So Dems; If Hillary Wins...

[Wry Catcher]

What makes it worse is that Obama claims the unemployment rate is down. If more people are working, why are so many more, a 55% higher number than when Bush had the same unemployment rate, receiving them?

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

I'm not a supporter of a Minimum Wage, I think a Living Wage would be better.

The concept of living wage is worse. Minimum wage already involves paying someone more than the skills they offer are worth in many cases. A living wage would pay even more for those low level skills.

So in your perfect world, the 1.00 an hour jobs in the third world would be commonplace in the US.

Con65 has proved to be a racist and a concrete thinker.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

"There are still over 42 million on food stamps."

In 2016 it's surely a disgrace and something to be ashamed about that so many people haven't the ability to feed themselves and their family.

In 2016 there shouldn't have to be food stamps, food banks, soup kitchens etc, that there is, this says that something is fundamentally wrong that so many people are failing in society.

What makes it worse is that Obama claims the unemployment rate is down. If more people are working, why are so many more, a 55% higher number than when Bush had the same unemployment rate, receiving them?

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

I'm not a supporter of a Minimum Wage, I think a Living Wage would be better.

The concept of living wage is worse. Minimum wage already involves paying someone more than the skills they offer are worth in many cases. A living wage would pay even more for those low level skills.

The thing is one has to provide a basic standard of living for a nations citizens, to have X% of the citizens on Minimum Wage and having to claim Food Stamps isn't a good situation.

Minimum Wage + the Food Stamp programme, long term is more expensive than having a Living Wage.

Also a Government's obligation is to ensure a job and a basic standing of living for it's own citizens, immigrants should be at the back of the bus, a Government shouldn't put immigrants in front of their nations own citizen's.

Illegal immigrants should ALL be deported, regardless of the shouting and bedwetting from the SJW crowd and associated groups.

 

[jillian]

Who are you going to blame for your continued personal failures, lack of success, and social injustice overall?
Obama?

you should probably ask yourself that question. we're not the ones complaining, troll boy.

now go back to your moonshine like good little trailer park trash

 

[jillian]

"There are still over 42 million on food stamps."

In 2016 it's surely a disgrace and something to be ashamed about that so many people haven't the ability to feed themselves and their family.

In 2016 there shouldn't have to be food stamps, food banks, soup kitchens etc, that there is, this says that something is fundamentally wrong that so many people are failing in society.

What makes it worse is that Obama claims the unemployment rate is down. If more people are working, why are so many more, a 55% higher number than when Bush had the same unemployment rate, receiving them?

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

I'm not a supporter of a Minimum Wage, I think a Living Wage would be better.

The concept of living wage is worse. Minimum wage already involves paying someone more than the skills they offer are worth in many cases. A living wage would pay even more for those low level skills.

so that's what your bosses have convinced you of, huh?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

What makes it worse is that Obama claims the unemployment rate is down. If more people are working, why are so many more, a 55% higher number than when Bush had the same unemployment rate, receiving them?

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

I'm not a supporter of a Minimum Wage, I think a Living Wage would be better.

The concept of living wage is worse. Minimum wage already involves paying someone more than the skills they offer are worth in many cases. A living wage would pay even more for those low level skills.

So in your perfect world, the 1.00 an hour jobs in the third world would be commonplace in the US.

Nobody in ANY Western nation should be on 1.00 an hour jobs.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So Cons, if Trump wins ....


...well we survived a Reagan Presidency, and a G. W, Bush Presidency (barely).

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

He did all that by himself?

There are still over 42 million on food stamps. Since that occurred during his presidency, are you going to blame him for it?

Did some checking on the numbers. When Bush had an unemployment rate of 4.9%, there were 27 million on food stamps. When Obama has the same rate of 4.9%, there are 42 million on food stamps. What's wrong. The black can't do any better than that?

"There are still over 42 million on food stamps."

In 2016 it's surely a disgrace and something to be ashamed about that so many people haven't the ability to feed themselves and their family.

In 2016 there shouldn't have to be food stamps, food banks, soup kitchens etc, that there is, this says that something is fundamentally wrong that so many people are failing in society.

What makes it worse is that Obama claims the unemployment rate is down. If more people are working, why are so many more, a 55% higher number than when Bush had the same unemployment rate, receiving them?

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

The problem is when people offer shitty skills they expect to be paid more than those skills are worth. The problem is when people offer shitty skills, they blame someone else for their low level skill set.

I propose that if someone offering low level skills is getting paid an equivalent wage to those skills yet they can't make it, you write them a check from your account. I did things to make sure I had the skills necessary to support me and my family. It's not my place to support anyone else because they didn't do the same.

