Sanders: Universal Healthcare and Free College Aren’t Radical Ideas, They Are ‘Human Rights’

[Redfish]

Yo, Bernie and fellow socialist libs.

It ain't free, someone has to pay for it. Unless you can get college profs to work for no pay, college janitors and administrators to work for no pay, and utility companies to provide free electricity, gas, and water, it isn't free.

You fools talk about Sweden, do you think college is free in Sweden? NO. income is taxed at 50-60% in Sweden. Do you really want to give half of your income to the government so they, and not you, can decide how it should be spent?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The greatest nation on the face of the earth ought to have the healthiest and most well educated populace on the face of the earth. No?

Silly nutters.

Then how do you explain that our Democrat controlled public schools have 80% of students unable to read at grade level?

Cool stat, bro.......where'd ya get it?

I explain it by calling you out for BS. Schools are run locally. Blue states do better than red.....blue counties DESTROY red counties when it comes to quality of education.

The CONSERVATIVE agenda to make higher education something that only wealthy people can afford has damaged this nation. Ya dumb shit.

========
Republicans only believe in Private Schools.

They believe education is only for the children of the Elite and that children of commoners should only go to school until they are 7 or 8 years old and then go to work in the factories like in the good old days of the 1800's.

Actually, having seen the products left-wing schools are churning out, clearly you are the one who believes education is only for the elite, because your free to the poor public schools, keep passing idiots who can't read or write.

Keep the lower class stupid and ignorant, and claim others only want education for the elite. Brilliant.

Gruber did tell us that the Democrat base was stupid and ignorant, so there's a confirmation

 

[Redfish]

That's where my problem is. It's always easy for people like yourself, to claim others shouldn't have employment arrangements that you don't like. And you make up crap like "They can't live off that!", and yet there are people who do. And if a 17 year old girl in high school, wants to say "do you want fries with that?" at a drive through window, who are you to say that's wrong? They most certainly can live off $2,500 a year, when they live at home.

Automation isn't replacing service jobs in 10 years. They started doing that years ago. Down at the Get-N-Go where I work, they used to have a fully staffed grill inside the store. You would go up to a cashier and order your food, and they would get it for you. About a half dozen people.

What is exactly your point ?
The problem with you people is you think macroeconomy is micro multiplied by N and that such things as externalities are non existent entities.

IF a couple of kids decide to work for 2,500 there-is-no problem. BUT ( and this is a big BUT ), if the only choice for 50 million people is to work for $2,500 then you have a very big problem, specially when salaries are decoupled from productivity.

What exactly do you think triggered the Rusian , French and Mexican revolutions ? Great working conditions for the masses?

And who exactly will purchase all those goods and services produced with ultra low wages if no one has the income to purchase them ? huh? Have you ever taken a look at the cyclical model of economy ?

And who in this country has "no choice" but to work for $2,500? Answer... None. Yeah, if we make up magical limitations, ok you have a point. In the real world, such limitations do not exist.

You realize that roughly 75% of all McDonalds store managers, and franchise owners started off as minimum wage hourly workers?

If you stick with a job, and work your way up the ladder, you can easily make far more money.

The people who stay at the bottom, generally are there by choice.

For example, when I worked at Wendy's a lady came in, and told all of us, in front of us, that she was only there to work until she could get back on welfare. On the day she said she qualified for welfare again, she stopped showing up for work.

Now that lady, will be at the lowest income bracket for life, and it's her fault, and she deserves it. She is there by choice, and she *SHOULD* get minimum wage... in fact she should be paid a faction of minimum wage.

And I've known dozens of people just like this. Literally. By the way, that even includes myself. I could be a store manager by now, I simply didn't want to do the work. The reason I earn the wages I earn, is because I made choices to that effect. The difference myself, and all these others here, is that I accept it, while others think they are entitled to more.

There are literally millions of jobs for people who want to earn more money. They simply refuse to work. You can buy a $50 lawn mower, and make $30,000 a year easy, just depending on how much you want to mow.

If it's that easy, why don't more people do it? Quite simply... they don't want to work.

And that is my main point. The people who work for very little, do so with few exceptions, by choice. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can earn more money if they want to.

They don't want to. Well, they might 'want' to, but they don't want to do anything to earn more. They simply want more for doing what little they do.

Millions of jobs?

Then why do we see this?

...hundreds lined up for a few job openings at a Walmart. Happens all the time.

just curious, why is everyone in your picture black? what conclusions do you draw from that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The greatest nation on the face of the earth ought to have the healthiest and most well educated populace on the face of the earth. No?

Silly nutters.

Then how do you explain that our Democrat controlled public schools have 80% of students unable to read at grade level?

Cool stat, bro.......where'd ya get it?

I explain it by calling you out for BS. Schools are run locally. Blue states do better than red.....blue counties DESTROY red counties when it comes to quality of education.

