Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

Lets face it.......those who go with the DUMS frequently are the miserable amongst us. People who have made fucked up personal decisions leading them to a shitty lot in life. So they have to blame somebody for their misery. Never did get that? I couldn't give a crap what rich people make. Most work their balls off.........I harbor no ill will. Trying to make the rest of the world miserable because you are is ghey.

Libs like to pretend that all poor people are either handicapped or suffer from mental disorders. They refuse to admit that people are poor due to low iQ and poor decision making. Bear in mind, most Liberals here are poor...they wouldn’t dare want to acknowledge that they themselves are the cause of their situation.
 
You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Also different in different areas.
Why not work with averages?

Because averages don't meet real life needs. Let's say that we decide to set a national MW at a level sufficient for one person to live comfortably. In rural Alabama, we discover that amount is $10/hr while in downtown Manhattan it is $50/hr. We take the average and set it at $30/hr. What happens? In Alabama, jobs are lost and people laid off. In Manhattan, people still can't live on MW. That's why.
States should be able to handle the rest.

Better to let localities, cities, and states set a MW that works best for them. Then no one needs to make the difference for anyone.
 
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Also different in different areas.
Why not work with averages?

Because averages don't meet real life needs. Let's say that we decide to set a national MW at a level sufficient for one person to live comfortably. In rural Alabama, we discover that amount is $10/hr while in downtown Manhattan it is $50/hr. We take the average and set it at $30/hr. What happens? In Alabama, jobs are lost and people laid off. In Manhattan, people still can't live on MW. That's why.
States should be able to handle the rest.

Better to let localities, cities, and states set a MW that works best for them. Then no one needs to make the difference for anyone.
social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. why not "boost the bottom" and let States help those at the top of that quintile.
 
You're treading down that same road. I told you then and I'll tell you now. If a company, or a group of companies in an area, can afford to pay higher wages, they can do so without going out of business. Ford could do it because he could afford to do it. Seattle is wealthy and can accept higher prices to pay higher wages. Try setting the MW to $15/hr in poorer areas and you would see higher failure rates. Only in a leftist's fantasy world can you simply dictate higher wages with no consequences.

In fact, this is the best way to set a higher MW. Let different areas decide for themselves where to set it.
There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.
That's because a tax cut doesn't increase a company's expenses dramatically. There's no massive downside to doing it.
The only downside I see is taking on $1.5 trillion in debt to fund that tax cut
That qualifies as massive

Thats funny though because that's 1.5 trillion over 10 years...and that's unacceptable according to the radical libs. O doing QE to 6 trillion to wall street was all good in the hood.

QE was hugely successful in restoring the economy without inflation or devaluation of the dollar

It devalued the dollar. Inflation rates should have risen so that money could have been recovered and taken out of the economy. Of course it was successful to wall street. They grew by 8000 points because of QE. Your business would grow too if someone was handing you 40 billion a month.

The value of the dollar increased compared to other currencies
QE inserted much needed investment into our economy

It worked

It didn't work. Housing, bonds, and stock are on a massive bubble.
 
Also different in different areas.
Why not work with averages?

Because averages don't meet real life needs. Let's say that we decide to set a national MW at a level sufficient for one person to live comfortably. In rural Alabama, we discover that amount is $10/hr while in downtown Manhattan it is $50/hr. We take the average and set it at $30/hr. What happens? In Alabama, jobs are lost and people laid off. In Manhattan, people still can't live on MW. That's why.
States should be able to handle the rest.

Better to let localities, cities, and states set a MW that works best for them. Then no one needs to make the difference for anyone.
social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. why not "boost the bottom" and let States help those at the top of that quintile.

Okay, we'll set the MW to the lowest cost area of the nation and let the wealthier areas cover the gap for the rest.
 
Why not work with averages?

Because averages don't meet real life needs. Let's say that we decide to set a national MW at a level sufficient for one person to live comfortably. In rural Alabama, we discover that amount is $10/hr while in downtown Manhattan it is $50/hr. We take the average and set it at $30/hr. What happens? In Alabama, jobs are lost and people laid off. In Manhattan, people still can't live on MW. That's why.
States should be able to handle the rest.

