This topic is locked from further discussion.
Theres your problem. Paying for universal healthcare, and public college would be easy as pie if not for the unbelievable wasteful defense spending. Absolutely not saying that everything must be socialized, hell no, but just 2 things should be, and thats healthcare and public college.
Theres your problem. Paying for universal healthcare, and public college would be easy as pie if not for the unbelievable wasteful defense spending.
Even if you eliminate the military entirely, you're running a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit.
And the reason military spending seems so disproportionate is because most other public funding is relegated to States through excise and property taxes.
@Johnny-n-Roger: Then the budget, and the economy have to be fixed, and companies, and financial institutions like wallstreet, and the big banks that pay no taxes, or dodge virtually all taxes in off shore, and over seas tax havens. That is what is killing us. These are the underlying problems, corruption has made it so we the non-rich people are paying the overwhelming majority of taxes, and the rich are paying none. That is running us deeper and deeper into debt. And now they are going after our social security money in order to pay off the debt, because they are simply not allowed to ask the rich for ANY money.
People need to understand that not everything the government does can automatically be defined as socialism. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. Police and military in a burgoise state is NOT socialist in ANY way. Universal health care and government handouts are not socialism either. American liberals need to understand this.
The western countries with the most socialist ideas are Denmark, Norway and Sweden and thoes countries are NOT socialist states. An example of a socialist idea (a VERY mild one) that took root in these countries during the 80s was that of employee funds, where a company's profit was forcefully taken and put into funds that were controlled by the massive trade unions. This is what democratic socialism looks like. Health care and other such things are NOT socialism and if they were you'd have people calling Nazi-Germany a socialist country.
@Johnny-n-Roger: Then the budget, and the economy have to be fixed, and companies, and financial institutions like wallstreet, and the big banks that pay no taxes, or dodge virtually all taxes in off shore, and over seas tax havens. That is what is killing us. These are the underlying problems, corruption has made it so we the non-rich people are paying the overwhelming majority of taxes, and the rich are paying none. That is running us deeper and deeper into debt. And now they are going after our social security money in order to pay off the debt, because they are simply not allowed to ask the rich for ANY money.
Smoke and mirrors. The reality is that our entire currency system is created from debt. Banks are also allowed to issue fiat currency in the form of debt. About 90% of our country's wealth is debt. That's the problem. The whole "fair share" bullshit that these politicians rave about, like there's some untapped potential in multinational corporations that's going to fix our monetary system. No, it's broke at its core, also known as the Federal Reserve.
When you're able to accept that our currency is regulated by a private bank, that there is no law requiring anyone to pay an income tax, and that our politicians are essentially powerless over the economy, then you start to realize that all these numbers and speculations are bullshit. Thinking that Sanders is some savior that's going to go into congress and turn everything around is a false narrative that gives people like you hope so you don't actually rise up and do something about it.
Notice how these "anti-establishment" movements are contained on both sides of the imaginary political spectrum? Not a coincidence. These are the guys that are supposed to be the polarized extremes to represent displeasure with the government. As long as they can honestly give people a sense of hope, a flawed candidate like Hillary Clinton can side step the buffoonery on both sides and it's business as usual.
@Johnny-n-Roger: Then the budget, and the economy have to be fixed, and companies, and financial institutions like wallstreet, and the big banks that pay no taxes, or dodge virtually all taxes in off shore, and over seas tax havens. That is what is killing us. These are the underlying problems, corruption has made it so we the non-rich people are paying the overwhelming majority of taxes, and the rich are paying none. That is running us deeper and deeper into debt. And now they are going after our social security money in order to pay off the debt, because they are simply not allowed to ask the rich for ANY money.
Smoke and mirrors. The reality is that our entire currency system is created from debt. Banks are also allowed to issue fiat currency in the form of debt. About 90% of our country's wealth is debt. That's the problem. The whole "fair share" bullshit that these politicians rave about, like there's some untapped potential in multinational corporations that's going to fix our monetary system. No, it's broke at its core, also known as the Federal Reserve.
When you're able to accept that our currency is regulated by a private bank, that there is no law requiring anyone to pay an income tax, and that our politicians are essentially powerless over the economy, then you start to realize that all these numbers and speculations are bullshit. Thinking that Sanders is some savior that's going to go into congress and turn everything around is a false narrative that gives people like you hope so you don't actually rise up and do something about it.
Notice how these "anti-establishment" movements are contained on both sides of the imaginary political spectrum? Not a coincidence. These are the guys that are supposed to be the polarized extremes to represent displeasure with the government. As long as they can honestly give people a sense of hope, a flawed candidate like Hillary Clinton can side step the buffoonery on both sides and it's business as usual.
Forgot about the fed, the heart of the problem. something needs to be done about that place too.
@Johnny-n-Roger: Then the budget, and the economy have to be fixed, and companies, and financial institutions like wallstreet, and the big banks that pay no taxes, or dodge virtually all taxes in off shore, and over seas tax havens. That is what is killing us. These are the underlying problems, corruption has made it so we the non-rich people are paying the overwhelming majority of taxes, and the rich are paying none. That is running us deeper and deeper into debt. And now they are going after our social security money in order to pay off the debt, because they are simply not allowed to ask the rich for ANY money.
Smoke and mirrors. The reality is that our entire currency system is created from debt. Banks are also allowed to issue fiat currency in the form of debt. About 90% of our country's wealth is debt. That's the problem. The whole "fair share" bullshit that these politicians rave about, like there's some untapped potential in multinational corporations that's going to fix our monetary system. No, it's broke at its core, also known as the Federal Reserve.
When you're able to accept that our currency is regulated by a private bank, that there is no law requiring anyone to pay an income tax, and that our politicians are essentially powerless over the economy, then you start to realize that all these numbers and speculations are bullshit. Thinking that Sanders is some savior that's going to go into congress and turn everything around is a false narrative that gives people like you hope so you don't actually rise up and do something about it.
Notice how these "anti-establishment" movements are contained on both sides of the imaginary political spectrum? Not a coincidence. These are the guys that are supposed to be the polarized extremes to represent displeasure with the government. As long as they can honestly give people a sense of hope, a flawed candidate like Hillary Clinton can side step the buffoonery on both sides and it's business as usual.
Forgot about the fed, the heart of the problem. something needs to be done about that place too.
But when it can transcends politics, but not vice-versa you know that there's really no political means by which it can be achieved.
It's only higher taxes for the rich. Very misleading post, it was most likely from a right wing corrupt media source. They always make poor people think it's THERE taxes that are being raised, not the rich.
BAH! bernie is just kissing the a--es of the $464,851 - $499,999 crowd!
BAH! bernie is just kissing the a--es of the $464,851 - $499,999 crowd!
