Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[danielpalos]

Labor should have a better choice for staying in the "ready reserve labor pool".

It's called, "I'll take the job, see you on Monday".

How well did that work during the Great Depression? Only the right wing, never gets it.

We're not in a depression. Get a job.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Thus, I am "naturally unemployed".

The law is, employment at will in any at-will employment State.

Don't be illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws, right wingers, if fixes a Bad moral precedent, for less fortunate illegals.

No, you are unemployed because you choose to be. And you should not be rewarded for making that choice.

So what. The law is, employment at the will of either party because otherwise, EDD should have to prove for-cause criteria.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right wing is all talk and no action regarding natural rights and civil liberties, when no guns are involved.

 

[rightwinger]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

We believe in helping those who need help

How American of us

Everyone wants to do that. The question is how to do it effectively, wisely and economically. One side seems to argue that we should just simply open the money spigots and let people take as much as they can for as long as they can, while the other side seems to argue that it is better to limit assistance and make it contingent upon effort displayed by the recipient. One side seems to argue that such assistance is judged to be successful by ever increasing numbers of people accessing it, while the other seems to be arguing that fewer numbers of people accessing such help is a better measure of success.

It is not as simple as the childish argument that "We want to help people and you don't".

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

 

[hadit]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

We believe in helping those who need help

How American of us

Everyone wants to do that. The question is how to do it effectively, wisely and economically. One side seems to argue that we should just simply open the money spigots and let people take as much as they can for as long as they can, while the other side seems to argue that it is better to limit assistance and make it contingent upon effort displayed by the recipient. One side seems to argue that such assistance is judged to be successful by ever increasing numbers of people accessing it, while the other seems to be arguing that fewer numbers of people accessing such help is a better measure of success.

It is not as simple as the childish argument that "We want to help people and you don't".

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

Which will increase the stress on employers who now have more net loss jobs to pay for. If they can't raise prices, how do you propose to prevent John losses?

Also, you have to work to get that minimum wage. You would have to get a job.

 

[hadit]

It's called, "I'll take the job, see you on Monday".

How well did that work during the Great Depression? Only the right wing, never gets it.

We're not in a depression. Get a job.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Thus, I am "naturally unemployed".

The law is, employment at will in any at-will employment State.

Don't be illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws, right wingers, if fixes a Bad moral precedent, for less fortunate illegals.

No, you are unemployed because you choose to be. And you should not be rewarded for making that choice.

So what. The law is, employment at the will of either party because otherwise, EDD should have to prove for-cause criteria.

Dude, you've been trying to make that point for a long time now and you're getting absolutely nowhere. If you choose not to work, you don't get paid. That's life.

 

[hadit]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

We believe in helping those who need help

How American of us

Everyone wants to do that. The question is how to do it effectively, wisely and economically. One side seems to argue that we should just simply open the money spigots and let people take as much as they can for as long as they can, while the other side seems to argue that it is better to limit assistance and make it contingent upon effort displayed by the recipient. One side seems to argue that such assistance is judged to be successful by ever increasing numbers of people accessing it, while the other seems to be arguing that fewer numbers of people accessing such help is a better measure of success.

It is not as simple as the childish argument that "We want to help people and you don't".

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

 

[rightwinger]

We believe in helping those who need help

How American of us

Everyone wants to do that. The question is how to do it effectively, wisely and economically. One side seems to argue that we should just simply open the money spigots and let people take as much as they can for as long as they can, while the other side seems to argue that it is better to limit assistance and make it contingent upon effort displayed by the recipient. One side seems to argue that such assistance is judged to be successful by ever increasing numbers of people accessing it, while the other seems to be arguing that fewer numbers of people accessing such help is a better measure of success.

It is not as simple as the childish argument that "We want to help people and you don't".

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years

 

[danielpalos]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

We believe in helping those who need help

How American of us

Everyone wants to do that. The question is how to do it effectively, wisely and economically. One side seems to argue that we should just simply open the money spigots and let people take as much as they can for as long as they can, while the other side seems to argue that it is better to limit assistance and make it contingent upon effort displayed by the recipient. One side seems to argue that such assistance is judged to be successful by ever increasing numbers of people accessing it, while the other seems to be arguing that fewer numbers of people accessing such help is a better measure of success.

It is not as simple as the childish argument that "We want to help people and you don't".

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

Financing it on the Peoples' dime is worse. How can the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer be an Individual problem.

 

[danielpalos]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

We believe in helping those who need help

How American of us

Everyone wants to do that. The question is how to do it effectively, wisely and economically. One side seems to argue that we should just simply open the money spigots and let people take as much as they can for as long as they can, while the other side seems to argue that it is better to limit assistance and make it contingent upon effort displayed by the recipient. One side seems to argue that such assistance is judged to be successful by ever increasing numbers of people accessing it, while the other seems to be arguing that fewer numbers of people accessing such help is a better measure of success.

It is not as simple as the childish argument that "We want to help people and you don't".

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

Which will increase the stress on employers who now have more net loss jobs to pay for. If they can't raise prices, how do you propose to prevent John losses?

Also, you have to work to get that minimum wage. You would have to get a job.

do employers pay taxes or wages?

 

[danielpalos]

How well did that work during the Great Depression? Only the right wing, never gets it.

We're not in a depression. Get a job.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Thus, I am "naturally unemployed".

The law is, employment at will in any at-will employment State.

Don't be illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws, right wingers, if fixes a Bad moral precedent, for less fortunate illegals.