Better to let localities, cities, and states set a MW that works best for them. Then no one needs to make the difference for anyone.
social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. why not "boost the bottom" and let States help those at the top of that quintile.

Okay, we'll set the MW to the lowest cost area of the nation and let the wealthier areas cover the gap for the rest.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. It is more rational to pay better than that social safety net.
 
Because averages don't meet real life needs. Let's say that we decide to set a national MW at a level sufficient for one person to live comfortably. In rural Alabama, we discover that amount is $10/hr while in downtown Manhattan it is $50/hr. We take the average and set it at $30/hr. What happens? In Alabama, jobs are lost and people laid off. In Manhattan, people still can't live on MW. That's why.
States should be able to handle the rest.

Better to let localities, cities, and states set a MW that works best for them. Then no one needs to make the difference for anyone.
social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. why not "boost the bottom" and let States help those at the top of that quintile.

Okay, we'll set the MW to the lowest cost area of the nation and let the wealthier areas cover the gap for the rest.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. It is more rational to pay better than that social safety net.

Again, that's on average, which means that it's not tailored to the locality. Do you really think $14/hr is sufficient to live on in New York city? Be real. Far better to let NYC set whatever level it wants to supply, and rural Alabama set theirs.
 
Bear in mind, most Liberals here are poor...they wouldn’t dare want to acknowledge that they themselves are the cause of their situation.

Hmmmm, that's funny. Most of the liberals on USMB told me they were independently wealthy, have their own business, or work from home.
 
Its not the responsibility of the govt to offer trinkets.

It is a responsibility of Government to provide for the General Welfare of We the People

It doesn't say "fund" the general welfare.

We the People will decide how to provide that General Welfare

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one....
James Madison

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
Thomas Jefferson

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison

The powers of Congress are well established over 200+ years of legislation
If they are currently overstepping their powers, you, as a citizen have a right to challenge

I'm sure you can find some libertarian buddies to support you

It's not libertarian buddies it's the hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not over a million) it takes to make such a challenge.
 
There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.
The only downside I see is taking on $1.5 trillion in debt to fund that tax cut
That qualifies as massive

Thats funny though because that's 1.5 trillion over 10 years...and that's unacceptable according to the radical libs. O doing QE to 6 trillion to wall street was all good in the hood.

QE was hugely successful in restoring the economy without inflation or devaluation of the dollar

It devalued the dollar. Inflation rates should have risen so that money could have been recovered and taken out of the economy. Of course it was successful to wall street. They grew by 8000 points because of QE. Your business would grow too if someone was handing you 40 billion a month.

The value of the dollar increased compared to other currencies
QE inserted much needed investment into our economy

It worked

It didn't work. Housing, bonds, and stock are on a massive bubble.

When it bursts it is Trumps fault
 
It is a responsibility of Government to provide for the General Welfare of We the People

It doesn't say "fund" the general welfare.

We the People will decide how to provide that General Welfare

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one....
James Madison

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
Thomas Jefferson

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison

The powers of Congress are well established over 200+ years of legislation
If they are currently overstepping their powers, you, as a citizen have a right to challenge

I'm sure you can find some libertarian buddies to support you

It's not libertarian buddies it's the hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not over a million) it takes to make such a challenge.
You talk the talk but don't walk the walk
 
States should be able to handle the rest.

Better to let localities, cities, and states set a MW that works best for them. Then no one needs to make the difference for anyone.
social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. why not "boost the bottom" and let States help those at the top of that quintile.

Okay, we'll set the MW to the lowest cost area of the nation and let the wealthier areas cover the gap for the rest.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. It is more rational to pay better than that social safety net.

Again, that's on average, which means that it's not tailored to the locality. Do you really think $14/hr is sufficient to live on in New York city? Be real. Far better to let NYC set whatever level it wants to supply, and rural Alabama set theirs.
It is another form of minimum wage. I believe I could find a place to stay, with fourteen dollars an hour as income on a regular basis. We could eliminate homelessness, overnight.
 