LOL. That specific demographic has always been the key to the electorate :-P
I think that bracket is the remnant of Obama's tax reform that lowered the 39.6% earnings threshold. For some reason they hold on to it but Bernie gives 0 fux.
I recall Bernie Sanders telling a man that his taxes would go up for making $44,000? This isn't true. Again, it depends on how you're filing. Is there now only one way to file?
Also there's a flaw where if you make exactly 250k you're getting double taxed.
BAH! bernie is just kissing the a--es of the $464,851 - $499,999 crowd!
LOL. That specific demographic has always been the key to the electorate :-P
I think that bracket is the remnant of Obama's tax reform that lowered the 39.6% earnings threshold. For some reason they hold on to it but Bernie gives 0 fux.
I recall Bernie Sanders telling a man that his taxes would go up for making $44,000? This isn't true. Again, it depends on how you're filing. Is there now only one way to file?
Also there's a flaw where if you make exactly 250k you're getting double taxed.
same for 2M
that's what happens when poli-sci majors make your posters and not accounting majors.
It's only higher taxes for the rich. Very misleading post, it was most likely from a right wing corrupt media source. They always make poor people think it's THERE taxes that are being raised, not the rich.
Except, Old Bernie doesn't understand economics because he's never been a part of that system.
First off, rich people like being rich. They will continue to find a way to be rich, usually taking from the middle and lower classes. This will result in lower wages for the middle class, as the rich are unwilling to share the wealth.
Second, this is only part of Bernie's tax plan. There are other parts, such as an increase of 6.7% in payroll tax. That's not coming out of the company profits. That will come directly out of worker's salaries.
The point is that Sanders is somewhat delusional. He believes rich people will simply willingly pay more in taxes without any efforts to recoup the loss. They won't. They will recoup it, somehow. Usually with an increase in the cost of products that their businesses produce. This results in a higher rate for service being passed on to the customer. Which, for most businesses, is actually the middle class.
One way or another, you're going to pay.
It's only higher taxes for the rich. Very misleading post, it was most likely from a right wing corrupt media source. They always make poor people think it's THERE taxes that are being raised, not the rich.
Except, Old Bernie doesn't understand economics because he's never been a part of that system.
First off, rich people like being rich. They will continue to find a way to be rich, usually taking from the middle and lower classes. This will result in lower wages for the middle class, as the rich are unwilling to share the wealth.
Second, this is only part of Bernie's tax plan. There are other parts, such as an increase of 6.7% in payroll tax. That's not coming out of the company profits. That will come directly out of worker's salaries.
The point is that Sanders is somewhat delusional. He believes rich people will simply willingly pay more in taxes without any efforts to recoup the loss. They won't. They will recoup it, somehow. Usually with an increase in the cost of products that their businesses produce. This results in a higher rate for service being passed on to the customer. Which, for most businesses, is actually the middle class.
One way or another, you're going to pay.
That goes for pretty much all of the socialist centric proposals. I mean the whole rising the minimum wage end up hurting other workers more than the business owners because they will simply promote less and give less incentives to the good workers to balance out the operating cost while keeping the profit the same.
@bmanva: Keeping minimum wage the same hurts workers and business'. Workers won't have to money to take on education and business' won't have a skilled worker pool since workers are not able to afford the education to move up.
Services and goods are increasing in price one way or the other. The last thing the US needs is an increasing section of low skill workers who can't afford to live anywhere.
@bmanva: Keeping minimum wage the same hurts workers and business'. Workers won't have to money to take on education and business' won't have a skilled worker pool since workers are not able to afford the education to move up.
Services and goods are increasing in price one way or the other. The last thing the US needs is an increasing section of low skill workers who can't afford to live anywhere.
You can't raise the minimum wage while median wages have been stagnant for the past decade or so. It's also self-contradictory to advocate a raise in the minimum wage while asserting that people need better education. If you can live on minimum wage, then you will have less incentive to advance your education.
Goods and services do outpace wages in regards to the cost of living. The LAST thing the US needs is for a minimum wage of $15 an hour to drive even more entry level jobs out of the country. Earning a little beats earning nothing.
@bmanva: Keeping minimum wage the same hurts workers and business'. Workers won't have to money to take on education and business' won't have a skilled worker pool since workers are not able to afford the education to move up.
Services and goods are increasing in price one way or the other. The last thing the US needs is an increasing section of low skill workers who can't afford to live anywhere.
Not sure I understand the idea of "keep everything as it is" because that is what is hurting people to no end. Keep everything the same, people will slip further and further into poverty. raise wages and taxes, and some how we end up in an even worse situation. Then what IS the solution? they never give any. Get rid of money and jobs altogether, and make everything free? The current system is sure as hell not working, so the only way to go is up, raise wages to living wages, make public college and healthcare free because those are what send people spiraling into bankruptcy the most, raise taxes on the rich, prevent then from dodging taxes, and a little on the bottom earners. Even with the pay roll tax, I'd STILL be paying less in taxes then I am now (16.7% vs 22% on $14-15 grand a year).
Personally, if I was getting payed 10 million or more a year, I wouldn't give a **** about being taxes 52% I'd still be filthy fucking rich. Rich people need to reevaluate themselves, and not put so much importance on money. You have 100 billion dollars, do you REALLY need more? is being taxes a few billion rally that big an issue?
@Johnny-n-Roger:
If you can live off min wage then people will save up to go to university or get a skilled trade. There is no reason to believe that raising min wage will mean people won't try to move up. The incentive is always there even if you do raise min wage.
Entry level jobs have been driven out long ago and companies that up and leave will be replaced by another company.
@bmanva: Keeping minimum wage the same hurts workers and business'. Workers won't have to money to take on education and business' won't have a skilled worker pool since workers are not able to afford the education to move up.
Services and goods are increasing in price one way or the other. The last thing the US needs is an increasing section of low skill workers who can't afford to live anywhere.
That's a sh1tty argument. Workers won't need money for education if burning sandal is going to give away education for free.
OK, since the "minimum wage is counterproductive because it hurts workers even though it tends to trail inflation" argument has reared it's head, it's probably worth bringing this up:
Right wing economic heroes such as Hayek and Friedman were also not fans of the minimum wage, but even they recognized that it served an important purpose. As an alternative, they advocated for a guaranteed minimum income. Is that something that the anti-minimum wage advocates in this thread would support?
That goes for pretty much all of the socialist centric proposals. I mean the whole rising the minimum wage end up hurting other workers more than the business owners because they will simply promote less and give less incentives to the good workers to balance out the operating cost while keeping the profit the same.