It's a difficult situation, because it's not a good idea in Western nations to throw people onto the scrap heap and just wash your hands of them.

If people have low level skills, they can be helped a bit higher up the skills ladder, with a combination of say college night classes and better skills training programmes, these both would be mandatory.

Some would say well that's going to cost more money, but there's no such thing as a free lunch, everything costs money. In this instance, it's money well spent, if a better workforce is being created.

 

[billyerock1991]

Who are you going to blame for your continued personal failures, lack of success, and social injustice overall?
Obama?

first of all we don't have to blame any den for any failures ... Are we in a great depression ??? NOOOOO ...you can thank us Dem's/liberals ...whats the unemployment numbers are they are 9%, 10%, 11% ??? no the are 4. something% right now ...you can thank a Dem/liberals... the only social injustices were created by you republican ... taking peoples right to vote away by passing unconstitutional laws ... trying to close Plan Parenthood by passing unconstitutional laws ... it seems you republicans like to pass unconstitutional laws why is that ...its like the guy at the DNC convention ...Have you guys read the constitution ??? it amazes how the likes you who hasn't any idea who's ******* whom ...

 

[Conservative65]

What makes it worse is that Obama claims the unemployment rate is down. If more people are working, why are so many more, a 55% higher number than when Bush had the same unemployment rate, receiving them?

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

I'm not a supporter of a Minimum Wage, I think a Living Wage would be better.

The concept of living wage is worse. Minimum wage already involves paying someone more than the skills they offer are worth in many cases. A living wage would pay even more for those low level skills.

So in your perfect world, the 1.00 an hour jobs in the third world would be commonplace in the US.

The only way someone would get paid $1/hour is if the skills they needed to do the job were only worth $1/hour. You don't seem to grasp that if someone has only the ability to make a certain per hour wage and they're getting that, the problem isn't with the one paying but the one offering low level skills.

 

[Conservative65]

"There are still over 42 million on food stamps."

In 2016 it's surely a disgrace and something to be ashamed about that so many people haven't the ability to feed themselves and their family.

In 2016 there shouldn't have to be food stamps, food banks, soup kitchens etc, that there is, this says that something is fundamentally wrong that so many people are failing in society.

Yep, and the cause is conservatism!

How can the cause be Conservatism?

The amount of Americans on food stamps was 27 million when GWB was President.

The amount of Americans on food stamps is now 42 million and you've had Obama as President since 2009. So during the Obama Presidency the number has nearly doubled.

Raw numbers do not tell the entire story ("there are lies, damn lies and statistics). BTW post a link to your numbers.

When it comes to statements like "there are more white people on food stamps than blacks", the raw numbers are the only things you Liberals care about. You choose to ignore proportions.

As for the numbers, should I post something showing the currently unemployment rate or are you going to accept it because Obama said that's what it is? Funny how you want something to back up a claim unless your guy says it.

Here are your numbers:

www.multpl.com/unemployment/table
Compare the 1/1/2006 to 1/1/2016 numbers.

www.fns.usda.gov/site/default/files/pd34SNAPmonthly.pdf

Scroll down to January, 2016. It's actually 44 million.

I'll be waiting on your next excuse.

"There are still over 42 million on food stamps."

In 2016 it's surely a disgrace and something to be ashamed about that so many people haven't the ability to feed themselves and their family.

In 2016 there shouldn't have to be food stamps, food banks, soup kitchens etc, that there is, this says that something is fundamentally wrong that so many people are failing in society.

Yep, and the cause is conservatism!

How can the cause be Conservatism?

The amount of Americans on food stamps was 27 million when GWB was President.

The amount of Americans on food stamps is now 42 million and you've had Obama as President since 2009. So during the Obama Presidency the number has nearly doubled.

Raw numbers do not tell the entire story ("there are lies, damn lies and statistics). BTW post a link to your numbers.

When it comes to statements like "there are more white people on food stamps than blacks", the raw numbers are the only things you Liberals care about. You choose to ignore proportions.

As for the numbers, should I post something showing the currently unemployment rate or are you going to accept it because Obama said that's what it is? Funny how you want something to back up a claim unless your guy says it.

Here are your numbers:

www.multpl.com/unemployment/table
Compare the 1/1/2006 to 1/1/2016 numbers.

www.fns.usda.gov/site/default/files/pd34SNAPmonthly.pdf

Scroll down to January, 2016. It's actually 44 million.

I'll be waiting on your next excuse.

What is your solution?

