The republican solution to poverty doesn’t make any sense

[Billy000]

There is always going to be poverty and poor people that is the reality of the world we live in and it's not something politicans and government can fix. LBJ declared war on poverty in 1964 and despite the huge amount of money spent on anti-poverty programs over the years the impact has been minimal. I don't have a solution to the problem and after 50 plus years no politican Democrat or Republican has come up with one either.

There will always be poverty, but our poverty rate is much higher than other developed nations. The income disparity is the widest in the world.

That may be true depending on what you consider poverty. For instance, our poor live in larger homes with more amenities than your average working European. Our poor have big screen televisions, free healthcare that many working can't get, homes in the suburbs, free food, and even a free cell phone with 250 anytime/ anywhere minutes.

First of all, why do you assume poor people in Western Europe don’t have big screen TVs? Second of all, a TV is a one time expense. God forbid poor people entertain themselves!

And it’s funny you say free healthcare because most developed nations have free healthcare for ALL of their citizens and pay way less for it per capita than we do.

Also, not everyone in poverty qualifies for food stamps. If you have a household with a single person living in it, those people rarely qualify. Most food stamps participants are children, the elderly, and the disabled.

 

[Avatar4321]

You seriously don't understand how hard work, sacrifice, personal responsibility, and thrift will end poverty?

How do you think people create wealth?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

All that bribery money ya took from the Iranians I bet could help a few people

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

If he didn't pay his taxes, he would have been hauled away by the IRS to a tax court. Quit listening to PeeNN. They are FOS in most everything they report.

You think he pays teams of lawyers for nothing?? Every underhanded deal they know and use Why hasn't he shown all but one?? Doesn't stink to high heaven?? You can really trust him?

The reasons is he's not a professional politician. Pro politicians make sure their returns are made for public consumption many years ahead of time. IOW, Trump probably paid less in taxes than pro politicians, but not much different than anybody in his field of work which is business.

Lawyers or not, he paid his legally obligated amount of taxes.

 

[Billy000]

3) Why would anyone suggest $100 wage? What you aren’t getting is that the rise in inflation depends on how high the wage is raised. For instance, if you raised the federal minimum wage to $10 (thus raising state min wages as a result), prices would go up pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile, these people would be making a couple hundred more each month. That’s more money going into the economy. Capitalism 101.

That depends on the item.

If minimum wage were raised to 10 bucks an hour, it wouldn't solve poverty for one. Two, it would only raise burger prices a few cents because McDonald's restaurants sell 1,000 burgers a day, 700 fries a day, 1,200 soft drinks a day. But George's hardware store doesn't sell 1000 hammers a day. The price of George's items would have to go up much higher.

You’re ignoring basic mathematics here. For one thing, the economy did fine each time the minimum wage has been raised both federally and for individual states. It’s stupid to assume raising the minimum wage of any amount would skyrocket prices.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is always going to be poverty and poor people that is the reality of the world we live in and it's not something politicans and government can fix. LBJ declared war on poverty in 1964 and despite the huge amount of money spent on anti-poverty programs over the years the impact has been minimal. I don't have a solution to the problem and after 50 plus years no politican Democrat or Republican has come up with one either.

There will always be poverty, but our poverty rate is much higher than other developed nations. The income disparity is the widest in the world.

That may be true depending on what you consider poverty. For instance, our poor live in larger homes with more amenities than your average working European. Our poor have big screen televisions, free healthcare that many working can't get, homes in the suburbs, free food, and even a free cell phone with 250 anytime/ anywhere minutes.

First of all, why do you assume poor people in Western Europe don’t have big screen TVs? Second of all, a TV is a one time expense. God forbid poor people entertain themselves!

And it’s funny you say free healthcare because most developed nations have free healthcare for ALL of their citizens and pay way less for it per capita than we do.

Also, not everyone in poverty qualifies for food stamps. If you have a household with a single person living in it, those people rarely qualify. Most food stamps participants are children, the elderly, and the disabled.

I didn't say anything about poor people in Europe. What I said is that working Europeans live less of comfortable life than our poor.

People in poverty here (on average) have several television sets, AC, microwave ovens and a car. That's what we consider poverty in the US.

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn | Breitbart

https://nypost.com/2013/08/19/when-welfare-pays-better-than-work/

 

[Papageorgio]

There is always going to be poverty and poor people that is the reality of the world we live in and it's not something politicans and government can fix. LBJ declared war on poverty in 1964 and despite the huge amount of money spent on anti-poverty programs over the years the impact has been minimal. I don't have a solution to the problem and after 50 plus years no politican Democrat or Republican has come up with one either.