When I engage the argument of "raising minimum wage", my primary focal point that is never refuted is this:
When you take someone making $1600 a month on Medicaid and other subsidized living programs because their economic burden, and push them to make 2400 a month, they now fall out of the bracket to which certain subsidies are provided. What was previously subsidized now becomes economic burden, and this person is forced to budget for things they previously never had to worry about. The cost of consumer goods also rise, and their job-security is threatened because McDonald's or Walmart doesn't want to pay cashiers $15 an hour. Giving poor people bigger paychecks doesn't give poor people a higher standard of living in this case, and can actually serve to deprive them of buying power.
The other point is in regards to employee benefits. Companies no longer hire employees directly because they will not want give them employee benefits. They will source their employment to "Placement" agencies that offer shitty benefits, arbitrarily limit your hours to exclude you from benefits or overtime, can change your employment assignment and hours with minimal notice, and generally do not have to adhere to any set of guidelines or structure employers do. Companies will find any way to deny benefits to their employees if they have to give them a 50% raise.
The bottom line is that McDonalds shouldn't provide a "livable wage" outside of management. Fast food jobs and other jobs that pay current minimum wage can be done part-time by students and young people that don't require a "livable wage" and are already receiving an education and/or have benefits through either the government or their working parents.
The problem with the term "livable wage" is that the standard varies according to how many shitty decisions you make. If you have 10 kids, then $30 an hour would hardly be a livable wage. If you're single and rent a $1200 a month condo when there are $500 efficiencies across the street, then your "livable wage" determination is different by choice. If "livable" excludes cable, internet, cell phones, snack foods, dining out, automobile expenses, air conditioning, and other utilities overhead then you can already live on $8 an hour. Your healthcare will be subsidized and it will be a shitty life, but you aren't going to starve unless you choose to.
@bmanva: Education isn't for everyone not every person out there is a thinker. You should know you were in the army.
That goes for pretty much all of the socialist centric proposals. I mean the whole rising the minimum wage end up hurting other workers more than the business owners because they will simply promote less and give less incentives to the good workers to balance out the operating cost while keeping the profit the same.
When I engage the argument of "raising minimum wage", my primary focal point that is never refuted is this:
When you take someone making $1600 a month on Medicaid and other subsidized living programs because their economic burden, and push them to make 2400 a month, they now fall out of the bracket to which certain subsidies are provided. What was previously subsidized now becomes economic burden, and this person is forced to budget for things they previously never had to worry about. The cost of consumer goods also rise, and their job-security is threatened because McDonald's or Walmart doesn't want to pay cashiers $15 an hour. Giving poor people bigger paychecks doesn't give poor people a higher standard of living in this case, and can actually serve to deprive them of buying power.
The other point is in regards to employee benefits. Companies no longer hire employees directly because they will not want give them employee benefits. They will source their employment to "Placement" agencies that offer shitty benefits, arbitrarily limit your hours to exclude you from benefits or overtime, can change your employment assignment and hours with minimal notice, and generally do not have to adhere to any set of guidelines or structure employers do. Companies will find any way to deny benefits to their employees if they have to give them a 50% raise.
The bottom line is that McDonalds shouldn't provide a "livable wage" outside of management. Fast food jobs and other jobs that pay current minimum wage can be done part-time by students and young people that don't require a "livable wage" and are already receiving an education and/or have benefits through either the government or their working parents.
The problem with the term "livable wage" is that the standard varies according to how many shitty decisions you make. If you have 10 kids, then $30 an hour would hardly be a livable wage. If you're single and rent a $1200 a month condo when there are $500 efficiencies across the street, then your "livable wage" determination is different by choice. If "livable" excludes cable, internet, cell phones, snack foods, dining out, automobile expenses, air conditioning, and other utilities overhead then you can already live on $8 an hour. Your healthcare will be subsidized and it will be a shitty life, but you aren't going to starve unless you choose to.
The argument is that we should also have a decent standard of living, having a shitty cramped apartment with nothing in it, is not a decent standard of living. Stop the victim blaming.
@AlexKidd5000: Maybe they should work harder.
@AlexKidd5000: Maybe they should work harder.
More victim blaming.
@bmanva: Education isn't for everyone not every person out there is a thinker. You should know you were in the army.
Now you just contradicting yourself. First, it's "minimal wages need to be higher because workers need to pay for education" now it's "not everyone needs an education".
FYI there are plenty of educated individuals in the military. College degree is minimum for officers. National military academies are routinely ranked high among public colleges. Petraeus, a former US MAJCOM commander has a master and doctoral from Princeton. Also I was not in the army, I was enlisted and later commissioned in the air force and I have a BS in CS and MS in MSIS.
Socialism just doesn't work for human beings because human beings are too imperfect. Public schools get all these budget cuts yet they're funded by taxes and still do worse than private schools.
Private schools tend to perform better than public schools because 100% of the student body in a private school has parents who care enough about education to pay extra tuition. That's my opinion, anyway. Public schools tend to have better resources and in many (most?) cases actually compensate teachers better.
That goes for pretty much all of the socialist centric proposals. I mean the whole rising the minimum wage end up hurting other workers more than the business owners because they will simply promote less and give less incentives to the good workers to balance out the operating cost while keeping the profit the same.
When I engage the argument of "raising minimum wage", my primary focal point that is never refuted is this:
When you take someone making $1600 a month on Medicaid and other subsidized living programs because their economic burden, and push them to make 2400 a month, they now fall out of the bracket to which certain subsidies are provided. What was previously subsidized now becomes economic burden, and this person is forced to budget for things they previously never had to worry about. The cost of consumer goods also rise, and their job-security is threatened because McDonald's or Walmart doesn't want to pay cashiers $15 an hour. Giving poor people bigger paychecks doesn't give poor people a higher standard of living in this case, and can actually serve to deprive them of buying power.
The other point is in regards to employee benefits. Companies no longer hire employees directly because they will not want give them employee benefits. They will source their employment to "Placement" agencies that offer shitty benefits, arbitrarily limit your hours to exclude you from benefits or overtime, can change your employment assignment and hours with minimal notice, and generally do not have to adhere to any set of guidelines or structure employers do. Companies will find any way to deny benefits to their employees if they have to give them a 50% raise.
The bottom line is that McDonalds shouldn't provide a "livable wage" outside of management. Fast food jobs and other jobs that pay current minimum wage can be done part-time by students and young people that don't require a "livable wage" and are already receiving an education and/or have benefits through either the government or their working parents.
The problem with the term "livable wage" is that the standard varies according to how many shitty decisions you make. If you have 10 kids, then $30 an hour would hardly be a livable wage. If you're single and rent a $1200 a month condo when there are $500 efficiencies across the street, then your "livable wage" determination is different by choice. If "livable" excludes cable, internet, cell phones, snack foods, dining out, automobile expenses, air conditioning, and other utilities overhead then you can already live on $8 an hour. Your healthcare will be subsidized and it will be a shitty life, but you aren't going to starve unless you choose to.
