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps), rent subsidies, and tax credits for working families — would find that poverty in the United States today is considerably lower than it was throughout the 1960s, despite today’s weaker economy.
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress. Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty. Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase."

Government alleviates poverty, is what your link is saying, so we don't have to raise wages. And here I thought you'd be in favor of doing away with the need for a social safety net.

I thought you were done chickie? Poverty has been redefined to provide subsidies. But it said wages and earnings and you only see government. Thanks for proving you're a drone.

What can I say? I suffer from Last Word Syndrome.

If both wages AND government programs have alleviated poverty, then do you think wages alone could have done the job? Would that be a reasonable conclusion to make?

I just explained that they adjust the poverty line. Poor today is not poor 1960s era. The line based on food.

"Mr. AUSTIN: Well, the definition of poverty was basically based on, solely on the cost of food. And it was assumed that poverty would be three times the sort of minimum cost of food for a family."

"Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase. Income growth has been less dramatic among middle- and lower-income Americans since 1973 than in the years before that."

So your point is?We know that the poverty line is adjusted because food prices are not constant. Inflation is a fact. If wages don't rise with inflation, then those wages lose purchasing power. I seem to recall typing that 2 pages ago.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How about this

Astonishing Numbers: America's Poor Still Live Better Than Most Of The Rest Of Humanity

And that's a big part of what makes us "Exceptional".

Or would you prefer America's poor to be as miserable as Most of the rest of Humanity?

No I'm saying that we treat our so called poor very well already so why the hell do you people always whine about it?

 

[Iceweasel]

More facts for you to ignore...

Official Poverty Measure Masks Gains Made Over Last 50 Years
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress.

Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty.

Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase. Income growth has been less dramatic among middle- and lower-income Americans since 1973 than in the years before that.

But, among the bottom fifth of the population, it’s still notable. For this group, incomes grew 19 percent between 1973 and 2007 — years that are comparable because both were peaks of a business cycle.

That's a great link because it shows that poverty has been alleviated, not by wages but by government intervention. SNAP, tax credits, housing subsidies.

"With the Census Bureau due to release updated figures about poverty in America on September 17, some policymakers and commentators surely will compare today’s poverty rate to those of 1960s and conclude that the last half-century of federal efforts to alleviate poverty have largely failed — that, as some critics put it glibly, “the government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” But that’s simply not valid or accurate. Comparing today’s official poverty rate with those of the 1960s yields highly distorted results because the official poverty measure captures so little of the poverty relief that today’s safety net now provides.

A poverty measure that, as most analysts recommend, accounts for (rather than ignores) major non-cash benefits that the official poverty measure leaves out — namely, SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps), rent subsidies, and tax credits for working families — would find that poverty in the United States today is considerably lower than it was throughout the 1960s, despite today’s weaker economy.
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress. Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty. Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase."

Government alleviates poverty, is what your link is saying, so we don't have to raise wages. And here I thought you'd be in favor of doing away with the need for a social safety net.

I thought you were done chickie? Poverty has been redefined to provide subsidies. But it said wages and earnings and you only see government. Thanks for proving you're a drone.

What can I say? I suffer from Last Word Syndrome.

If both wages AND government programs have alleviated poverty, then do you think wages alone could have done the job? Would that be a reasonable conclusion to make?

I just explained that they adjust the poverty line. Poor today is not poor 1960s era. The line based on food.

"Mr. AUSTIN: Well, the definition of poverty was basically based on, solely on the cost of food. And it was assumed that poverty would be three times the sort of minimum cost of food for a family."

"Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase. Income growth has been less dramatic among middle- and lower-income Americans since 1973 than in the years before that."

So your point is?We know that the poverty line is adjusted because food prices are not constant. Inflation is a fact. If wages don't rise with inflation, then those wages lose purchasing power. I seem to recall typing that 2 pages ago.

I seem to recall you ignoring all kinds of things, like how poverty today is not the poverty of yesteryear. Poor folks today have cell phones and doodads of all sorts. With government goodies they can afford to spend money on that stuff instead. Bottom line is that if you are raising a family on minimum wage you're an irresponsible moron. Wage controls are artificial and can hurt the marketplace. Business growth is the only thing that truly works.

 

[hadit]

We should be looking out for our fellow Americans. Pay em a living wage. It'll get em off the Government Entitlements, and they'll feel they're worth something.