The CONSERVATIVE agenda to make higher education something that only wealthy people can afford has damaged this nation. Ya dumb shit.

I don't know if you're stupid or lying -- maybe both. The Federal Government control public "education" and I've posted several different times that NYC schools are huge fails (aka: democrat voting manufacturing facilities)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Arguably the same reasoning applied to SPM packages which made broke AIG.
So now tell me that lack of transparency worked well for whom ?

Then consider the building codes for California . If there were no building codes , who would profit and who would loss from that ?

Do you know what an externality is and how they relate to information ?

Your first point is simply wrong.
Consumers would profit from lower costs.

WTF? Really did people who bought the toxic assets with SPM made a profit?
You're joking right?

We have already covered this numerous times. The government, through Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, made sub-prime mortgages ligitimate.

You are looking at the effects of government regulations, and then claiming it's the private markets fault.

Before Freddie Mac guaranteed sub prime mortgages, they were a nich market. In fact, no one ever sold SPMs in mortgage backed securities until the government did.

By the way, the government created mortgage backed securities to begin with.

None of this, not one aspect of the 2007 crash, can be traced to anyone other than the government. Without the government involvement, none of this would have happened.

Wrong.

Wrong.

(hey if that is a debate tactic for you, then I can use it too)

Your crackpot ideas have already been comprehensively debunked on this board back when the real estate bubble was a timely topic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's where my problem is. It's always easy for people like yourself, to claim others shouldn't have employment arrangements that you don't like. And you make up crap like "They can't live off that!", and yet there are people who do. And if a 17 year old girl in high school, wants to say "do you want fries with that?" at a drive through window, who are you to say that's wrong? They most certainly can live off $2,500 a year, when they live at home.

Automation isn't replacing service jobs in 10 years. They started doing that years ago. Down at the Get-N-Go where I work, they used to have a fully staffed grill inside the store. You would go up to a cashier and order your food, and they would get it for you. About a half dozen people.

What is exactly your point ?
The problem with you people is you think macroeconomy is micro multiplied by N and that such things as externalities are non existent entities.

IF a couple of kids decide to work for 2,500 there-is-no problem. BUT ( and this is a big BUT ), if the only choice for 50 million people is to work for $2,500 then you have a very big problem, specially when salaries are decoupled from productivity.

What exactly do you think triggered the Rusian , French and Mexican revolutions ? Great working conditions for the masses?

And who exactly will purchase all those goods and services produced with ultra low wages if no one has the income to purchase them ? huh? Have you ever taken a look at the cyclical model of economy ?

And who in this country has "no choice" but to work for $2,500? Answer... None. Yeah, if we make up magical limitations, ok you have a point. In the real world, such limitations do not exist.

You realize that roughly 75% of all McDonalds store managers, and franchise owners started off as minimum wage hourly workers?

If you stick with a job, and work your way up the ladder, you can easily make far more money.

The people who stay at the bottom, generally are there by choice.

For example, when I worked at Wendy's a lady came in, and told all of us, in front of us, that she was only there to work until she could get back on welfare. On the day she said she qualified for welfare again, she stopped showing up for work.

Now that lady, will be at the lowest income bracket for life, and it's her fault, and she deserves it. She is there by choice, and she *SHOULD* get minimum wage... in fact she should be paid a faction of minimum wage.

And I've known dozens of people just like this. Literally. By the way, that even includes myself. I could be a store manager by now, I simply didn't want to do the work. The reason I earn the wages I earn, is because I made choices to that effect. The difference myself, and all these others here, is that I accept it, while others think they are entitled to more.

There are literally millions of jobs for people who want to earn more money. They simply refuse to work. You can buy a $50 lawn mower, and make $30,000 a year easy, just depending on how much you want to mow.

If it's that easy, why don't more people do it? Quite simply... they don't want to work.

And that is my main point. The people who work for very little, do so with few exceptions, by choice. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can earn more money if they want to.

They don't want to. Well, they might 'want' to, but they don't want to do anything to earn more. They simply want more for doing what little they do.

Millions of jobs?

Then why do we see this?

...hundreds lined up for a few job openings at a Walmart. Happens all the time.

just curious, why is everyone in your picture black? what conclusions do you draw from that?

Because contrary to racist rightwing propaganda,

black Americans WANT jobs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's where my problem is. It's always easy for people like yourself, to claim others shouldn't have employment arrangements that you don't like. And you make up crap like "They can't live off that!", and yet there are people who do. And if a 17 year old girl in high school, wants to say "do you want fries with that?" at a drive through window, who are you to say that's wrong? They most certainly can live off $2,500 a year, when they live at home.

Automation isn't replacing service jobs in 10 years. They started doing that years ago. Down at the Get-N-Go where I work, they used to have a fully staffed grill inside the store. You would go up to a cashier and order your food, and they would get it for you. About a half dozen people.