The argument is that we should also have a decent standard of living, having a shitty cramped apartment with nothing in it, is not a decent standard of living. Stop the victim blaming.
What exactly are they victims of? Plenty of people have excelled under worse circumstances.
That goes for pretty much all of the socialist centric proposals. I mean the whole rising the minimum wage end up hurting other workers more than the business owners because they will simply promote less and give less incentives to the good workers to balance out the operating cost while keeping the profit the same.
When I engage the argument of "raising minimum wage", my primary focal point that is never refuted is this:
When you take someone making $1600 a month on Medicaid and other subsidized living programs because their economic burden, and push them to make 2400 a month, they now fall out of the bracket to which certain subsidies are provided. What was previously subsidized now becomes economic burden, and this person is forced to budget for things they previously never had to worry about. The cost of consumer goods also rise, and their job-security is threatened because McDonald's or Walmart doesn't want to pay cashiers $15 an hour. Giving poor people bigger paychecks doesn't give poor people a higher standard of living in this case, and can actually serve to deprive them of buying power.
The other point is in regards to employee benefits. Companies no longer hire employees directly because they will not want give them employee benefits. They will source their employment to "Placement" agencies that offer shitty benefits, arbitrarily limit your hours to exclude you from benefits or overtime, can change your employment assignment and hours with minimal notice, and generally do not have to adhere to any set of guidelines or structure employers do. Companies will find any way to deny benefits to their employees if they have to give them a 50% raise.
The bottom line is that McDonalds shouldn't provide a "livable wage" outside of management. Fast food jobs and other jobs that pay current minimum wage can be done part-time by students and young people that don't require a "livable wage" and are already receiving an education and/or have benefits through either the government or their working parents.
The problem with the term "livable wage" is that the standard varies according to how many shitty decisions you make. If you have 10 kids, then $30 an hour would hardly be a livable wage. If you're single and rent a $1200 a month condo when there are $500 efficiencies across the street, then your "livable wage" determination is different by choice. If "livable" excludes cable, internet, cell phones, snack foods, dining out, automobile expenses, air conditioning, and other utilities overhead then you can already live on $8 an hour. Your healthcare will be subsidized and it will be a shitty life, but you aren't going to starve unless you choose to.
The argument is that we should also have a decent standard of living, having a shitty cramped apartment with nothing in it, is not a decent standard of living. Stop the victim blaming.
What exactly are they victims of? Plenty of people have excelled under worse circumstances.
Plenty of people survived getting shot in the chest.. In what fucking world is this a legitimate argument in trying to claim something is not so bad.. Hey guys the Rwanda Genocide was bad, but lets not forget that we had plenty of people able to survive the Holocaust.. What ever happened to the United States being the best? It seems like the crowd that chest pounds about this the most are the very same people with these kind of ridiculous points of view like this that complete contradict the prior.
The United States is better than that and such circumstances should not be ignored to begin WITH..
When will people get through their damned heads the actual parasites of the system are the extremely rich and corporations? A parasite is a organism that tricks their host into working for them.. The poor have absolutely no economic or political power it the system, and most government motions have hardly benefited them compared to corporations.. Meanwhile corporations are receiving record profits, have the greatest influence in our political system since the 1880s, and we have actual proof of them doing unethical and illegal things like the Panama papers.. Where we are seeing global evidence that the top politicains in power, all around the world, have amassed illegal fortunes fleecing the system against the people for their own gain.. Who spoke out about Panama before this? Oh that's right Bernie Sanders 4 years back questioning the outright obvious corruption with the trade deal with the country..
How in the hell can any one here suggest that this is a good system? When we have people in poverty, children born into poverty, substandard infrastructure around the country harming people, workers rights being dismantled for decades now all around the country.. Meanwhile we have been seeing the massive growth of profits of the largest corporations who are paying some of the smallest taxes.. Companies like GE actually haven't paid taxes for a few years, alittle while back, and in fact the US gave them money instead.. GE than cut jobs in the United States.. Currently these corporations have their cake and our eating it.. They are taking advantage of the benefits of the system while completely circumventing the cost the benefits require to keep the system healthy.
@bmanva: there is no contradiction. Stop being dishonest. I am replying to two different arguments you brought up.
And it doesn't matter people in the army are not thinkers it isn't a culture of thinking.
@AlexKidd5000: Maybe they should work harder.
More victim blaming.
What's fun is that the real world doesn't really care, either work to improve your situation or you will fail.
@bmanva: there is no contradiction. Stop being dishonest. I am replying to two different arguments you brought up.
And it doesn't matter people in the army are not thinkers it isn't a culture of thinking.
The two arguments are related.
You don't know what you are talking about. Military leaders are tactical and strategic thinkers. Within the officer corps there are absolutely a culture of thinking, just very specific type of thoughts.
That goes for pretty much all of the socialist centric proposals. I mean the whole rising the minimum wage end up hurting other workers more than the business owners because they will simply promote less and give less incentives to the good workers to balance out the operating cost while keeping the profit the same.
When I engage the argument of "raising minimum wage", my primary focal point that is never refuted is this:
When you take someone making $1600 a month on Medicaid and other subsidized living programs because their economic burden, and push them to make 2400 a month, they now fall out of the bracket to which certain subsidies are provided. What was previously subsidized now becomes economic burden, and this person is forced to budget for things they previously never had to worry about. The cost of consumer goods also rise, and their job-security is threatened because McDonald's or Walmart doesn't want to pay cashiers $15 an hour. Giving poor people bigger paychecks doesn't give poor people a higher standard of living in this case, and can actually serve to deprive them of buying power.
The other point is in regards to employee benefits. Companies no longer hire employees directly because they will not want give them employee benefits. They will source their employment to "Placement" agencies that offer shitty benefits, arbitrarily limit your hours to exclude you from benefits or overtime, can change your employment assignment and hours with minimal notice, and generally do not have to adhere to any set of guidelines or structure employers do. Companies will find any way to deny benefits to their employees if they have to give them a 50% raise.
The bottom line is that McDonalds shouldn't provide a "livable wage" outside of management. Fast food jobs and other jobs that pay current minimum wage can be done part-time by students and young people that don't require a "livable wage" and are already receiving an education and/or have benefits through either the government or their working parents.
The problem with the term "livable wage" is that the standard varies according to how many shitty decisions you make. If you have 10 kids, then $30 an hour would hardly be a livable wage. If you're single and rent a $1200 a month condo when there are $500 efficiencies across the street, then your "livable wage" determination is different by choice. If "livable" excludes cable, internet, cell phones, snack foods, dining out, automobile expenses, air conditioning, and other utilities overhead then you can already live on $8 an hour. Your healthcare will be subsidized and it will be a shitty life, but you aren't going to starve unless you choose to.