I've offered the solution. If someone's skills aren't getting the job done financially, that's an opportunity for you to prove you care about them as much as you say. YOU support them personally with your money and stop forcing the rest of us to offset THEIR lack of skills.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Who are you going to blame for your continued personal failures, lack of success, and social injustice overall?
Obama?

I blame you!

Why?

Nominate someone worth voting on the GOP side and Clinton would have not won!

Simple as that, and vote Gary Johnson if you want someone other than Clinton this November!

 

[Conservative65]

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

I'm not a supporter of a Minimum Wage, I think a Living Wage would be better.

The concept of living wage is worse. Minimum wage already involves paying someone more than the skills they offer are worth in many cases. A living wage would pay even more for those low level skills.

So in your perfect world, the 1.00 an hour jobs in the third world would be commonplace in the US.

Con65 has proved to be a racist and a concrete thinker.

While I am able to think on such a high level you wouldn't understand, some things are simple to explain. If you have $2/hour skills, you get paid $2/hour. That's equal. If that isn't enough for you to support yourself, look into the reason why you can only make $2/hour. The problem isn't with someone paying you $2/hour because it's equivalent to your skills. It's with the person offering $2/hour skills.

 

[Conservative65]

What makes it worse is that Obama claims the unemployment rate is down. If more people are working, why are so many more, a 55% higher number than when Bush had the same unemployment rate, receiving them?

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

I'm not a supporter of a Minimum Wage, I think a Living Wage would be better.

The concept of living wage is worse. Minimum wage already involves paying someone more than the skills they offer are worth in many cases. A living wage would pay even more for those low level skills.

The thing is one has to provide a basic standard of living for a nations citizens, to have X% of the citizens on Minimum Wage and having to claim Food Stamps isn't a good situation.

Minimum Wage + the Food Stamp programme, long term is more expensive than having a Living Wage.

Also a Government's obligation is to ensure a job and a basic standing of living for it's own citizens, immigrants should be at the back of the bus, a Government shouldn't put immigrants in front of their nations own citizen's.

Illegal immigrants should ALL be deported, regardless of the shouting and bedwetting from the SJW crowd and associated groups.

It's not the country's responsibility to provide anyone with a basic standard of living. It's the person's responsibility to do that for him/herself.

If what someone offers in the way of skills isn't getting the job done, it's not the place of a business to be forced to pay them more than what they provide in revenue. A business shouldn't have to lose money on that person because the PERSON offers so little.

The country owes you nothing when it comes to a wage. You owe it to yourself to earn that wage. You support things like this then wonder why those with low level skills don't get off their ass and do something to better themselves. They don't have to if you pay them more than they're willing to provide to the one doing the paying.

 

[Conservative65]

What makes it worse is that Obama claims the unemployment rate is down. If more people are working, why are so many more, a 55% higher number than when Bush had the same unemployment rate, receiving them?

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

I'm not a supporter of a Minimum Wage, I think a Living Wage would be better.

The concept of living wage is worse. Minimum wage already involves paying someone more than the skills they offer are worth in many cases. A living wage would pay even more for those low level skills.

so that's what your bosses have convinced you of, huh?

It's what good business sense shows.

Apparently your Liberal handlers have convinced you that someone worth a certain amount should be paid more than that because they breathe.

Liberals are constantly talking about a living wage yet none have shown me they're willing to start a business and pay their employees to a level they want the government to force someone else's business to pay. One stated that he did but when proof was requested, he denied yet still expected the rest of us to believe him.

 

[Conservative65]

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

I'm not a supporter of a Minimum Wage, I think a Living Wage would be better.

The concept of living wage is worse. Minimum wage already involves paying someone more than the skills they offer are worth in many cases. A living wage would pay even more for those low level skills.

So in your perfect world, the 1.00 an hour jobs in the third world would be commonplace in the US.

Nobody in ANY Western nation should be on 1.00 an hour jobs.

If the skills they offer are only worth that, what's the problem with paying them that wage?

 

[Conservative65]

"There are still over 42 million on food stamps."

In 2016 it's surely a disgrace and something to be ashamed about that so many people haven't the ability to feed themselves and their family.

In 2016 there shouldn't have to be food stamps, food banks, soup kitchens etc, that there is, this says that something is fundamentally wrong that so many people are failing in society.

What makes it worse is that Obama claims the unemployment rate is down. If more people are working, why are so many more, a 55% higher number than when Bush had the same unemployment rate, receiving them?

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

The problem is when people offer shitty skills they expect to be paid more than those skills are worth. The problem is when people offer shitty skills, they blame someone else for their low level skill set.

I propose that if someone offering low level skills is getting paid an equivalent wage to those skills yet they can't make it, you write them a check from your account. I did things to make sure I had the skills necessary to support me and my family. It's not my place to support anyone else because they didn't do the same.