Better to let localities, cities, and states set a MW that works best for them. Then no one needs to make the difference for anyone.
social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. why not "boost the bottom" and let States help those at the top of that quintile.

Okay, we'll set the MW to the lowest cost area of the nation and let the wealthier areas cover the gap for the rest.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. It is more rational to pay better than that social safety net.

Again, that's on average, which means that it's not tailored to the locality. Do you really think $14/hr is sufficient to live on in New York city? Be real. Far better to let NYC set whatever level it wants to supply, and rural Alabama set theirs.
It is another form of minimum wage. I believe I could find a place to stay, with fourteen dollars an hour as income on a regular basis.
Lets face it.......those who go with the DUMS frequently are the miserable amongst us. People who have made fucked up personal decisions leading them to a shitty lot in life. So they have to blame somebody for their misery. Never did get that? I couldn't give a crap what rich people make. Most work their balls off.........I harbor no ill will. Trying to make the rest of the world miserable because you are is ghey.

Libs like to pretend that all poor people are either handicapped or suffer from mental disorders. They refuse to admit that people are poor due to low iQ and poor decision making. Bear in mind, most Liberals here are poor...they wouldn’t dare want to acknowledge that they themselves are the cause of their situation.
The right wing is worse. The law is, employment at the will of either party, not just the employer.
 
Better to let localities, cities, and states set a MW that works best for them. Then no one needs to make the difference for anyone.
social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. why not "boost the bottom" and let States help those at the top of that quintile.

Okay, we'll set the MW to the lowest cost area of the nation and let the wealthier areas cover the gap for the rest.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. It is more rational to pay better than that social safety net.

Again, that's on average, which means that it's not tailored to the locality. Do you really think $14/hr is sufficient to live on in New York city? Be real. Far better to let NYC set whatever level it wants to supply, and rural Alabama set theirs.
It is another form of minimum wage. I believe I could find a place to stay, with fourteen dollars an hour as income on a regular basis. We could eliminate homelessness, overnight.

You're ignoring reality. You could not survive in NYC on $14/hr. That is a national average, which means it's too high for some places and too low for others.
 
social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. why not "boost the bottom" and let States help those at the top of that quintile.

Okay, we'll set the MW to the lowest cost area of the nation and let the wealthier areas cover the gap for the rest.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. It is more rational to pay better than that social safety net.

Again, that's on average, which means that it's not tailored to the locality. Do you really think $14/hr is sufficient to live on in New York city? Be real. Far better to let NYC set whatever level it wants to supply, and rural Alabama set theirs.
It is another form of minimum wage. I believe I could find a place to stay, with fourteen dollars an hour as income on a regular basis.
Lets face it.......those who go with the DUMS frequently are the miserable amongst us. People who have made fucked up personal decisions leading them to a shitty lot in life. So they have to blame somebody for their misery. Never did get that? I couldn't give a crap what rich people make. Most work their balls off.........I harbor no ill will. Trying to make the rest of the world miserable because you are is ghey.

Libs like to pretend that all poor people are either handicapped or suffer from mental disorders. They refuse to admit that people are poor due to low iQ and poor decision making. Bear in mind, most Liberals here are poor...they wouldn’t dare want to acknowledge that they themselves are the cause of their situation.
The right wing is worse. The law is, employment at the will of either party, not just the employer.

Not the way you're misinterpreting it. The employer is under no obligation to hire you, even if you were to apply.
 
social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. why not "boost the bottom" and let States help those at the top of that quintile.

Okay, we'll set the MW to the lowest cost area of the nation and let the wealthier areas cover the gap for the rest.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. It is more rational to pay better than that social safety net.

Again, that's on average, which means that it's not tailored to the locality. Do you really think $14/hr is sufficient to live on in New York city? Be real. Far better to let NYC set whatever level it wants to supply, and rural Alabama set theirs.
It is another form of minimum wage. I believe I could find a place to stay, with fourteen dollars an hour as income on a regular basis. We could eliminate homelessness, overnight.