The argument is that we should also have a decent standard of living, having a shitty cramped apartment with nothing in it, is not a decent standard of living. Stop the victim blaming.
"decent standard of living" however is subjective. that was the point of the prior comment. how would you word legislation to tie the minimum wage of a state to a decent standard of living as the definition will vary person to person? you need to tie it to something objective. it is not victim blaming, it's a practical matter of authoring legislation. also, by using the term "victim blaming" you're naturally assuming a person making min-wage is automatically a victim of something??
That goes for pretty much all of the socialist centric proposals. I mean the whole rising the minimum wage end up hurting other workers more than the business owners because they will simply promote less and give less incentives to the good workers to balance out the operating cost while keeping the profit the same.
When I engage the argument of "raising minimum wage", my primary focal point that is never refuted is this:
When you take someone making $1600 a month on Medicaid and other subsidized living programs because their economic burden, and push them to make 2400 a month, they now fall out of the bracket to which certain subsidies are provided. What was previously subsidized now becomes economic burden, and this person is forced to budget for things they previously never had to worry about. The cost of consumer goods also rise, and their job-security is threatened because McDonald's or Walmart doesn't want to pay cashiers $15 an hour. Giving poor people bigger paychecks doesn't give poor people a higher standard of living in this case, and can actually serve to deprive them of buying power.
The other point is in regards to employee benefits. Companies no longer hire employees directly because they will not want give them employee benefits. They will source their employment to "Placement" agencies that offer shitty benefits, arbitrarily limit your hours to exclude you from benefits or overtime, can change your employment assignment and hours with minimal notice, and generally do not have to adhere to any set of guidelines or structure employers do. Companies will find any way to deny benefits to their employees if they have to give them a 50% raise.
The bottom line is that McDonalds shouldn't provide a "livable wage" outside of management. Fast food jobs and other jobs that pay current minimum wage can be done part-time by students and young people that don't require a "livable wage" and are already receiving an education and/or have benefits through either the government or their working parents.
The problem with the term "livable wage" is that the standard varies according to how many shitty decisions you make. If you have 10 kids, then $30 an hour would hardly be a livable wage. If you're single and rent a $1200 a month condo when there are $500 efficiencies across the street, then your "livable wage" determination is different by choice. If "livable" excludes cable, internet, cell phones, snack foods, dining out, automobile expenses, air conditioning, and other utilities overhead then you can already live on $8 an hour. Your healthcare will be subsidized and it will be a shitty life, but you aren't going to starve unless you choose to.
The argument is that we should also have a decent standard of living, having a shitty cramped apartment with nothing in it, is not a decent standard of living. Stop the victim blaming.
What exactly are they victims of? Plenty of people have excelled under worse circumstances.
Plenty of people survived getting shot in the chest.. In what fucking world is this a legitimate argument in trying to claim something is not so bad.. Hey guys the Rwanda Genocide was bad, but lets not forget that we had plenty of people able to survive the Holocaust.. What ever happened to the United States being the best? It seems like the crowd that chest pounds about this the most are the very same people with these kind of ridiculous points of view like this that complete contradict the prior.
The United States is better than that and such circumstances should not be ignored to begin WITH..
When will people get through their damned heads the actual parasites of the system are the extremely rich and corporations? A parasite is a organism that tricks their host into working for them.. The poor have absolutely no economic or political power it the system, and most government motions have hardly benefited them compared to corporations.. Meanwhile corporations are receiving record profits, have the greatest influence in our political system since the 1880s, and we have actual proof of them doing unethical and illegal things like the Panama papers.. Where we are seeing global evidence that the top politicains in power, all around the world, have amassed illegal fortunes fleecing the system against the people for their own gain.. Who spoke out about Panama before this? Oh that's right Bernie Sanders 4 years back questioning the outright obvious corruption with the trade deal with the country..
How in the hell can any one here suggest that this is a good system? When we have people in poverty, children born into poverty, substandard infrastructure around the country harming people, workers rights being dismantled for decades now all around the country.. Meanwhile we have been seeing the massive growth of profits of the largest corporations who are paying some of the smallest taxes.. Companies like GE actually haven't paid taxes for a few years, alittle while back, and in fact the US gave them money instead.. GE than cut jobs in the United States.. Currently these corporations have their cake and our eating it.. They are taking advantage of the benefits of the system while completely circumventing the cost the benefits require to keep the system healthy.
Could not have said it better myself.
Someone please explain why the US just happened to start turning into an impoverished shit hole when Reagan took office? Reaganomics is your answer, and is what is still very much in place today. The very rich evade taxes, and the countries themselves become impoverished, and damaged as a result. Add extreme corruption to the mix, and that exacerbates the problem. Trade deals exterminate jobs like there is no tomorrow.
When I engage the argument of "raising minimum wage", my primary focal point that is never refuted is this:
When you take someone making $1600 a month on Medicaid and other subsidized living programs because their economic burden, and push them to make 2400 a month, they now fall out of the bracket to which certain subsidies are provided. What was previously subsidized now becomes economic burden, and this person is forced to budget for things they previously never had to worry about. The cost of consumer goods also rise, and their job-security is threatened because McDonald's or Walmart doesn't want to pay cashiers $15 an hour. Giving poor people bigger paychecks doesn't give poor people a higher standard of living in this case, and can actually serve to deprive them of buying power.
The other point is in regards to employee benefits. Companies no longer hire employees directly because they will not want give them employee benefits. They will source their employment to "Placement" agencies that offer shitty benefits, arbitrarily limit your hours to exclude you from benefits or overtime, can change your employment assignment and hours with minimal notice, and generally do not have to adhere to any set of guidelines or structure employers do. Companies will find any way to deny benefits to their employees if they have to give them a 50% raise.
The bottom line is that McDonalds shouldn't provide a "livable wage" outside of management. Fast food jobs and other jobs that pay current minimum wage can be done part-time by students and young people that don't require a "livable wage" and are already receiving an education and/or have benefits through either the government or their working parents.
The problem with the term "livable wage" is that the standard varies according to how many shitty decisions you make. If you have 10 kids, then $30 an hour would hardly be a livable wage. If you're single and rent a $1200 a month condo when there are $500 efficiencies across the street, then your "livable wage" determination is different by choice. If "livable" excludes cable, internet, cell phones, snack foods, dining out, automobile expenses, air conditioning, and other utilities overhead then you can already live on $8 an hour. Your healthcare will be subsidized and it will be a shitty life, but you aren't going to starve unless you choose to.