What is exactly your point ?
The problem with you people is you think macroeconomy is micro multiplied by N and that such things as externalities are non existent entities.

IF a couple of kids decide to work for 2,500 there-is-no problem. BUT ( and this is a big BUT ), if the only choice for 50 million people is to work for $2,500 then you have a very big problem, specially when salaries are decoupled from productivity.

What exactly do you think triggered the Rusian , French and Mexican revolutions ? Great working conditions for the masses?

And who exactly will purchase all those goods and services produced with ultra low wages if no one has the income to purchase them ? huh? Have you ever taken a look at the cyclical model of economy ?

And who in this country has "no choice" but to work for $2,500? Answer... None. Yeah, if we make up magical limitations, ok you have a point. In the real world, such limitations do not exist.

You realize that roughly 75% of all McDonalds store managers, and franchise owners started off as minimum wage hourly workers?

If you stick with a job, and work your way up the ladder, you can easily make far more money.

The people who stay at the bottom, generally are there by choice.

For example, when I worked at Wendy's a lady came in, and told all of us, in front of us, that she was only there to work until she could get back on welfare. On the day she said she qualified for welfare again, she stopped showing up for work.

Now that lady, will be at the lowest income bracket for life, and it's her fault, and she deserves it. She is there by choice, and she *SHOULD* get minimum wage... in fact she should be paid a faction of minimum wage.

And I've known dozens of people just like this. Literally. By the way, that even includes myself. I could be a store manager by now, I simply didn't want to do the work. The reason I earn the wages I earn, is because I made choices to that effect. The difference myself, and all these others here, is that I accept it, while others think they are entitled to more.

There are literally millions of jobs for people who want to earn more money. They simply refuse to work. You can buy a $50 lawn mower, and make $30,000 a year easy, just depending on how much you want to mow.

If it's that easy, why don't more people do it? Quite simply... they don't want to work.

And that is my main point. The people who work for very little, do so with few exceptions, by choice. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can earn more money if they want to.

They don't want to. Well, they might 'want' to, but they don't want to do anything to earn more. They simply want more for doing what little they do.

Millions of jobs?

Then why do we see this?

...hundreds lined up for a few job openings at a Walmart. Happens all the time.

Dude, you don't need to wait for walmart. or anyone.

You can start working tomorrow. Grab a mower, and start mowing grass. Grab a shovel, and start doing yard work.

Start tiling floors. The customer will buy the tile, if you have the ability to show up, and put the tile in right.

Walk some dogs. Baby sit some kids. The lady that was across the street from me, had a daycare in her home. That was her one and only source of income. She was single. No Sugar daddy funding her. It was 100% her making money baby sitting kids.

So why are people lined up around the block for a job at walmart? Because walmart is easy. Working for yourself is hard. And when customers get pissed off because you are a jerk, you can't sue them for racial discrimination.

So out of the thousand people lining up for 100 jobs, the other 900 should go mow lawns? That's your big idea?

lol. You fit right in around here amongst the RWnuts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats have dragged Illinois down so it's a de facto bankrupt; we just can't afford anymore Democrat "Free stuff"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-14/illinois-delay-pension-payments-amid-budget-woes

 

[Redfish]

That's where my problem is. It's always easy for people like yourself, to claim others shouldn't have employment arrangements that you don't like. And you make up crap like "They can't live off that!", and yet there are people who do. And if a 17 year old girl in high school, wants to say "do you want fries with that?" at a drive through window, who are you to say that's wrong? They most certainly can live off $2,500 a year, when they live at home.

Automation isn't replacing service jobs in 10 years. They started doing that years ago. Down at the Get-N-Go where I work, they used to have a fully staffed grill inside the store. You would go up to a cashier and order your food, and they would get it for you. About a half dozen people.

What is exactly your point ?
The problem with you people is you think macroeconomy is micro multiplied by N and that such things as externalities are non existent entities.

IF a couple of kids decide to work for 2,500 there-is-no problem. BUT ( and this is a big BUT ), if the only choice for 50 million people is to work for $2,500 then you have a very big problem, specially when salaries are decoupled from productivity.

What exactly do you think triggered the Rusian , French and Mexican revolutions ? Great working conditions for the masses?

And who exactly will purchase all those goods and services produced with ultra low wages if no one has the income to purchase them ? huh? Have you ever taken a look at the cyclical model of economy ?

And who in this country has "no choice" but to work for $2,500? Answer... None. Yeah, if we make up magical limitations, ok you have a point. In the real world, such limitations do not exist.

You realize that roughly 75% of all McDonalds store managers, and franchise owners started off as minimum wage hourly workers?

If you stick with a job, and work your way up the ladder, you can easily make far more money.

The people who stay at the bottom, generally are there by choice.

