The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[bripat9643]

Naw, everything is electronic now. Just a matter of hacking. If there is no social contract, the government can't crack down on that stuff anymore.

Do you actually believe that government is what keeps your money safe?

The overweight, toothless, non-English speaking Indian guard at Citibank is safeguarding my money?

You think that fat cop sitting in Dunken Donuts is safe-gaurding your money?

 

[francoHFW]

In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

• How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
  
  
• The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
  
  
• Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.

Of course, that would be true if labor costs were 100 per cent of the cost of the product, dingbats...but they're actually more like 20 per cent of the cost. So a 20 raise would add FOUR PER CENT to the cost- with employees now able to SURVIVE and BUY THINGS lol so WRONG.

 

[OKTexas]

In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

• How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
  
  
• The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
  
  
• Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.

I am not in favor of minimum wage.
A burger flipper gets 20% more for flipping, let's say, 100+, or even 200+ burgers an hour.
How do you, with any so-called amount of intelligence, figure that raising the price of a burger 20% will absolutely equate the new wage?

The math is completely infantile.

You might want to redo your own math. You're assuming that the minimum wage increase only effects labor cost for the burger when in fact every ingredient will cost more.

 

[francoHFW]

bvvvvv...

 

[JoeB131]

Sure, if you don't mind getting a load of buckshot in the face.

If it ever gets to the point where the have-nots are just taking from the haves, the haves are going to be in serious trouble because they are seriously outnumbered.

As long as we are talking about the "Social Contract", the main reason it evolved is because you had so many revolutions where the great unwashed had enough...

France in 1787
Russia in 1917
China in 1949
Cuba in 1959
Iran in 1979


The smart countries put in a social contract because they didn't want it to get that far.

big difference in those cases. the have nots were making it on their own. they weren't living off entitlements, welfare, food stamps.

No, the have nots weren't making it on their own.

The Have Nots were angry and miserable and took out their 1%ers at the first sign of weakness.

Did these revolutions fix things? Not really. IN some cases, I would even go so far to say they made things worse. But you push people far enough, they just aren't going to care anymore.

 

[JoeB131]

Naw, everything is electronic now. Just a matter of hacking. If there is no social contract, the government can't crack down on that stuff anymore.

Another good point.

As much as the 1%ers let their tools like Bripat get upset about the "Gummit", they know the government exists to protect their privilage.

"Protecting their privilege" in libturdspeak, means not allowing the rabble to rob them.

Yeah, what a "privilege."

But robbing the rabble, that's perfectly okay by you, then?

Or do you really think 1% of the population is doing 43% of the physical labor?

 

[bripat9643]

Another good point.

As much as the 1%ers let their tools like Bripat get upset about the "Gummit", they know the government exists to protect their privilage.

"Protecting their privilege" in libturdspeak, means not allowing the rabble to rob them.

Yeah, what a "privilege."

But robbing the rabble, that's perfectly okay by you, then?

Or do you really think 1% of the population is doing 43% of the physical labor?

How are they being "robbed?"

 

[bripat9643]

In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

• How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
  
  
• The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
  
  
• Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.

I am not in favor of minimum wage.
A burger flipper gets 20% more for flipping, let's say, 100+, or even 200+ burgers an hour.
How do you, with any so-called amount of intelligence, figure that raising the price of a burger 20% will absolutely equate the new wage?

The math is completely infantile.

You might want to redo your own math. You're assuming that the minimum wage increase only effects labor cost for the burger when in fact every ingredient will cost more.

I don't think that's the case because most labor doesn't work for minimum wage. Take, for instance, the truck driver who delivers the supplies to the store. I'm sure he makes far above the minimum wage.

 

[JoeB131]

"Protecting their privilege" in libturdspeak, means not allowing the rabble to rob them.

Yeah, what a "privilege."

But robbing the rabble, that's perfectly okay by you, then?

Or do you really think 1% of the population is doing 43% of the physical labor?

How are they being "robbed?"

You mean if the value of their labor produces $50,000 worth of value and they are only being paid $25,000, the other $25,000 going to "profits" and "Investors"...

They are being robbed.

1% of the population controls 43% of the wealth. They are not doing 43% of the labor.

 

[bripat9643]

But robbing the rabble, that's perfectly okay by you, then?

Or do you really think 1% of the population is doing 43% of the physical labor?

How are they being "robbed?"

You mean if the value of their labor produces $50,000 worth of value and they are only being paid $25,000, the other $25,000 going to "profits" and "Investors"...

They are being robbed.

1% of the population controls 43% of the wealth. They are not doing 43% of the labor.

If their labor is worth $50,000, then they can go somewhere else and get $50,000. Unfortunately, their labor is worth very close to what they are paid. Furthermore, even if their labor is worth $50,000, employment is entirely voluntary. The definition of "robbery" is to use force to take what doesn't belong to you.