The argument is that we should also have a decent standard of living, having a shitty cramped apartment with nothing in it, is not a decent standard of living. Stop the victim blaming.
What exactly are they victims of? Plenty of people have excelled under worse circumstances.
Plenty of people survived getting shot in the chest.. In what fucking world is this a legitimate argument in trying to claim something is not so bad.. Hey guys the Rwanda Genocide was bad, but lets not forget that we had plenty of people able to survive the Holocaust.. What ever happened to the United States being the best? It seems like the crowd that chest pounds about this the most are the very same people with these kind of ridiculous points of view like this that complete contradict the prior.
The United States is better than that and such circumstances should not be ignored to begin WITH..
When will people get through their damned heads the actual parasites of the system are the extremely rich and corporations? A parasite is a organism that tricks their host into working for them.. The poor have absolutely no economic or political power it the system, and most government motions have hardly benefited them compared to corporations.. Meanwhile corporations are receiving record profits, have the greatest influence in our political system since the 1880s, and we have actual proof of them doing unethical and illegal things like the Panama papers.. Where we are seeing global evidence that the top politicains in power, all around the world, have amassed illegal fortunes fleecing the system against the people for their own gain.. Who spoke out about Panama before this? Oh that's right Bernie Sanders 4 years back questioning the outright obvious corruption with the trade deal with the country..
How in the hell can any one here suggest that this is a good system? When we have people in poverty, children born into poverty, substandard infrastructure around the country harming people, workers rights being dismantled for decades now all around the country.. Meanwhile we have been seeing the massive growth of profits of the largest corporations who are paying some of the smallest taxes.. Companies like GE actually haven't paid taxes for a few years, alittle while back, and in fact the US gave them money instead.. GE than cut jobs in the United States.. Currently these corporations have their cake and our eating it.. They are taking advantage of the benefits of the system while completely circumventing the cost the benefits require to keep the system healthy.
How is poverty like being shot in the chest though? While law that protect someone being shot make sense since it results in no loss of someone else's right, law that protect someone from being poor doesn't because it equates to reducing someone else's earned wealth to balance out. My point with the latter statement is referring to the fact that the underprivileged had same level of if not more success in improving their situations before SJW intervention. US was the "best" long before and is the "best" in spite of social welfare and handouts as the case with many of the socialist "utopias", so I failed to see the relevance.
The "extremely rich and corporations" are not parasites because they are the ones responsible for generating most wealth. They are the ones with the capacity to offer opportunities to most segment of the population. This myth that proletariat alone can succeed and thrive in have already been debunked by failure of all real world implementation of communism. Economic power is equal regardless of status; a dollar from a poor person has the exact same buying power as a dollar from the rich. Now if we are talking about economic power as represented by accumulation of wealth, then that's the way it SHOULD be. As for political representation, that's the result of government encroachment of the market. It's no coincidence that economic freedom correlate with freedom from corruption. The more government asserts itself into the economy, the more the corporations will be driven to "buy" off politicians.
Affirmative action is another good example of government intervention that is meant to "right" a perceived imbalance but actual execution not only did not help the individuals it meant to help but resulted in creating further imbalance.
The argument is that we should also have a decent standard of living, having a shitty cramped apartment with nothing in it, is not a decent standard of living. Stop the victim blaming.
What exactly are they victims of? Plenty of people have excelled under worse circumstances.
Plenty of people survived getting shot in the chest.. In what fucking world is this a legitimate argument in trying to claim something is not so bad.. Hey guys the Rwanda Genocide was bad, but lets not forget that we had plenty of people able to survive the Holocaust.. What ever happened to the United States being the best? It seems like the crowd that chest pounds about this the most are the very same people with these kind of ridiculous points of view like this that complete contradict the prior.
The United States is better than that and such circumstances should not be ignored to begin WITH..
When will people get through their damned heads the actual parasites of the system are the extremely rich and corporations? A parasite is a organism that tricks their host into working for them.. The poor have absolutely no economic or political power it the system, and most government motions have hardly benefited them compared to corporations.. Meanwhile corporations are receiving record profits, have the greatest influence in our political system since the 1880s, and we have actual proof of them doing unethical and illegal things like the Panama papers.. Where we are seeing global evidence that the top politicains in power, all around the world, have amassed illegal fortunes fleecing the system against the people for their own gain.. Who spoke out about Panama before this? Oh that's right Bernie Sanders 4 years back questioning the outright obvious corruption with the trade deal with the country..
How in the hell can any one here suggest that this is a good system? When we have people in poverty, children born into poverty, substandard infrastructure around the country harming people, workers rights being dismantled for decades now all around the country.. Meanwhile we have been seeing the massive growth of profits of the largest corporations who are paying some of the smallest taxes.. Companies like GE actually haven't paid taxes for a few years, alittle while back, and in fact the US gave them money instead.. GE than cut jobs in the United States.. Currently these corporations have their cake and our eating it.. They are taking advantage of the benefits of the system while completely circumventing the cost the benefits require to keep the system healthy.
How is poverty like being shot in the chest though? While law that protect someone being shot make sense since it results in no loss of someone else's right, law that protect someone from being poor doesn't because it equates to reducing someone else's earned wealth to balance out. My point with the latter statement is referring to the fact that the underprivileged had same level of if not more success in improving their situations before SJW intervention. US was the "best" long before and is the "best" in spite of social welfare and handouts as the case with many of the socialist "utopias", so I failed to see the relevance.
The "extremely rich and corporations" are not parasites because they are the ones responsible for generating most wealth. They are the ones with the capacity to offer opportunities to most segment of the population. This myth that proletariat alone can succeed and thrive in have already been debunked by failure of all real world implementation of communism. Economic power is equal regardless of status; a dollar from a poor person has the exact same buying power as a dollar from the rich. Now if we are talking about economic power as represented by accumulation of wealth, then that's the way it SHOULD be. As for political representation, that's the result of government encroachment of the market. It's no coincidence that economic freedom correlate with freedom from corruption. The more government asserts itself into the economy, the more the corporations will be driven to "buy" off politicians.
Affirmative action is another good example of government intervention that is meant to "right" a perceived imbalance but actual execution not only did not help the individuals it meant to help but resulted in creating further imbalance.
You know what will fix the problem? Creating jobs, and raising wages! Then people will go "Yay! **** welfare! i dont have to be on that anymore!" And making public college affordable so people who attend them don't have to spend the rest of there lives paying off the insane amounts of debt!
The argument is that we should also have a decent standard of living, having a shitty cramped apartment with nothing in it, is not a decent standard of living. Stop the victim blaming.
What exactly are they victims of? Plenty of people have excelled under worse circumstances.