You're ignoring reality. You could not survive in NYC on $14/hr. That is a national average, which means it's too high for some places and too low for others.
Why could an individual not find a place to live in New York, with the equivalent to a salary of twenty-eight thousand dollars a year? It makes me believe, you are merely special pleading a point you don't have.
 
Okay, we'll set the MW to the lowest cost area of the nation and let the wealthier areas cover the gap for the rest.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. It is more rational to pay better than that social safety net.

Again, that's on average, which means that it's not tailored to the locality. Do you really think $14/hr is sufficient to live on in New York city? Be real. Far better to let NYC set whatever level it wants to supply, and rural Alabama set theirs.
It is another form of minimum wage. I believe I could find a place to stay, with fourteen dollars an hour as income on a regular basis.
Lets face it.......those who go with the DUMS frequently are the miserable amongst us. People who have made fucked up personal decisions leading them to a shitty lot in life. So they have to blame somebody for their misery. Never did get that? I couldn't give a crap what rich people make. Most work their balls off.........I harbor no ill will. Trying to make the rest of the world miserable because you are is ghey.

Libs like to pretend that all poor people are either handicapped or suffer from mental disorders. They refuse to admit that people are poor due to low iQ and poor decision making. Bear in mind, most Liberals here are poor...they wouldn’t dare want to acknowledge that they themselves are the cause of their situation.
The right wing is worse. The law is, employment at the will of either party, not just the employer.

Not the way you're misinterpreting it. The employer is under no obligation to hire you, even if you were to apply.
Employment is at-will. I would be naturally unemployed and should qualify for unemployment compensation.

And, EDD should have to prove, for-cause employment to deny and disparage benefits.
 
Okay, we'll set the MW to the lowest cost area of the nation and let the wealthier areas cover the gap for the rest.
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. It is more rational to pay better than that social safety net.

Again, that's on average, which means that it's not tailored to the locality. Do you really think $14/hr is sufficient to live on in New York city? Be real. Far better to let NYC set whatever level it wants to supply, and rural Alabama set theirs.
It is another form of minimum wage. I believe I could find a place to stay, with fourteen dollars an hour as income on a regular basis. We could eliminate homelessness, overnight.

You're ignoring reality. You could not survive in NYC on $14/hr. That is a national average, which means it's too high for some places and too low for others.
Why could an individual not find a place to live in New York, with the equivalent to a salary of twenty-eight thousand dollars a year? It makes me believe, you are merely special pleading a point you don't have.
Where in New York?
 
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. It is more rational to pay better than that social safety net.

Again, that's on average, which means that it's not tailored to the locality. Do you really think $14/hr is sufficient to live on in New York city? Be real. Far better to let NYC set whatever level it wants to supply, and rural Alabama set theirs.
It is another form of minimum wage. I believe I could find a place to stay, with fourteen dollars an hour as income on a regular basis. We could eliminate homelessness, overnight.

You're ignoring reality. You could not survive in NYC on $14/hr. That is a national average, which means it's too high for some places and too low for others.
Why could an individual not find a place to live in New York, with the equivalent to a salary of twenty-eight thousand dollars a year? It makes me believe, you are merely special pleading a point you don't have.
Where in New York?
the most market friendly place with that amount of income. it would be up to the individuals to, self-select, their living arrangements.
 
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. It is more rational to pay better than that social safety net.

Again, that's on average, which means that it's not tailored to the locality. Do you really think $14/hr is sufficient to live on in New York city? Be real. Far better to let NYC set whatever level it wants to supply, and rural Alabama set theirs.
It is another form of minimum wage. I believe I could find a place to stay, with fourteen dollars an hour as income on a regular basis. We could eliminate homelessness, overnight.

You're ignoring reality. You could not survive in NYC on $14/hr. That is a national average, which means it's too high for some places and too low for others.
Why could an individual not find a place to live in New York, with the equivalent to a salary of twenty-eight thousand dollars a year? It makes me believe, you are merely special pleading a point you don't have.
Where in New York?
Special pleading?
 

Forum List

Back
Top