For example, when I worked at Wendy's a lady came in, and told all of us, in front of us, that she was only there to work until she could get back on welfare. On the day she said she qualified for welfare again, she stopped showing up for work.

Now that lady, will be at the lowest income bracket for life, and it's her fault, and she deserves it. She is there by choice, and she *SHOULD* get minimum wage... in fact she should be paid a faction of minimum wage.

And I've known dozens of people just like this. Literally. By the way, that even includes myself. I could be a store manager by now, I simply didn't want to do the work. The reason I earn the wages I earn, is because I made choices to that effect. The difference myself, and all these others here, is that I accept it, while others think they are entitled to more.

There are literally millions of jobs for people who want to earn more money. They simply refuse to work. You can buy a $50 lawn mower, and make $30,000 a year easy, just depending on how much you want to mow.

If it's that easy, why don't more people do it? Quite simply... they don't want to work.

And that is my main point. The people who work for very little, do so with few exceptions, by choice. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can earn more money if they want to.

They don't want to. Well, they might 'want' to, but they don't want to do anything to earn more. They simply want more for doing what little they do.

Millions of jobs?

Then why do we see this?

...hundreds lined up for a few job openings at a Walmart. Happens all the time.

just curious, why is everyone in your picture black? what conclusions do you draw from that?

Because contrary to racist rightwing propaganda,

black Americans WANT jobs.

Oh, so thats what you conclude from this? How about: because of our shitty public education system, the only jobs that inner city blacks are qualified to hold are those that require very little education. Its not a racial issue, its an educational and cultural issue. Years of liberal policies have destroyed our educational system and the victims are primarily blacks and poor whites.

Making people slaves to the government has destroyed the black family unit (and poor white families as well).

Liberalism is the cause, plain and simple

 

[Redfish]

That's where my problem is. It's always easy for people like yourself, to claim others shouldn't have employment arrangements that you don't like. And you make up crap like "They can't live off that!", and yet there are people who do. And if a 17 year old girl in high school, wants to say "do you want fries with that?" at a drive through window, who are you to say that's wrong? They most certainly can live off $2,500 a year, when they live at home.

Automation isn't replacing service jobs in 10 years. They started doing that years ago. Down at the Get-N-Go where I work, they used to have a fully staffed grill inside the store. You would go up to a cashier and order your food, and they would get it for you. About a half dozen people.

What is exactly your point ?
The problem with you people is you think macroeconomy is micro multiplied by N and that such things as externalities are non existent entities.

IF a couple of kids decide to work for 2,500 there-is-no problem. BUT ( and this is a big BUT ), if the only choice for 50 million people is to work for $2,500 then you have a very big problem, specially when salaries are decoupled from productivity.

What exactly do you think triggered the Rusian , French and Mexican revolutions ? Great working conditions for the masses?

And who exactly will purchase all those goods and services produced with ultra low wages if no one has the income to purchase them ? huh? Have you ever taken a look at the cyclical model of economy ?

And who in this country has "no choice" but to work for $2,500? Answer... None. Yeah, if we make up magical limitations, ok you have a point. In the real world, such limitations do not exist.

You realize that roughly 75% of all McDonalds store managers, and franchise owners started off as minimum wage hourly workers?

If you stick with a job, and work your way up the ladder, you can easily make far more money.

The people who stay at the bottom, generally are there by choice.

For example, when I worked at Wendy's a lady came in, and told all of us, in front of us, that she was only there to work until she could get back on welfare. On the day she said she qualified for welfare again, she stopped showing up for work.

Now that lady, will be at the lowest income bracket for life, and it's her fault, and she deserves it. She is there by choice, and she *SHOULD* get minimum wage... in fact she should be paid a faction of minimum wage.

And I've known dozens of people just like this. Literally. By the way, that even includes myself. I could be a store manager by now, I simply didn't want to do the work. The reason I earn the wages I earn, is because I made choices to that effect. The difference myself, and all these others here, is that I accept it, while others think they are entitled to more.

There are literally millions of jobs for people who want to earn more money. They simply refuse to work. You can buy a $50 lawn mower, and make $30,000 a year easy, just depending on how much you want to mow.

If it's that easy, why don't more people do it? Quite simply... they don't want to work.

And that is my main point. The people who work for very little, do so with few exceptions, by choice. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can earn more money if they want to.

They don't want to. Well, they might 'want' to, but they don't want to do anything to earn more. They simply want more for doing what little they do.

Millions of jobs?

Then why do we see this?

...hundreds lined up for a few job openings at a Walmart. Happens all the time.

Dude, you don't need to wait for walmart. or anyone.

You can start working tomorrow. Grab a mower, and start mowing grass. Grab a shovel, and start doing yard work.

Start tiling floors. The customer will buy the tile, if you have the ability to show up, and put the tile in right.

Walk some dogs. Baby sit some kids. The lady that was across the street from me, had a daycare in her home. That was her one and only source of income. She was single. No Sugar daddy funding her. It was 100% her making money baby sitting kids.