Plenty of people survived getting shot in the chest.. In what fucking world is this a legitimate argument in trying to claim something is not so bad.. Hey guys the Rwanda Genocide was bad, but lets not forget that we had plenty of people able to survive the Holocaust.. What ever happened to the United States being the best? It seems like the crowd that chest pounds about this the most are the very same people with these kind of ridiculous points of view like this that complete contradict the prior.
The United States is better than that and such circumstances should not be ignored to begin WITH..
When will people get through their damned heads the actual parasites of the system are the extremely rich and corporations? A parasite is a organism that tricks their host into working for them.. The poor have absolutely no economic or political power it the system, and most government motions have hardly benefited them compared to corporations.. Meanwhile corporations are receiving record profits, have the greatest influence in our political system since the 1880s, and we have actual proof of them doing unethical and illegal things like the Panama papers.. Where we are seeing global evidence that the top politicains in power, all around the world, have amassed illegal fortunes fleecing the system against the people for their own gain.. Who spoke out about Panama before this? Oh that's right Bernie Sanders 4 years back questioning the outright obvious corruption with the trade deal with the country..
How in the hell can any one here suggest that this is a good system? When we have people in poverty, children born into poverty, substandard infrastructure around the country harming people, workers rights being dismantled for decades now all around the country.. Meanwhile we have been seeing the massive growth of profits of the largest corporations who are paying some of the smallest taxes.. Companies like GE actually haven't paid taxes for a few years, alittle while back, and in fact the US gave them money instead.. GE than cut jobs in the United States.. Currently these corporations have their cake and our eating it.. They are taking advantage of the benefits of the system while completely circumventing the cost the benefits require to keep the system healthy.
How is poverty like being shot in the chest though? While law that protect someone being shot make sense since it results in no loss of someone else's right, law that protect someone from being poor doesn't because it equates to reducing someone else's earned wealth to balance out. My point with the latter statement is referring to the fact that the underprivileged had same level of if not more success in improving their situations before SJW intervention. US was the "best" long before and is the "best" in spite of social welfare and handouts as the case with many of the socialist "utopias", so I failed to see the relevance.
The "extremely rich and corporations" are not parasites because they are the ones responsible for generating most wealth. They are the ones with the capacity to offer opportunities to most segment of the population. This myth that proletariat alone can succeed and thrive in have already been debunked by failure of all real world implementation of communism. Economic power is equal regardless of status; a dollar from a poor person has the exact same buying power as a dollar from the rich. Now if we are talking about economic power as represented by accumulation of wealth, then that's the way it SHOULD be. As for political representation, that's the result of government encroachment of the market. It's no coincidence that economic freedom correlate with freedom from corruption. The more government asserts itself into the economy, the more the corporations will be driven to "buy" off politicians.
Affirmative action is another good example of government intervention that is meant to "right" a perceived imbalance but actual execution not only did not help the individuals it meant to help but resulted in creating further imbalance.
You know what will fix the problem? Creating jobs, and raising wages! Then people will go "Yay! **** welfare! i dont have to be on that anymore!" And making public college affordable so people who attend them don't have to spend the rest of there lives paying off the insane amounts of debt!
That's not saying much. "Solutions" like yours are useless as saying world peace by ending all wars and cure hunger by feeding the needy. They undermine the complexity of the issues and varying consequences of those proposals. Jobs can't be created out of thin air and wages need to be earned not given. How would you go about making public colleges more affordable? Reduce staff salaries? Increase tax?
The argument is that we should also have a decent standard of living, having a shitty cramped apartment with nothing in it, is not a decent standard of living. Stop the victim blaming.
What exactly are they victims of? Plenty of people have excelled under worse circumstances.
Plenty of people survived getting shot in the chest.. In what fucking world is this a legitimate argument in trying to claim something is not so bad.. Hey guys the Rwanda Genocide was bad, but lets not forget that we had plenty of people able to survive the Holocaust.. What ever happened to the United States being the best? It seems like the crowd that chest pounds about this the most are the very same people with these kind of ridiculous points of view like this that complete contradict the prior.
The United States is better than that and such circumstances should not be ignored to begin WITH..
When will people get through their damned heads the actual parasites of the system are the extremely rich and corporations? A parasite is a organism that tricks their host into working for them.. The poor have absolutely no economic or political power it the system, and most government motions have hardly benefited them compared to corporations.. Meanwhile corporations are receiving record profits, have the greatest influence in our political system since the 1880s, and we have actual proof of them doing unethical and illegal things like the Panama papers.. Where we are seeing global evidence that the top politicains in power, all around the world, have amassed illegal fortunes fleecing the system against the people for their own gain.. Who spoke out about Panama before this? Oh that's right Bernie Sanders 4 years back questioning the outright obvious corruption with the trade deal with the country..
How in the hell can any one here suggest that this is a good system? When we have people in poverty, children born into poverty, substandard infrastructure around the country harming people, workers rights being dismantled for decades now all around the country.. Meanwhile we have been seeing the massive growth of profits of the largest corporations who are paying some of the smallest taxes.. Companies like GE actually haven't paid taxes for a few years, alittle while back, and in fact the US gave them money instead.. GE than cut jobs in the United States.. Currently these corporations have their cake and our eating it.. They are taking advantage of the benefits of the system while completely circumventing the cost the benefits require to keep the system healthy.
How is poverty like being shot in the chest though? While law that protect someone being shot make sense since it results in no loss of someone else's right, law that protect someone from being poor doesn't because it equates to reducing someone else's earned wealth to balance out. My point with the latter statement is referring to the fact that the underprivileged had same level of if not more success in improving their situations before SJW intervention. US was the "best" long before and is the "best" in spite of social welfare and handouts as the case with many of the socialist "utopias", so I failed to see the relevance.
The "extremely rich and corporations" are not parasites because they are the ones responsible for generating most wealth. They are the ones with the capacity to offer opportunities to most segment of the population. This myth that proletariat alone can succeed and thrive in have already been debunked by failure of all real world implementation of communism. Economic power is equal regardless of status; a dollar from a poor person has the exact same buying power as a dollar from the rich. Now if we are talking about economic power as represented by accumulation of wealth, then that's the way it SHOULD be. As for political representation, that's the result of government encroachment of the market. It's no coincidence that economic freedom correlate with freedom from corruption. The more government asserts itself into the economy, the more the corporations will be driven to "buy" off politicians.
Affirmative action is another good example of government intervention that is meant to "right" a perceived imbalance but actual execution not only did not help the individuals it meant to help but resulted in creating further imbalance.