The fact that someone is wealthier than you isn't proof that they have robbed you.

 

[JoeB131]

How are they being "robbed?"

You mean if the value of their labor produces $50,000 worth of value and they are only being paid $25,000, the other $25,000 going to "profits" and "Investors"...

They are being robbed.

1% of the population controls 43% of the wealth. They are not doing 43% of the labor.

If their labor is worth $50,000, then they can go somewhere else and get $50,000. Unfortunately, their labor is worth very close to what they are paid. Furthermore, even if their labor is worth $50,000, employment is entirely voluntary. The definition of "robbery" is to use force to take what doesn't belong to you.

The fact that someone is wealthier than you isn't proof that they have robbed you.

When the poor steal, it's called Crime.

When the rich steal, it's called "Profits".

Just to clarify for you.

 

[Geaux4it]

You mean if the value of their labor produces $50,000 worth of value and they are only being paid $25,000, the other $25,000 going to "profits" and "Investors"...

They are being robbed.

1% of the population controls 43% of the wealth. They are not doing 43% of the labor.

If their labor is worth $50,000, then they can go somewhere else and get $50,000. Unfortunately, their labor is worth very close to what they are paid. Furthermore, even if their labor is worth $50,000, employment is entirely voluntary. The definition of "robbery" is to use force to take what doesn't belong to you.

The fact that someone is wealthier than you isn't proof that they have robbed you.

When the poor steal, it's called Crime.

When the rich steal, it's called "Profits".

Just to clarify for you.

You say very stupid things quite often.

This one may take the cake

Good job. Keep up the support in the further destruction of America.

-Geaux

 

[P@triot]

Regarding your point about low tax states versus high tax states. Once again, you're cutting and pasting simplistic garbage without considering all the facts.

Do you know how many low tax Red States are net takers from the Federal Government? We subsidize these sad sacks because they lack the revenue to take care of their own problems.

Do you know how much money Florida has collected from the government for hurricane relief? Do you know how much money Louisiana collects in disaster relief, farm subsidies, anti-poverty, ect? Don't take my word for it, do some research for once. Even New Hampshire, which is generally pretty tight, took a ton of disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy. They had no problem begging the nanny state for help, especially because they lacked the revenue to take care of their own problems (as is so often the case with low tax red states).

So while blue states have the federal government throwing trillions at them for everything from roads to closed down choo-choo trains stations to closed down "visitor centers", red states should reject assistance for major catastrophe's after the federal government has taken so much from them? They should refuse the opportunity to get as much back of what was already theirs? So you're literally taking the immature and simplistic Dumbocrat view of Social Security and how "real" conservatives should reject the opportunity to get some of the money that was taken from them, back - and you're applying it to the states? Really? This is the depth of your intellectual capabilities [MENTION=24221]Londoner[/MENTION]? No wonder you add no links, quotes, or data to your posts. While we all absorb your new found limited capacities that was just exposed, why don't you chew on this my friend...

1. Forest Service to Replace Windows in Visitor Center Closed in 2007 (Amboy, WA) - $554,763 Blue State

2. “Dance Draw” - Interactive Dance Software Development (Charlotte, NC) - $762,372 Blue State

3. North Shore Connector to Professional Sports Stadiums, Casino (Pittsburgh, PA) - $62 million Blue State

5. Abandoned Train Station Converted Into Museum (Glassboro, NJ) - $1.2 million Blue State

6. Ants Talk. Taxpayers Listen (San Francisco, CA) - $1.9 million Blue State

12. Agency Under a Cloud Keeps Pool Open for the Summer at No Charge (Youngstown, OH) - $450,950 Blue State

13. ProjectCostsJobs, Drastically Reduces Shopping Center Business (Normandy Park, WA)- $3.8 million Blue State

14. MoheganSunCasinoOwnerUsesFundsforWNBAPracticeFacility(Connecticut)-$54 million Blue State

I could literally continue indefinitely, but this is just getting boring now. You pose no challenge, add nothing of value, and are too intellectually lazy to add even a simple link or fact to your posts. You're simply 100% uninformed opinion.

Summertime Blues

Waiiiiit a minute! What party do the governors of Pennsylvania, Ohio, N. Carolina and New Jersey belong to?

Waiiiiit a minute! What party did Pennsylvania, Ohio, N. Carolina and New Jersey vote into president? Barack Obama carried these states you ****'n moron!

 

[bripat9643]

You mean if the value of their labor produces $50,000 worth of value and they are only being paid $25,000, the other $25,000 going to "profits" and "Investors"...

They are being robbed.

1% of the population controls 43% of the wealth. They are not doing 43% of the labor.

If their labor is worth $50,000, then they can go somewhere else and get $50,000. Unfortunately, their labor is worth very close to what they are paid. Furthermore, even if their labor is worth $50,000, employment is entirely voluntary. The definition of "robbery" is to use force to take what doesn't belong to you.