So why are people lined up around the block for a job at walmart? Because walmart is easy. Working for yourself is hard. And when customers get pissed off because you are a jerk, you can't sue them for racial discrimination.

So out of the thousand people lining up for 100 jobs, the other 900 should go mow lawns? That's your big idea?

lol. You fit right in around here amongst the RWnuts.

what would you have the other 900 do? sit on their asses and collect welfare?

 

[Andylusion]

Your first point is simply wrong.
Consumers would profit from lower costs.

WTF? Really did people who bought the toxic assets with SPM made a profit?
You're joking right?

We have already covered this numerous times. The government, through Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, made sub-prime mortgages ligitimate.

You are looking at the effects of government regulations, and then claiming it's the private markets fault.

Before Freddie Mac guaranteed sub prime mortgages, they were a nich market. In fact, no one ever sold SPMs in mortgage backed securities until the government did.

By the way, the government created mortgage backed securities to begin with.

None of this, not one aspect of the 2007 crash, can be traced to anyone other than the government. Without the government involvement, none of this would have happened.

Wrong.

Wrong.

(hey if that is a debate tactic for you, then I can use it too)

Your crackpot ideas have already been comprehensively debunked on this board back when the real estate bubble was a timely topic.

Your ignorant claims have already been comprehensively debunked on this board constantly, from the start of the crash, till now.

 

[Andylusion]

That's where my problem is. It's always easy for people like yourself, to claim others shouldn't have employment arrangements that you don't like. And you make up crap like "They can't live off that!", and yet there are people who do. And if a 17 year old girl in high school, wants to say "do you want fries with that?" at a drive through window, who are you to say that's wrong? They most certainly can live off $2,500 a year, when they live at home.

Automation isn't replacing service jobs in 10 years. They started doing that years ago. Down at the Get-N-Go where I work, they used to have a fully staffed grill inside the store. You would go up to a cashier and order your food, and they would get it for you. About a half dozen people.

What is exactly your point ?
The problem with you people is you think macroeconomy is micro multiplied by N and that such things as externalities are non existent entities.

IF a couple of kids decide to work for 2,500 there-is-no problem. BUT ( and this is a big BUT ), if the only choice for 50 million people is to work for $2,500 then you have a very big problem, specially when salaries are decoupled from productivity.

What exactly do you think triggered the Rusian , French and Mexican revolutions ? Great working conditions for the masses?

And who exactly will purchase all those goods and services produced with ultra low wages if no one has the income to purchase them ? huh? Have you ever taken a look at the cyclical model of economy ?

And who in this country has "no choice" but to work for $2,500? Answer... None. Yeah, if we make up magical limitations, ok you have a point. In the real world, such limitations do not exist.

You realize that roughly 75% of all McDonalds store managers, and franchise owners started off as minimum wage hourly workers?

If you stick with a job, and work your way up the ladder, you can easily make far more money.

The people who stay at the bottom, generally are there by choice.

For example, when I worked at Wendy's a lady came in, and told all of us, in front of us, that she was only there to work until she could get back on welfare. On the day she said she qualified for welfare again, she stopped showing up for work.

Now that lady, will be at the lowest income bracket for life, and it's her fault, and she deserves it. She is there by choice, and she *SHOULD* get minimum wage... in fact she should be paid a faction of minimum wage.

And I've known dozens of people just like this. Literally. By the way, that even includes myself. I could be a store manager by now, I simply didn't want to do the work. The reason I earn the wages I earn, is because I made choices to that effect. The difference myself, and all these others here, is that I accept it, while others think they are entitled to more.

There are literally millions of jobs for people who want to earn more money. They simply refuse to work. You can buy a $50 lawn mower, and make $30,000 a year easy, just depending on how much you want to mow.

If it's that easy, why don't more people do it? Quite simply... they don't want to work.

And that is my main point. The people who work for very little, do so with few exceptions, by choice. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can earn more money if they want to.

They don't want to. Well, they might 'want' to, but they don't want to do anything to earn more. They simply want more for doing what little they do.

Millions of jobs?

Then why do we see this?

...hundreds lined up for a few job openings at a Walmart. Happens all the time.

Dude, you don't need to wait for walmart. or anyone.

You can start working tomorrow. Grab a mower, and start mowing grass. Grab a shovel, and start doing yard work.

Start tiling floors. The customer will buy the tile, if you have the ability to show up, and put the tile in right.

Walk some dogs. Baby sit some kids. The lady that was across the street from me, had a daycare in her home. That was her one and only source of income. She was single. No Sugar daddy funding her. It was 100% her making money baby sitting kids.

So why are people lined up around the block for a job at walmart? Because walmart is easy. Working for yourself is hard. And when customers get pissed off because you are a jerk, you can't sue them for racial discrimination.