It's a difficult situation, because it's not a good idea in Western nations to throw people onto the scrap heap and just wash your hands of them.

If people have low level skills, they can be helped a bit higher up the skills ladder, with a combination of say college night classes and better skills training programmes, these both would be mandatory.

Some would say well that's going to cost more money, but there's no such thing as a free lunch, everything costs money. In this instance, it's money well spent, if a better workforce is being created.

I'm not throwing them in the scrap heap. I've offered a solution. There are plenty of bleeding heart Liberals that claim to care so much for people that don't have (fill in the blank). Let them prove it by providing those people with (fill in the blank) and paying for it with their own money. I earned MY money for ME and MY family not someone that isn't doing what he should do for his.

If they want to pay for those classes or training programs to do so, go for it. Many people with low level skills are in that situation because they have low level education (i.e - less than high school diploma). According to Census Bureau stats for 2015, and their numbers address those over the age of 25, there are 212 million people in the U.S. in that age category. 88.4% are high school graduates or more. That means 11.6%, or slightly greater than 1 in 9, have less than a high school diploma. Median income for less than a high school education according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Dept. of Labor for the same 25 and older group is $493/week gross.

They chose to quit school. Why is it any else's responsibility to offset a choice that person made? The money for them to go to school through the 12th grade was alrday being provided and they chose not to use it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What makes it worse is that Obama claims the unemployment rate is down. If more people are working, why are so many more, a 55% higher number than when Bush had the same unemployment rate, receiving them?

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

The problem is when people offer shitty skills they expect to be paid more than those skills are worth. The problem is when people offer shitty skills, they blame someone else for their low level skill set.

I propose that if someone offering low level skills is getting paid an equivalent wage to those skills yet they can't make it, you write them a check from your account. I did things to make sure I had the skills necessary to support me and my family. It's not my place to support anyone else because they didn't do the same.

It's a difficult situation, because it's not a good idea in Western nations to throw people onto the scrap heap and just wash your hands of them.

If people have low level skills, they can be helped a bit higher up the skills ladder, with a combination of say college night classes and better skills training programmes, these both would be mandatory.

Some would say well that's going to cost more money, but there's no such thing as a free lunch, everything costs money. In this instance, it's money well spent, if a better workforce is being created.

I'm not throwing them in the scrap heap. I've offered a solution. There are plenty of bleeding heart Liberals that claim to care so much for people that don't have (fill in the blank). Let them prove it by providing those people with (fill in the blank) and paying for it with their own money. I earned MY money for ME and MY family not someone that isn't doing what he should do for his.

If they want to pay for those classes or training programs to do so, go for it. Many people with low level skills are in that situation because they have low level education (i.e - less than high school diploma). According to Census Bureau stats for 2015, and their numbers address those over the age of 25, there are 212 million people in the U.S. in that age category. 88.4% are high school graduates or more. That means 11.6%, or slightly greater than 1 in 9, have less than a high school diploma. Median income for less than a high school education according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Dept. of Labor for the same 25 and older group is $493/week gross.

They chose to quit school. Why is it any else's responsibility to offset a choice that person made? The money for them to go to school through the 12th grade was alrday being provided and they chose not to use it.

Reality is so simple for the callous conservative!

 

[EriktheRed]

What makes it worse is that Obama claims the unemployment rate is down. If more people are working, why are so many more, a 55% higher number than when Bush had the same unemployment rate, receiving them?

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

The problem is when people offer shitty skills they expect to be paid more than those skills are worth. The problem is when people offer shitty skills, they blame someone else for their low level skill set.

I propose that if someone offering low level skills is getting paid an equivalent wage to those skills yet they can't make it, you write them a check from your account. I did things to make sure I had the skills necessary to support me and my family. It's not my place to support anyone else because they didn't do the same.

It's a difficult situation, because it's not a good idea in Western nations to throw people onto the scrap heap and just wash your hands of them.

If people have low level skills, they can be helped a bit higher up the skills ladder, with a combination of say college night classes and better skills training programmes, these both would be mandatory.

Some would say well that's going to cost more money, but there's no such thing as a free lunch, everything costs money. In this instance, it's money well spent, if a better workforce is being created.

I'm not throwing them in the scrap heap. I've offered a solution. There are plenty of bleeding heart Liberals that claim to care so much for people that don't have (fill in the blank). Let them prove it by providing those people with (fill in the blank) and paying for it with their own money. I earned MY money for ME and MY family not someone that isn't doing what he should do for his.