The fact that someone is wealthier than you isn't proof that they have robbed you.

When the poor steal, it's called Crime.

When the rich steal, it's called "Profits".

Just to clarify for you.

Just being rich isn't stealing. Profits are not stealing. Every exchange involved in making a profit is entirely voluntary. Stealing requires the use of force.

 

[bripat9643]

If their labor is worth $50,000, then they can go somewhere else and get $50,000. Unfortunately, their labor is worth very close to what they are paid. Furthermore, even if their labor is worth $50,000, employment is entirely voluntary. The definition of "robbery" is to use force to take what doesn't belong to you.

The fact that someone is wealthier than you isn't proof that they have robbed you.

When the poor steal, it's called Crime.

When the rich steal, it's called "Profits".

Just to clarify for you.

You say very stupid things quite often.

This one may take the cake

Good job. Keep up the support in the further destruction of America.

-Geaux

Joe just admitted that he's a communist. Any time some libturd starts talking as if profits are evil, he is simply admitting that he's a communist.

 

[JoeB131]

If their labor is worth $50,000, then they can go somewhere else and get $50,000. Unfortunately, their labor is worth very close to what they are paid. Furthermore, even if their labor is worth $50,000, employment is entirely voluntary. The definition of "robbery" is to use force to take what doesn't belong to you.

The fact that someone is wealthier than you isn't proof that they have robbed you.

When the poor steal, it's called Crime.

When the rich steal, it's called "Profits".

Just to clarify for you.

Just being rich isn't stealing. Profits are not stealing. Every exchange involved in making a profit is entirely voluntary. Stealing requires the use of force.

I can ruin your livlihood isn't a threat of force?

Seriously, **** the rich. Tax the **** out of them and watch them like they were rattlesnakes.

 

[bripat9643]

When the poor steal, it's called Crime.

When the rich steal, it's called "Profits".

Just to clarify for you.

Just being rich isn't stealing. Profits are not stealing. Every exchange involved in making a profit is entirely voluntary. Stealing requires the use of force.

I can ruin your livlihood isn't a threat of force?

That depends. How is this rich person going to "ruin your livelyhood?"

Seriously, **** the rich. Tax the **** out of them and watch them like they were rattlesnakes.

You're the rattlesnake, Joe.

 

[P@triot]

In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

• How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
  
  
• The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
  
  
• Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.

Yeah the Burgers in Oregon and Washington are $17 bucks for a whopper.

Wait, no they arent but Oregon and Washington has the highest min wage in the US? Hows that possible?

The rate for minimum wage has gone up about 20 times in my lifetime. And each time you people cry that it's not enough for a "living wage". Why? Because you're too ****'n stupid to figure out that when you raise the minimum wage, the cost of everything goes up to cover the cost of that new minimum wage [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION].

The profound ignorance you people display is simply astounding. This is basic stuff that even 3rd graders understand.

 

[Geaux4it]

When the poor steal, it's called Crime.

When the rich steal, it's called "Profits".

Just to clarify for you.

Just being rich isn't stealing. Profits are not stealing. Every exchange involved in making a profit is entirely voluntary. Stealing requires the use of force.

I can ruin your livlihood isn't a threat of force?

Seriously, **** the rich. Tax the **** out of them and watch them like they were rattlesnakes.

Jealous of success are you? Missed getting sports trophies when younger? Just think, if you were younger you could have a whole shelf of trophies just like 'top' athletes earn just for showing up and being mediocre.

-Geaux

 

[P@triot]

[*]How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.

Poodle, Sweetie, you just don't get how things work.

The cost of a burger is not all labor. Most of the cost is overhead, ingridients, utilities, etc. A 20% increase in the minimum wage would probably only mean a 2-3% increase in the cost of the food.

Further, all those other things are going up whether the minimum wage does or not.

Here's the thing. Back in the Clinton years, most of the "burger flipping" places were offering well above the minimum wage. They simply could not find people to fill those slots when unemployment was down to less than 4%.

This is about the 1%ers abusing their workers, and letting the rest of us pay for it.

Beacuse here's the thing about minimum wage workers. They don't obediently starve. They apply for section 8, food stamps and Medicaid... and they vote for Democrats.

God, you are stone cold stupid, aren't you?

[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION], sweetie, it's painfully obvious why you're a high school drop out, minimum wage factory worker...

The rate for minimum wage has gone up about 20 times in my lifetime. And each time you people cry that it's not enough for a "living wage". Why? Because you're too ****'n stupid to figure out that when you raise the minimum wage, the cost of everything goes up to cover the cost of that new minimum wage JoeB131.

The profound ignorance you people display is simply astounding. This is basic stuff that even 3rd graders understand. And you wonder why you can't hold a job and then blame business owners for it?!?