So out of the thousand people lining up for 100 jobs, the other 900 should go mow lawns? That's your big idea?

lol. You fit right in around here amongst the RWnuts.

I listed several possibilities, of hundreds. Even thousands.

The fact you laugh at that, is proof of exactly what I just said is true.

 

[Jarhead]

That's where my problem is. It's always easy for people like yourself, to claim others shouldn't have employment arrangements that you don't like. And you make up crap like "They can't live off that!", and yet there are people who do. And if a 17 year old girl in high school, wants to say "do you want fries with that?" at a drive through window, who are you to say that's wrong? They most certainly can live off $2,500 a year, when they live at home.

Automation isn't replacing service jobs in 10 years. They started doing that years ago. Down at the Get-N-Go where I work, they used to have a fully staffed grill inside the store. You would go up to a cashier and order your food, and they would get it for you. About a half dozen people.

What is exactly your point ?
The problem with you people is you think macroeconomy is micro multiplied by N and that such things as externalities are non existent entities.

IF a couple of kids decide to work for 2,500 there-is-no problem. BUT ( and this is a big BUT ), if the only choice for 50 million people is to work for $2,500 then you have a very big problem, specially when salaries are decoupled from productivity.

What exactly do you think triggered the Rusian , French and Mexican revolutions ? Great working conditions for the masses?

And who exactly will purchase all those goods and services produced with ultra low wages if no one has the income to purchase them ? huh? Have you ever taken a look at the cyclical model of economy ?

And who in this country has "no choice" but to work for $2,500? Answer... None. Yeah, if we make up magical limitations, ok you have a point. In the real world, such limitations do not exist.

You realize that roughly 75% of all McDonalds store managers, and franchise owners started off as minimum wage hourly workers?

If you stick with a job, and work your way up the ladder, you can easily make far more money.

The people who stay at the bottom, generally are there by choice.

For example, when I worked at Wendy's a lady came in, and told all of us, in front of us, that she was only there to work until she could get back on welfare. On the day she said she qualified for welfare again, she stopped showing up for work.

Now that lady, will be at the lowest income bracket for life, and it's her fault, and she deserves it. She is there by choice, and she *SHOULD* get minimum wage... in fact she should be paid a faction of minimum wage.

And I've known dozens of people just like this. Literally. By the way, that even includes myself. I could be a store manager by now, I simply didn't want to do the work. The reason I earn the wages I earn, is because I made choices to that effect. The difference myself, and all these others here, is that I accept it, while others think they are entitled to more.

There are literally millions of jobs for people who want to earn more money. They simply refuse to work. You can buy a $50 lawn mower, and make $30,000 a year easy, just depending on how much you want to mow.

If it's that easy, why don't more people do it? Quite simply... they don't want to work.

And that is my main point. The people who work for very little, do so with few exceptions, by choice. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can earn more money if they want to.

They don't want to. Well, they might 'want' to, but they don't want to do anything to earn more. They simply want more for doing what little they do.

Millions of jobs?

Then why do we see this?

...hundreds lined up for a few job openings at a Walmart. Happens all the time.

Dude, you don't need to wait for walmart. or anyone.

You can start working tomorrow. Grab a mower, and start mowing grass. Grab a shovel, and start doing yard work.

Start tiling floors. The customer will buy the tile, if you have the ability to show up, and put the tile in right.

Walk some dogs. Baby sit some kids. The lady that was across the street from me, had a daycare in her home. That was her one and only source of income. She was single. No Sugar daddy funding her. It was 100% her making money baby sitting kids.

So why are people lined up around the block for a job at walmart? Because walmart is easy. Working for yourself is hard. And when customers get pissed off because you are a jerk, you can't sue them for racial discrimination.

So out of the thousand people lining up for 100 jobs, the other 900 should go mow lawns? That's your big idea?

lol. You fit right in around here amongst the RWnuts.

and what's wrong with doing what you gotta do so you can feed your family? I know a former wall street guy that is now a security guy at a department store. I know a former food broker that is now selling tiles at the Home Depot.
If I needed to mow lawns to feed my family, I would. Heck, at one point in my life I was bagging groceries as a night job so I could save money to open my own company.

Or we could do it your way....blame others, complain about long lines for a job and collect from the government.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Actually, having seen the products left-wing schools are churning out, clearly you are the one who believes education is only for the elite, because your free to the poor public schools, keep passing idiots who can't read or write.

Keep the lower class stupid and ignorant, and claim others only want education for the elite. Brilliant.

========

It is REPUBLICANS / CONSERVATIVES who keep cutting budgets for public education. And that has led the the current poor job the schools are doing.

Republicans want all schools to be Charter Schools so someone can make a profit.