There will always be poverty, but our poverty rate is much higher than other developed nations. The income disparity is the widest in the world.

We have a lower poverty rate than Japan, Germany, 1/10th of one percent higher than Great Britain. Where do you get your stats?

 

[edward37]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

All that bribery money ya took from the Iranians I bet could help a few people

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

If he didn't pay his taxes, he would have been hauled away by the IRS to a tax court. Quit listening to PeeNN. They are FOS in most everything they report.

You think he pays teams of lawyers for nothing?? Every underhanded deal they know and use Why hasn't he shown all but one?? Doesn't stink to high heaven?? You can really trust him?

The reasons is he's not a professional politician. Pro politicians make sure their returns are made for public consumption many years ahead of time. IOW, Trump probably paid less in taxes than pro politicians, but not much different than anybody in his field of work which is business.

Lawyers or not, he paid his legally obligated amount of taxes.

and his tax returns wouldn't show cash moving around ,trying to hide from the ira ? money sleeps and then wakes up follow the money

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

3) Why would anyone suggest $100 wage? What you aren’t getting is that the rise in inflation depends on how high the wage is raised. For instance, if you raised the federal minimum wage to $10 (thus raising state min wages as a result), prices would go up pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile, these people would be making a couple hundred more each month. That’s more money going into the economy. Capitalism 101.

That depends on the item.

If minimum wage were raised to 10 bucks an hour, it wouldn't solve poverty for one. Two, it would only raise burger prices a few cents because McDonald's restaurants sell 1,000 burgers a day, 700 fries a day, 1,200 soft drinks a day. But George's hardware store doesn't sell 1000 hammers a day. The price of George's items would have to go up much higher.

You’re ignoring basic mathematics here. For one thing, the economy did fine each time the minimum wage has been raised both federally and for individual states. It’s stupid to assume raising the minimum wage of any amount would skyrocket prices.

I never said skyrocketing prices. But it will have an effect.

What you have to understand about business is that wage increases are only the beginning of the cost to the employer. When an employer gives an employee a dollar an hour wage increase, it costs the employer much more.

For instance an employer has to match your SS and Medicare contributions. Making more money means you will be contributing more, and thus so does your employer.

Vacations and holidays are where your employer pays you for not working. The more your pay while working, the more he or she has to pay you for not working during those periods.

Workman's compensation and Unemployment insurance go up for an employer too. That's because if you make a claim on either, insurances have to pay you more than before, so they increase their coverage costs.

So that's one dollar an hour. Imagine the huge increases in other costs of you raise it 3,4, or 5 dollars an hour.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All that bribery money ya took from the Iranians I bet could help a few people

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

If he didn't pay his taxes, he would have been hauled away by the IRS to a tax court. Quit listening to PeeNN. They are FOS in most everything they report.

You think he pays teams of lawyers for nothing?? Every underhanded deal they know and use Why hasn't he shown all but one?? Doesn't stink to high heaven?? You can really trust him?

The reasons is he's not a professional politician. Pro politicians make sure their returns are made for public consumption many years ahead of time. IOW, Trump probably paid less in taxes than pro politicians, but not much different than anybody in his field of work which is business.

Lawyers or not, he paid his legally obligated amount of taxes.

and his tax returns wouldn't show cash moving around ,trying to hide from the ira ? money sleeps and then wakes up follow the money

So is he any different than any other business or business person?

 

[BrokeLoser]

There is always going to be poverty and poor people that is the reality of the world we live in and it's not something politicans and government can fix. LBJ declared war on poverty in 1964 and despite the huge amount of money spent on anti-poverty programs over the years the impact has been minimal. I don't have a solution to the problem and after 50 plus years no politican Democrat or Republican has come up with one either.

There will always be poverty, but our poverty rate is much higher than other developed nations. The income disparity is the widest in the world.

That may be true depending on what you consider poverty. For instance, our poor live in larger homes with more amenities than your average working European. Our poor have big screen televisions, free healthcare that many working can't get, homes in the suburbs, free food, and even a free cell phone with 250 anytime/ anywhere minutes.

First of all, why do you assume poor people in Western Europe don’t have big screen TVs? Second of all, a TV is a one time expense. God forbid poor people entertain themselves!

And it’s funny you say free healthcare because most developed nations have free healthcare for ALL of their citizens and pay way less for it per capita than we do.