If they want to pay for those classes or training programs to do so, go for it. Many people with low level skills are in that situation because they have low level education (i.e - less than high school diploma). According to Census Bureau stats for 2015, and their numbers address those over the age of 25, there are 212 million people in the U.S. in that age category. 88.4% are high school graduates or more. That means 11.6%, or slightly greater than 1 in 9, have less than a high school diploma. Median income for less than a high school education according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Dept. of Labor for the same 25 and older group is $493/week gross.

They chose to quit school. Why is it any else's responsibility to offset a choice that person made? The money for them to go to school through the 12th grade was alrday being provided and they chose not to use it.

 

[Conservative65]

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

The problem is when people offer shitty skills they expect to be paid more than those skills are worth. The problem is when people offer shitty skills, they blame someone else for their low level skill set.

I propose that if someone offering low level skills is getting paid an equivalent wage to those skills yet they can't make it, you write them a check from your account. I did things to make sure I had the skills necessary to support me and my family. It's not my place to support anyone else because they didn't do the same.

It's a difficult situation, because it's not a good idea in Western nations to throw people onto the scrap heap and just wash your hands of them.

If people have low level skills, they can be helped a bit higher up the skills ladder, with a combination of say college night classes and better skills training programmes, these both would be mandatory.

Some would say well that's going to cost more money, but there's no such thing as a free lunch, everything costs money. In this instance, it's money well spent, if a better workforce is being created.

I'm not throwing them in the scrap heap. I've offered a solution. There are plenty of bleeding heart Liberals that claim to care so much for people that don't have (fill in the blank). Let them prove it by providing those people with (fill in the blank) and paying for it with their own money. I earned MY money for ME and MY family not someone that isn't doing what he should do for his.

If they want to pay for those classes or training programs to do so, go for it. Many people with low level skills are in that situation because they have low level education (i.e - less than high school diploma). According to Census Bureau stats for 2015, and their numbers address those over the age of 25, there are 212 million people in the U.S. in that age category. 88.4% are high school graduates or more. That means 11.6%, or slightly greater than 1 in 9, have less than a high school diploma. Median income for less than a high school education according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Dept. of Labor for the same 25 and older group is $493/week gross.

They chose to quit school. Why is it any else's responsibility to offset a choice that person made? The money for them to go to school through the 12th grade was alrday being provided and they chose not to use it.

In the case of someone that quits school then expect another person to offset that choice, damn right. However, it's not I got mine, it's I earned mine by doing what I was supposed to do not quitting. To that person, I say "**** you". Anything else is enabling them to be a leech.

 

[Conservative65]

Possibly because many of those jobs are low paying? If they were paying a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be any need for people to have to get food stamps.

That's part of the problem. What solution do you propose?

The problem is when people offer shitty skills they expect to be paid more than those skills are worth. The problem is when people offer shitty skills, they blame someone else for their low level skill set.

I propose that if someone offering low level skills is getting paid an equivalent wage to those skills yet they can't make it, you write them a check from your account. I did things to make sure I had the skills necessary to support me and my family. It's not my place to support anyone else because they didn't do the same.

It's a difficult situation, because it's not a good idea in Western nations to throw people onto the scrap heap and just wash your hands of them.

If people have low level skills, they can be helped a bit higher up the skills ladder, with a combination of say college night classes and better skills training programmes, these both would be mandatory.

Some would say well that's going to cost more money, but there's no such thing as a free lunch, everything costs money. In this instance, it's money well spent, if a better workforce is being created.

I'm not throwing them in the scrap heap. I've offered a solution. There are plenty of bleeding heart Liberals that claim to care so much for people that don't have (fill in the blank). Let them prove it by providing those people with (fill in the blank) and paying for it with their own money. I earned MY money for ME and MY family not someone that isn't doing what he should do for his.

If they want to pay for those classes or training programs to do so, go for it. Many people with low level skills are in that situation because they have low level education (i.e - less than high school diploma). According to Census Bureau stats for 2015, and their numbers address those over the age of 25, there are 212 million people in the U.S. in that age category. 88.4% are high school graduates or more. That means 11.6%, or slightly greater than 1 in 9, have less than a high school diploma. Median income for less than a high school education according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Dept. of Labor for the same 25 and older group is $493/week gross.

They chose to quit school. Why is it any else's responsibility to offset a choice that person made? The money for them to go to school through the 12th grade was alrday being provided and they chose not to use it.

Reality is so simple for the callous conservative!

Explain what's callous about expecting someone to be responsible for a choice HE/SHE made.

Why is it my place to keep less of what I earned because someone made a choice that results in them not being able to earn much? Why is it my responsibility to offset their bad choice?