The average Republican approach on wages borders on 'Evil.' Yet most of them consider themselves 'Good Christians.' Our Minimum Wage is truly embarrassing. The rest of the world can't believe such a wealthy nation would treat its People so poorly.

We don't, you just stupidly think so. Most people are not making minimum wage because they've been working for a while. Unlike you I lived within my means and didn't expect my neighbor to share his earnings so I could live the same.

Wages aren't going up until the economy goes up. The liberal's policies (not party) suppresses growth. More jobs=more opportunities=better pay. Your mindset demonstrates you might have been a party member but you were never a conservative.

If 'most people' aren't making Minimum Wage, what's the harm in raising it?

Many industries pay scales are tied to the minimum wage. If you increase the minimum wage, salaries above the minimum wage are forced to be raised also.

To say nothing of the fact the over half the workforce makes $20/hr or less. All of them are going to demand raises too when they go from comfortably twice the MW to just a dollar or two above it.

GOOD. About time.

Totally irrational, as if the economy could absorb that. Not a chance.

 

[ricechickie]

That's a great link because it shows that poverty has been alleviated, not by wages but by government intervention. SNAP, tax credits, housing subsidies.

"With the Census Bureau due to release updated figures about poverty in America on September 17, some policymakers and commentators surely will compare today’s poverty rate to those of 1960s and conclude that the last half-century of federal efforts to alleviate poverty have largely failed — that, as some critics put it glibly, “the government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” But that’s simply not valid or accurate. Comparing today’s official poverty rate with those of the 1960s yields highly distorted results because the official poverty measure captures so little of the poverty relief that today’s safety net now provides.

A poverty measure that, as most analysts recommend, accounts for (rather than ignores) major non-cash benefits that the official poverty measure leaves out — namely, SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps), rent subsidies, and tax credits for working families — would find that poverty in the United States today is considerably lower than it was throughout the 1960s, despite today’s weaker economy.
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress. Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty. Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase."

Government alleviates poverty, is what your link is saying, so we don't have to raise wages. And here I thought you'd be in favor of doing away with the need for a social safety net.

I thought you were done chickie? Poverty has been redefined to provide subsidies. But it said wages and earnings and you only see government. Thanks for proving you're a drone.

What can I say? I suffer from Last Word Syndrome.

If both wages AND government programs have alleviated poverty, then do you think wages alone could have done the job? Would that be a reasonable conclusion to make?

I just explained that they adjust the poverty line. Poor today is not poor 1960s era. The line based on food.

"Mr. AUSTIN: Well, the definition of poverty was basically based on, solely on the cost of food. And it was assumed that poverty would be three times the sort of minimum cost of food for a family."

"Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase. Income growth has been less dramatic among middle- and lower-income Americans since 1973 than in the years before that."

So your point is?We know that the poverty line is adjusted because food prices are not constant. Inflation is a fact. If wages don't rise with inflation, then those wages lose purchasing power. I seem to recall typing that 2 pages ago.

I seem to recall you ignoring all kinds of things, like how poverty today is not the poverty of yesteryear. Poor folks today have cell phones and doodads of all sorts. With government goodies they can afford to spend money on that stuff instead. Bottom line is that if you are raising a family on minimum wage you're an irresponsible moron. Wage controls are artificial and can hurt the marketplace. Business growth is the only thing that truly works.

I addressed every single one of your posts. I wouldn't, nor have I, recommend, that anyone start a family on today's min wage. But it was more feasible in our country's history. And that was without government supports. So, we can't have it both ways. Either everyone survives on livable wages, or the demand for a government safety net subsidizes stagnant wages.

 

[Iceweasel]

I addressed every single one of your posts. I wouldn't, nor have I, recommend, that anyone start a family on today's min wage. But it was more feasible in our country's history. And that was without government supports. So, we can't have it both ways. Either everyone survives on livable wages, or the demand for a government safety net subsidizes stagnant wages.

There you go with the livable wage thing again. Starter wages are not for grown adults to raise families on. It's for kids (young adults). If you can't get past minimum wage we don't need them to reproduce.

 

[ricechickie]

I addressed every single one of your posts. I wouldn't, nor have I, recommend, that anyone start a family on today's min wage. But it was more feasible in our country's history. And that was without government supports. So, we can't have it both ways. Either everyone survives on livable wages, or the demand for a government safety net subsidizes stagnant wages.