Also, not everyone in poverty qualifies for food stamps. If you have a household with a single person living in it, those people rarely qualify. Most food stamps participants are children, the elderly, and the disabled.

“And it’s funny you say free healthcare because most developed nations have free healthcare for ALL of their citizens and pay way less for it per capita than we do.”
Liar....Those nations you speak of have near 40% income tax rates for all and $6 per liter fuel costs.
Further, no other nation has the number of takers / bottom feeders the U.S. has and no other nation has allowed its taxpayers to be robbed by millions of illegal wetbacks.

“Most food stamps participants are children, the elderly, and the disabled.”
Liar....link?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

1:Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? 2:Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

3:So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

1. For starters, they wont. If they did, it would reduce the value of education, and the least skilled of the educated labor would end up working the aforementioned entry level jobs, due to oversupply reducing demand.
2. That's not dense, as it's a legitimate answer. Most entry level jobs can be filled by Teenagers, whether they're just coming out of college and looking for a career, or going through college, or not intending to go to college in the first place, in which case they'd be above the poverty line if they simply lived within their means.
3. It would be solved entirely if the government wasn't involved in the first place. Federal Aid is not only increasing the number of unemployed, but also increasing the prices of college, as they see it as an opportunity to earn more money, due to pretty much anyone being capable of applying for it. Likewise, businesses are able to pay their employees less, due to the government getting involved. As an example, Walmart encourages employees to seek food stamps. Even further beyond that, the government's regulations prevent the economy from operating optimally, as not a single regulations doesn't make it harder for a business to operate, and other regulations make it impossible for competition to enter the market, said competition otherwise would have created not only a more competitive job market, but also a more competitive product market.

While I'm not a Republican, I hope my clear and concise response helped you through your confusion.

 

[Billy000]

There is always going to be poverty and poor people that is the reality of the world we live in and it's not something politicans and government can fix. LBJ declared war on poverty in 1964 and despite the huge amount of money spent on anti-poverty programs over the years the impact has been minimal. I don't have a solution to the problem and after 50 plus years no politican Democrat or Republican has come up with one either.

There will always be poverty, but our poverty rate is much higher than other developed nations. The income disparity is the widest in the world.

That may be true depending on what you consider poverty. For instance, our poor live in larger homes with more amenities than your average working European. Our poor have big screen televisions, free healthcare that many working can't get, homes in the suburbs, free food, and even a free cell phone with 250 anytime/ anywhere minutes.

First of all, why do you assume poor people in Western Europe don’t have big screen TVs? Second of all, a TV is a one time expense. God forbid poor people entertain themselves!

And it’s funny you say free healthcare because most developed nations have free healthcare for ALL of their citizens and pay way less for it per capita than we do.

Also, not everyone in poverty qualifies for food stamps. If you have a household with a single person living in it, those people rarely qualify. Most food stamps participants are children, the elderly, and the disabled.

I didn't say anything about poor people in Europe. What I said is that working Europeans live less of comfortable life than our poor.

People in poverty here (on average) have several television sets, AC, microwave ovens and a car. That's what we consider poverty in the US.

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn | Breitbart

https://nypost.com/2013/08/19/when-welfare-pays-better-than-work/

See this is a common fallacy you cons entertain about welfare. What your links say is that the total cost of welfare programs combined pays better than a job. What you don’t seem to realize is that NO ONE is qualified for ALL welfare programs combined. When it comes to food stamps, for instance, your total assets can’t go over a certain amount to qualify. If you are on SNAP, you are lucky to qualify for other welfare programs. Maybe you get Medicaid, but that’s it. Either way, you are still poor with free healthcare.

Why are you shitting on poor people for buying basic electronic equipment? It doesn’t make any sense. These are all ONE TIME expenses. Again, even poor people have to spoil themselves like everyone else.

 

[SmokeALib]

3) Why would anyone suggest $100 wage? What you aren’t getting is that the rise in inflation depends on how high the wage is raised. For instance, if you raised the federal minimum wage to $10 (thus raising state min wages as a result), prices would go up pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile, these people would be making a couple hundred more each month. That’s more money going into the economy. Capitalism 101.

That depends on the item.

If minimum wage were raised to 10 bucks an hour, it wouldn't solve poverty for one. Two, it would only raise burger prices a few cents because McDonald's restaurants sell 1,000 burgers a day, 700 fries a day, 1,200 soft drinks a day. But George's hardware store doesn't sell 1000 hammers a day. The price of George's items would have to go up much higher.