Republicans favorite tactic is to cut the budget of agencies and then, when the agency does a poor job, they scream " see we told you government can't do anything right " while ignoring the fact they cut their budget so they didn't have enough money to do the job right. And then they demand to PRIVATIZE the schools and turn them into Charter Schools with taxpayer money going to the owners.

 

[Jarhead]

Actually, having seen the products left-wing schools are churning out, clearly you are the one who believes education is only for the elite, because your free to the poor public schools, keep passing idiots who can't read or write.

Keep the lower class stupid and ignorant, and claim others only want education for the elite. Brilliant.

========

It is REPUBLICANS / CONSERVATIVES who keep cutting budgets for public education. And that has led the the current poor job the schools are doing.

Republicans want all schools to be Charter Schools so someone can make a profit.

Republicans favorite tactic is to cut the budget of agencies and then, when the agency does a poor job, they scream " see we told you government can't do anything right " while ignoring the fact they cut their budget so they didn't have enough money to do the job right. And then they demand to PRIVATIZE the schools and turn them into Charter Schools with taxpayer money going to the owners.

Excuse me....you are way off base.
Conservatives, such as myself believe that areas such as education are the responsibility of the local governments, not the federal government. When the federal government gets involved, there is nothing that takes into consideration items such as demographics and therefore much ends up being wasted....so conservatives want the federal government to stay out of it.

It is obvious you are not at all aware as to why conservatives think as they do. They believe in states rights and minimal federal government intervention.

Get with the program before posting. Some of your posts show how naïve you are and are making you look a bit silly.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, having seen the products left-wing schools are churning out, clearly you are the one who believes education is only for the elite, because your free to the poor public schools, keep passing idiots who can't read or write.

Keep the lower class stupid and ignorant, and claim others only want education for the elite. Brilliant.

========

It is REPUBLICANS / CONSERVATIVES who keep cutting budgets for public education. And that has led the the current poor job the schools are doing.

Republicans want all schools to be Charter Schools so someone can make a profit.

Republicans favorite tactic is to cut the budget of agencies and then, when the agency does a poor job, they scream " see we told you government can't do anything right " while ignoring the fact they cut their budget so they didn't have enough money to do the job right. And then they demand to PRIVATIZE the schools and turn them into Charter Schools with taxpayer money going to the owners.

Please show anyplace where education budgets have been cut.
There are none. There is more money going to education now than ever before.
It isnt that you dont know anything. Its that what you know isnt true.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually, having seen the products left-wing schools are churning out, clearly you are the one who believes education is only for the elite, because your free to the poor public schools, keep passing idiots who can't read or write.

Keep the lower class stupid and ignorant, and claim others only want education for the elite. Brilliant.

========

It is REPUBLICANS / CONSERVATIVES who keep cutting budgets for public education. And that has led the the current poor job the schools are doing.

Republicans want all schools to be Charter Schools so someone can make a profit.

Republicans favorite tactic is to cut the budget of agencies and then, when the agency does a poor job, they scream " see we told you government can't do anything right " while ignoring the fact they cut their budget so they didn't have enough money to do the job right. And then they demand to PRIVATIZE the schools and turn them into Charter Schools with taxpayer money going to the owners.

Dude, we spend more than almost any other country on the face of this planet, on education, and our students come out dumber and more ignorant than ever before.

There is absolutely no connection between spending more money, and ending up with smarter kids.

If anything, there is a connection between spending more, and ending up with stupid kids.

Even in my local area, out of three schools, Columbus Ohio Public schools, Upper Arlington Public schools, and Columbus Academy Private school.

Columbus Public spends the most money per student, and ends up with the lowest test scores.

Upper Arlington (upper middle class sub) Public school, spent less, and had better results.

The Columbus Academy Elite Private school, spent the least amount of money per student, by a large margin..... least amount of money per student.... and had the highest test scores in the entire Columbus Metro area.

Least amount of money spent, highest educational outcome.

Columbus Public, MOST amount of money spent, and LEAST educational outcome.

You moronic fools on the left, with your "so and so is cutting the education budget" is crap. We spend more money on students than any private, or even other international school systems, and our education sucks. Cut the crap. Get a clue. You don't know what you are talking about. The facts are not on you side.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually, having seen the products left-wing schools are churning out, clearly you are the one who believes education is only for the elite, because your free to the poor public schools, keep passing idiots who can't read or write.

Keep the lower class stupid and ignorant, and claim others only want education for the elite. Brilliant.

========

It is REPUBLICANS / CONSERVATIVES who keep cutting budgets for public education. And that has led the the current poor job the schools are doing.

Republicans want all schools to be Charter Schools so someone can make a profit.

Republicans favorite tactic is to cut the budget of agencies and then, when the agency does a poor job, they scream " see we told you government can't do anything right " while ignoring the fact they cut their budget so they didn't have enough money to do the job right. And then they demand to PRIVATIZE the schools and turn them into Charter Schools with taxpayer money going to the owners.