No, you are unemployed because you choose to be. And you should not be rewarded for making that choice.

So what. The law is, employment at the will of either party because otherwise, EDD should have to prove for-cause criteria.

Dude, you've been trying to make that point for a long time now and you're getting absolutely nowhere. If you choose not to work, you don't get paid. That's life.

this "flanking maneuver" simply takes longer.

 

[danielpalos]

We believe in helping those who need help

How American of us

Everyone wants to do that. The question is how to do it effectively, wisely and economically. One side seems to argue that we should just simply open the money spigots and let people take as much as they can for as long as they can, while the other side seems to argue that it is better to limit assistance and make it contingent upon effort displayed by the recipient. One side seems to argue that such assistance is judged to be successful by ever increasing numbers of people accessing it, while the other seems to be arguing that fewer numbers of people accessing such help is a better measure of success.

It is not as simple as the childish argument that "We want to help people and you don't".

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

there is no unemployment only underpayment; why should capitalists with marginal ideas get rewarded instead of labor?

 

[hadit]

Everyone wants to do that. The question is how to do it effectively, wisely and economically. One side seems to argue that we should just simply open the money spigots and let people take as much as they can for as long as they can, while the other side seems to argue that it is better to limit assistance and make it contingent upon effort displayed by the recipient. One side seems to argue that such assistance is judged to be successful by ever increasing numbers of people accessing it, while the other seems to be arguing that fewer numbers of people accessing such help is a better measure of success.

It is not as simple as the childish argument that "We want to help people and you don't".

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years

And we're hearing incessant cries to double it with no accounting for the impact such a move would have. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. At least that many will demand raises if the MW goes to $15/hr.

 

[hadit]

We believe in helping those who need help

How American of us

Everyone wants to do that. The question is how to do it effectively, wisely and economically. One side seems to argue that we should just simply open the money spigots and let people take as much as they can for as long as they can, while the other side seems to argue that it is better to limit assistance and make it contingent upon effort displayed by the recipient. One side seems to argue that such assistance is judged to be successful by ever increasing numbers of people accessing it, while the other seems to be arguing that fewer numbers of people accessing such help is a better measure of success.

It is not as simple as the childish argument that "We want to help people and you don't".

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

Which will increase the stress on employers who now have more net loss jobs to pay for. If they can't raise prices, how do you propose to prevent John losses?

Also, you have to work to get that minimum wage. You would have to get a job.

do employers pay taxes or wages?

Both.

 

[danielpalos]

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years

And we're hearing incessant cries to double it with no accounting for the impact such a move would have. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. At least that many will demand raises if the MW goes to $15/hr.

so what; it means more people will be able to afford to pay more taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

Everyone wants to do that. The question is how to do it effectively, wisely and economically. One side seems to argue that we should just simply open the money spigots and let people take as much as they can for as long as they can, while the other side seems to argue that it is better to limit assistance and make it contingent upon effort displayed by the recipient. One side seems to argue that such assistance is judged to be successful by ever increasing numbers of people accessing it, while the other seems to be arguing that fewer numbers of people accessing such help is a better measure of success.

It is not as simple as the childish argument that "We want to help people and you don't".

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

Which will increase the stress on employers who now have more net loss jobs to pay for. If they can't raise prices, how do you propose to prevent John losses?

Also, you have to work to get that minimum wage. You would have to get a job.

do employers pay taxes or wages?

Both.

who pays the employer to cover that cost?

 

[hadit]

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years

And we're hearing incessant cries to double it with no accounting for the impact such a move would have. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. At least that many will demand raises if the MW goes to $15/hr.

so what; it means more people will be able to afford to pay more taxes.

Not if they can't get out keep a job because their work isn't worth the MW.

 

[hadit]

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

Which will increase the stress on employers who now have more net loss jobs to pay for. If they can't raise prices, how do you propose to prevent John losses?

Also, you have to work to get that minimum wage. You would have to get a job.

do employers pay taxes or wages?

Both.

who pays the employer to cover that cost?

Customers do, through the prices they pay

 

[rightwinger]

We believe in helping those who need help

How American of us

Everyone wants to do that. The question is how to do it effectively, wisely and economically. One side seems to argue that we should just simply open the money spigots and let people take as much as they can for as long as they can, while the other side seems to argue that it is better to limit assistance and make it contingent upon effort displayed by the recipient. One side seems to argue that such assistance is judged to be successful by ever increasing numbers of people accessing it, while the other seems to be arguing that fewer numbers of people accessing such help is a better measure of success.

It is not as simple as the childish argument that "We want to help people and you don't".

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

Financing it on the Peoples' dime is worse. How can the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer be an Individual problem.

No, it is financed by incentivizing corporate behavior that reduces poverty

What did a 50% corporate tax cut incentivize? Greed

 

[rightwinger]

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years

And we're hearing incessant cries to double it with no accounting for the impact such a move would have. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. At least that many will demand raises if the MW goes to $15/hr.

You realize your local burger joint saw the price of beef double since the last minimum wage hike took place nine years ago?

The market adjusted for price increases due to the price of beef....it will adjust to increases due to higher wages

 

[danielpalos]

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years

And we're hearing incessant cries to double it with no accounting for the impact such a move would have. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. At least that many will demand raises if the MW goes to $15/hr.

so what; it means more people will be able to afford to pay more taxes.

Not if they can't get out keep a job because their work isn't worth the MW.

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed should be available for those willing to try their luck in our market for labor. raising the minimum wage to cover social costs will also reduce unemployment under our form of Capitalism.