You’re ignoring basic mathematics here. For one thing, the economy did fine each time the minimum wage has been raised both federally and for individual states. It’s stupid to assume raising the minimum wage of any amount would skyrocket prices.

**** your minimum wage bullshit. If you work hard, show up to work, and do your job, you will be in demand and will get compensated handsomely for it. At least I have for the past 50 years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is always going to be poverty and poor people that is the reality of the world we live in and it's not something politicans and government can fix. LBJ declared war on poverty in 1964 and despite the huge amount of money spent on anti-poverty programs over the years the impact has been minimal. I don't have a solution to the problem and after 50 plus years no politican Democrat or Republican has come up with one either.

Actually that's a factually inaccurate statement. Take a look at the US poverty level when the program started and now then you'll see different. It hasn't ended poverty but it has reduced it greatly. However a raise in wages can do it, but businesses won't do that and far too many flunkies are taking the side of ownership who don't own a business which enables them to still pay wages that keep working people in poverty.

The War on Poverty: 50 years of failure

Ray, you drive a truck. I work with programs dealing with issues like poverty. .The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank so what do you think their determination would be?

Poverty has been reduced since 1960.

What my source claims is that the poverty level was barely reduced since 1967 at the cost of 22 trillion dollars. Your chart confirms my so-called bias report. 1967 was three years since the War on Poverty was started which as your chart shows, was on the decline long before.

Your chart shows that poverty was just under 15% in 1967 and still in the same place in 2015. So in almost 50 years, not much has changed when it comes to poverty. A huge waste of tax dollars.

 

[Rosy]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

What is the democratic solution to poverty?

 

[SmokeALib]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

What is the democratic solution to poverty?

Welfare. Pays more than third world wages 80 hrs/wk.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

What is the democratic solution to poverty?

The same as it’s always been...”Hand our best, most productive a larger tax bill.”

 

[Billy000]

1:Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? 2:Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

3:So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

1. For starters, they wont. If they did, it would reduce the value of education, and the least skilled of the educated labor would end up working the aforementioned entry level jobs, due to oversupply reducing demand.
2. That's not dense, as it's a legitimate answer. Most entry level jobs can be filled by Teenagers, whether they're just coming out of college and looking for a career, or going through college, or not intending to go to college in the first place, in which case they'd be above the poverty line if they simply lived within their means.
3. It would be solved entirely if the government wasn't involved in the first place. Federal Aid is not only increasing the number of unemployed, but also increasing the prices of college, as they see it as an opportunity to earn more money, due to pretty much anyone being capable of applying for it. Likewise, businesses are able to pay their employees less, due to the government getting involved. As an example, Walmart encourages employees to seek food stamps. Even further beyond that, the government's regulations prevent the economy from operating optimally, as not a single regulations doesn't make it harder for a business to operate, and other regulations make it impossible for competition to enter the market, said competition otherwise would have created not only a more competitive job market, but also a more competitive product market.

While I'm not a Republican, I hope my clear and concise response helped you through your confusion.

1) Yes of course they wouldn’t and that’s the point. I am dispelling the narrative that poor people should work harder to eliminate poverty itself. Working hard doesn’t necessarily give you a living that is kept up with the current cost of living. Again, even if they did, we would still have widespread vacant jobs that are the backbone of the economy.

2) It would have been better had I not used “entry level” as the description I am talking about. What I am referring to is any job that doesn’t require an education of any kind to do. Teenagers could not possibly be adequate for this market.

3) Why are you so convinced that the current government regulations are hindering capitalism? Based on what facts? If you look up the actual labor statistics, you will see that regulations are insignificant when it comes to creating jobs. The number one reason a business can’t create jobs is that the demand for their products is inadequate to expand their business. That’s what business comes down to: demand.

Also, Wal-Mart is a company worth BILLIONS. They choose to pay their workers shit so that they maximize profit for their shareholders. That’s the ugly side of capitalism that Fox won’t tell you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is always going to be poverty and poor people that is the reality of the world we live in and it's not something politicans and government can fix. LBJ declared war on poverty in 1964 and despite the huge amount of money spent on anti-poverty programs over the years the impact has been minimal. I don't have a solution to the problem and after 50 plus years no politican Democrat or Republican has come up with one either.

There will always be poverty, but our poverty rate is much higher than other developed nations. The income disparity is the widest in the world.

That may be true depending on what you consider poverty. For instance, our poor live in larger homes with more amenities than your average working European. Our poor have big screen televisions, free healthcare that many working can't get, homes in the suburbs, free food, and even a free cell phone with 250 anytime/ anywhere minutes.