Please show anyplace where education budgets have been cut.
There are none. There is more money going to education now than ever before.
It isnt that you dont know anything. Its that what you know isnt true.

You are 100% correct. It's ridiculous. The public schools here where I live, just spent millions buying every student a tablet computer.

Now information just came out that research shows students with computers do not do any better than students without. What a shock. Students use their tablet to play games. Shocking. Shockingly shocking. I'm shocked. Aren't you shocked? Isn't everyone shocked?

Idiots. Blow millions on crap that doesn't improve education at all, and then complain the reason students are dumb, is because we are not spending enough. Morons.

 

[Arizona Willie]

You moronic fools on the left, with your "so and so is cutting the education budget" is crap. We spend more money on students than any private, or even other international school systems, and our education sucks. Cut the crap. Get a clue. You don't know what you are talking about. The facts are not on you side.

========
Arizona REPUBLICANS did cut the budget for public education year after year until the Courts ORDERED them to restore funding and they REFUSED AND DEFY THE COURT.

They are back in court again over it.

One of the States back East ... possibly New Hampshire ... spends the most per pupil and has the highest graduation rate in the country.

Arizona is now tied with Mississippi for spending the least and having the LOWEST percentage of high school graduates.

QUIT LISTENING TO FOX NEWS ... it has been proven that Fox supporters are dumber on the issues than people who watch no news at all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is exactly your point ?
The problem with you people is you think macroeconomy is micro multiplied by N and that such things as externalities are non existent entities.

IF a couple of kids decide to work for 2,500 there-is-no problem. BUT ( and this is a big BUT ), if the only choice for 50 million people is to work for $2,500 then you have a very big problem, specially when salaries are decoupled from productivity.

What exactly do you think triggered the Rusian , French and Mexican revolutions ? Great working conditions for the masses?

And who exactly will purchase all those goods and services produced with ultra low wages if no one has the income to purchase them ? huh? Have you ever taken a look at the cyclical model of economy ?

And who in this country has "no choice" but to work for $2,500? Answer... None. Yeah, if we make up magical limitations, ok you have a point. In the real world, such limitations do not exist.

You realize that roughly 75% of all McDonalds store managers, and franchise owners started off as minimum wage hourly workers?

If you stick with a job, and work your way up the ladder, you can easily make far more money.

The people who stay at the bottom, generally are there by choice.

For example, when I worked at Wendy's a lady came in, and told all of us, in front of us, that she was only there to work until she could get back on welfare. On the day she said she qualified for welfare again, she stopped showing up for work.

Now that lady, will be at the lowest income bracket for life, and it's her fault, and she deserves it. She is there by choice, and she *SHOULD* get minimum wage... in fact she should be paid a faction of minimum wage.

And I've known dozens of people just like this. Literally. By the way, that even includes myself. I could be a store manager by now, I simply didn't want to do the work. The reason I earn the wages I earn, is because I made choices to that effect. The difference myself, and all these others here, is that I accept it, while others think they are entitled to more.

There are literally millions of jobs for people who want to earn more money. They simply refuse to work. You can buy a $50 lawn mower, and make $30,000 a year easy, just depending on how much you want to mow.

If it's that easy, why don't more people do it? Quite simply... they don't want to work.

And that is my main point. The people who work for very little, do so with few exceptions, by choice. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can earn more money if they want to.

They don't want to. Well, they might 'want' to, but they don't want to do anything to earn more. They simply want more for doing what little they do.

Millions of jobs?

Then why do we see this?

...hundreds lined up for a few job openings at a Walmart. Happens all the time.

Dude, you don't need to wait for walmart. or anyone.

You can start working tomorrow. Grab a mower, and start mowing grass. Grab a shovel, and start doing yard work.

Start tiling floors. The customer will buy the tile, if you have the ability to show up, and put the tile in right.

Walk some dogs. Baby sit some kids. The lady that was across the street from me, had a daycare in her home. That was her one and only source of income. She was single. No Sugar daddy funding her. It was 100% her making money baby sitting kids.

So why are people lined up around the block for a job at walmart? Because walmart is easy. Working for yourself is hard. And when customers get pissed off because you are a jerk, you can't sue them for racial discrimination.

So out of the thousand people lining up for 100 jobs, the other 900 should go mow lawns? That's your big idea?

lol. You fit right in around here amongst the RWnuts.

and what's wrong with doing what you gotta do so you can feed your family? I know a former wall street guy that is now a security guy at a department store. I know a former food broker that is now selling tiles at the Home Depot.
If I needed to mow lawns to feed my family, I would. Heck, at one point in my life I was bagging groceries as a night job so I could save money to open my own company.

Or we could do it your way....blame others, complain about long lines for a job and collect from the government.

lol, so now you're attacking the people who line up for jobs?

Is that because there are so many blacks in that picture? Of course it is.