There you go with the livable wage thing again. Starter wages are not for grown adults to raise families on. It's for kids (young adults). If you can't get past minimum wage we don't need them to reproduce.

And yet that's not how reality bears out. Places that pay min wage don't limit hiring exclusively to kids. And in our nation's history, it was once quite livable. Was that a mistake, in your opinion?

 

[danielpalos]

a welfare State is specifically enumerated in our Constitution not any form of warfare State.

That's exactly why drugs are illegal. You fried your noodle.

this is why, i never take the right wing seriously about the law and Always argue the point:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Congress shall have Power

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

Both terms, "promote and provide" are specifically enumerated in regard to the general welfare, but not the common defense.

This is why I don't take potheads seriously. Providing for the general welfare for the United States is not the same thing as providing welfare for all the citizens.

Enough Is Enough: Why General Welfare Limits Spending
Hamilton’s broad reading met with opposition from many of the other Founders. James Madison repeatedly argued that the power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by Thomas Jefferson.

All you have, is lousy reading comprehension.

Here are the general social Powers delegated via socialism, by the People, to our federal Congress:

The Congress shall have Power

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; ​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Only the right wing is disingenuous about our Constitution and their Republican Doctrine.

Both terms, "promote and provide" are specifically enumerated in regard to the general welfare, but not the common defense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I addressed every single one of your posts. I wouldn't, nor have I, recommend, that anyone start a family on today's min wage. But it was more feasible in our country's history. And that was without government supports. So, we can't have it both ways. Either everyone survives on livable wages, or the demand for a government safety net subsidizes stagnant wages.

There you go with the livable wage thing again. Starter wages are not for grown adults to raise families on. It's for kids (young adults). If you can't get past minimum wage we don't need them to reproduce.

You forget that large numbers of minimum wage workers are spouses taking a second job in the household to try to make ends meet.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Labor is a not a 'surcharge'. It's a cost of doing business.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I addressed every single one of your posts. I wouldn't, nor have I, recommend, that anyone start a family on today's min wage. But it was more feasible in our country's history. And that was without government supports. So, we can't have it both ways. Either everyone survives on livable wages, or the demand for a government safety net subsidizes stagnant wages.

There you go with the livable wage thing again. Starter wages are not for grown adults to raise families on. It's for kids (young adults). If you can't get past minimum wage we don't need them to reproduce.

You forget that large numbers of minimum wage workers are spouses taking a second job in the household to try to make ends meet.

so they are not depending on a MW wage job to "survive"

 

[Skull Pilot]

Labor is a not a 'surcharge'. It's a cost of doing business.

so are fuel costs but when gas was 2.60 a gallon all my vendors added fuel surcharges to their bills
so this is no different

 

[NYcarbineer]

I addressed every single one of your posts. I wouldn't, nor have I, recommend, that anyone start a family on today's min wage. But it was more feasible in our country's history. And that was without government supports. So, we can't have it both ways. Either everyone survives on livable wages, or the demand for a government safety net subsidizes stagnant wages.

There you go with the livable wage thing again. Starter wages are not for grown adults to raise families on. It's for kids (young adults). If you can't get past minimum wage we don't need them to reproduce.

You forget that large numbers of minimum wage workers are spouses taking a second job in the household to try to make ends meet.

so they are not depending on a MW wage job to "survive"

What part of making ends meet don't you understand?

I get it. You want a large permanent underclass of working poor in this country much like you would see in the Third World, or maybe Mexico, etc.

The question is why do you want that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I addressed every single one of your posts. I wouldn't, nor have I, recommend, that anyone start a family on today's min wage. But it was more feasible in our country's history. And that was without government supports. So, we can't have it both ways. Either everyone survives on livable wages, or the demand for a government safety net subsidizes stagnant wages.

There you go with the livable wage thing again. Starter wages are not for grown adults to raise families on. It's for kids (young adults). If you can't get past minimum wage we don't need them to reproduce.

You forget that large numbers of minimum wage workers are spouses taking a second job in the household to try to make ends meet.

so they are not depending on a MW wage job to "survive"

What part of making ends meet don't you understand?

I get it. You want a large permanent underclass of working poor in this country much like you would see in the Third World, or maybe Mexico, etc.

The question is why do you want that?

Our so called poor people are richer than 70% of the entire world's population and are no worse off here than they are in any other first world country