First of all, why do you assume poor people in Western Europe don’t have big screen TVs? Second of all, a TV is a one time expense. God forbid poor people entertain themselves!

And it’s funny you say free healthcare because most developed nations have free healthcare for ALL of their citizens and pay way less for it per capita than we do.

Also, not everyone in poverty qualifies for food stamps. If you have a household with a single person living in it, those people rarely qualify. Most food stamps participants are children, the elderly, and the disabled.

I didn't say anything about poor people in Europe. What I said is that working Europeans live less of comfortable life than our poor.

People in poverty here (on average) have several television sets, AC, microwave ovens and a car. That's what we consider poverty in the US.

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn | Breitbart

https://nypost.com/2013/08/19/when-welfare-pays-better-than-work/

See this is a common fallacy you cons entertain about welfare. What your links say is that the total cost of welfare programs combined pays better than a job. What you don’t seem to realize is that NO ONE is qualified for ALL welfare programs combined. When it comes to food stamps, for instance, your total assets can’t go over a certain amount to qualify. If you are on SNAP, you are lucky to qualify for other welfare programs. Maybe you get Medicaid, but that’s it. Either way, you are still poor with free healthcare.

Why are you shitting on poor people for buying basic electronic equipment? It doesn’t make any sense. These are all ONE TIME expenses. Again, even poor people have to spoil themselves like everyone else.

They can spoil themselves all they like, but not with my money. That's the point.

Right now I have HUD people living next door to me. They've been a problem since they moved in. They don't work (or work very little) have four vehicles in the driveway, and are living in the suburbs just like I am, except for the fact I have to work over 40 hours a week to be here and they don't.

They come home all hours of the night during the work week: 11.30 pm, 1:00 am, 2:00 am, and on a few occasions, 3:00 am. They are slamming car doors, setting their car alarms, and waking me and my tenants up. I received several complaints from my tenants on them which jeopardizes my business.

So my money that I work for is going to support these lowlifes that shouldn't be here in the first place. To add insult to injury, they are putting me in jeopardy of losing tenants and getting in trouble where I work. It's federal law that all CDL drivers have ample rest.

Of course I shit on them. They are shitting on me first. Can you blame me for having such a negative view on what we do with our so-called poor?

Rewarding failure and penalizing success is what it's called.

 

[SmokeALib]

1:Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? 2:Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

3:So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

1. For starters, they wont. If they did, it would reduce the value of education, and the least skilled of the educated labor would end up working the aforementioned entry level jobs, due to oversupply reducing demand.
2. That's not dense, as it's a legitimate answer. Most entry level jobs can be filled by Teenagers, whether they're just coming out of college and looking for a career, or going through college, or not intending to go to college in the first place, in which case they'd be above the poverty line if they simply lived within their means.
3. It would be solved entirely if the government wasn't involved in the first place. Federal Aid is not only increasing the number of unemployed, but also increasing the prices of college, as they see it as an opportunity to earn more money, due to pretty much anyone being capable of applying for it. Likewise, businesses are able to pay their employees less, due to the government getting involved. As an example, Walmart encourages employees to seek food stamps. Even further beyond that, the government's regulations prevent the economy from operating optimally, as not a single regulations doesn't make it harder for a business to operate, and other regulations make it impossible for competition to enter the market, said competition otherwise would have created not only a more competitive job market, but also a more competitive product market.

While I'm not a Republican, I hope my clear and concise response helped you through your confusion.

1) Yes of course they wouldn’t and that’s the point. I am dispelling the narrative that poor people should work harder to eliminate poverty itself. Working hard doesn’t necessarily give you a living that is kept up with the current cost of living. Again, even if they did, we would still have widespread vacant jobs that are the backbone of the economy.

2) It would have been better had I not used “entry level” as the description I am talking about. What I am referring to is any job that doesn’t require an education of any kind to do. Teenagers could not possibly be adequate for this market.

3) Why are you so convinced that the current government regulations are hindering capitalism? Based on what facts? If you look up the actual labor statistics, you will see that regulations are insignificant when it comes to creating jobs. The number one reason a business can’t create jobs is that the demand for their products is inadequate to expand their business. That’s what business comes down to: demand.

Also, Wal-Mart is a company worth BILLIONS. They choose to pay their workers shit so that they maximize profit for their shareholders. That’s the ugly side of capitalism that Fox won’t tell you.

If I were you, I wouldn't work for Walmart. I don't for that very reason.