You know what will fix the problem? Creating jobs, and raising wages! Then people will go "Yay! **** welfare! i dont have to be on that anymore!" And making public college affordable so people who attend them don't have to spend the rest of there lives paying off the insane amounts of debt!
businesses do not exist in a vacuum. they do not create jobs because they're nice or they're told to. if there is no business need for the job ( more work than people, expected future growth, etc.. ) why would the business hire more people?
same with wages. sure a business could raise wages because they're nice people, but that comes at the expense of their bottom line ( assuming all other factors being equal ). now suppose they have a competitor of equal size in the same industry that does not raise their wages. that competitor has additional resources to invest in expanding the business because it saved that money by paying its employees less. which business do you think will ultimately be able to expand more and thrive?
Could not have said it better myself.
Someone please explain why the US just happened to start turning into an impoverished shit hole when Reagan took office? Reaganomics is your answer, and is what is still very much in place today. The very rich evade taxes, and the countries themselves become impoverished, and damaged as a result. Add extreme corruption to the mix, and that exacerbates the problem. Trade deals exterminate jobs like there is no tomorrow.
To simplify:
It begins with Woodrow Wilson essentially turning the regulation of US currency over to the Federal Reserve, which is a private bank. When the government has to borrow its own currency with interest from an independent bank, no money can exist without debt. All currency becomes figurative, or fiat currency. This is also when a "federal income tax" was implemented. Despite being unconstitutional and there being no law requiring one to pay such a direct, yet unapportioned people to this day conform to paying it, and you can be imprisoned for breaking a law that does not exist.
The worst part is that "income tax" only pays interest to the Federal Reserve. It doesn't fund social programs or infrastructure. Corporate taxes fund the Military and State and Federal excise taxes along with real estate taxes fund most everything else. The reason you don't know this is because it isn't apportioned. While you're (not) "required" by non-law to fill out a 1040, the IRS never shows you where your money really goes.
Under Reagan the the banking industry was completely deregulated; even more so than under Woodrow Wilson because much of the Reagan administration was represented by affiliates of Goldman Sachs. They promoted this massive push for people become home-owners created an excessive demand for real-estate.
We know the story, real estate went to shit, banks weren't able to account for the money they were lending but never had, Americans paying unconstitutional taxes were forced to put the same pricks back in business that screwed the economy over, gas prices were ridiculous, consumer goods went up, and we're all screwed.
As far as corruption, the IRS is at the core. Their tax codes could fill a library. Why such an elaborate system of stealing people's money? To create loopholes for their interests in multinational corporations. That's how a company can generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and have a negative income and be given a tax refund. It's really mind-fucking.
I believe most of the millennials like socialism only because of the crushing debt load that the older generation condemned them to via the viciously exploitative university system. The purpose of education is to educate, not to condemn students into the abyss of student debt. Had student debt been treated as any other debt that you could default on, the bubble would have burst long ago as the government wrote off billions of dollars in SD. Had it been a normal corporation than the government doing the lending, the corporation would be seen as a vulture exploiting people with little resources and knowledge. Alas, socialism is in large part fuelled by the student debt that the previous generation thought fine to bestow on the millennials. If the bum Sanders wins the Presidency, the country will reach a new low and nobody can blame the millennials for voting him in. However, it will be on them to repair then destructive Sanders presidency if the country is still around.
@still_vicious :
Because so many are just so outraged that "lazy people" are getting money, countless good and hard working people will loose their homes. Doesn't matter how many worthy people get assistance, if one or two "lazy bums" get a dime we have to shut it down. Sad really. And corporate welfare is just fine.
I don't know about your twenty dollars an hour example. Where I live they get nowhere near that and I'm in super liberal Chicago. That said, 20 dollars an hour wouldn't buy you a shack to live in.
Assistance is one thing. Making it a way of life is another. We've seen so-called lifelines and safety nets become one continuous circle. Unfortunately it isn't only one or two lazy bums living off my dime.
Your mentioning of corporate welfare is just a way to distract. I doubt most people here would be in favor of giving tax dollars to multi-billion dollar corporations. Like most liberals, you seem to think one act of bad behavior justifies another and that is nonsense.
If you don't know about his $20.00 example, educate yourself. You can easily find out how much each state averages in terms of "welfare." People flock to my state and hop on the welfare rolls because the Democrats love to pass out "free" money since they seem to believe it grows on trees. Any effort made to crack down on such handouts is always met with the harshest of responses by the left.
have the panama papers taught yu nothing? ... they steal billions from tax money every year and month and you moan about giving a few hundred Dollars a month to some people who really could use a hand and some structure in their lifes... now thats the fascism that goes totally unnoticed in the world of today ...
regards
@still_vicious :
Because so many are just so outraged that "lazy people" are getting money, countless good and hard working people will loose their homes. Doesn't matter how many worthy people get assistance, if one or two "lazy bums" get a dime we have to shut it down. Sad really. And corporate welfare is just fine.
I don't know about your twenty dollars an hour example. Where I live they get nowhere near that and I'm in super liberal Chicago. That said, 20 dollars an hour wouldn't buy you a shack to live in.
Assistance is one thing. Making it a way of life is another. We've seen so-called lifelines and safety nets become one continuous circle. Unfortunately it isn't only one or two lazy bums living off my dime.
Your mentioning of corporate welfare is just a way to distract. I doubt most people here would be in favor of giving tax dollars to multi-billion dollar corporations. Like most liberals, you seem to think one act of bad behavior justifies another and that is nonsense.
If you don't know about his $20.00 example, educate yourself. You can easily find out how much each state averages in terms of "welfare." People flock to my state and hop on the welfare rolls because the Democrats love to pass out "free" money since they seem to believe it grows on trees. Any effort made to crack down on such handouts is always met with the harshest of responses by the left.
It's easy to throw money at the issue rather than encourage people to work for themselves.
@still_vicious :
Because so many are just so outraged that "lazy people" are getting money, countless good and hard working people will loose their homes. Doesn't matter how many worthy people get assistance, if one or two "lazy bums" get a dime we have to shut it down. Sad really. And corporate welfare is just fine.
I don't know about your twenty dollars an hour example. Where I live they get nowhere near that and I'm in super liberal Chicago. That said, 20 dollars an hour wouldn't buy you a shack to live in.
Assistance is one thing. Making it a way of life is another. We've seen so-called lifelines and safety nets become one continuous circle. Unfortunately it isn't only one or two lazy bums living off my dime.
Your mentioning of corporate welfare is just a way to distract. I doubt most people here would be in favor of giving tax dollars to multi-billion dollar corporations. Like most liberals, you seem to think one act of bad behavior justifies another and that is nonsense.
If you don't know about his $20.00 example, educate yourself. You can easily find out how much each state averages in terms of "welfare." People flock to my state and hop on the welfare rolls because the Democrats love to pass out "free" money since they seem to believe it grows on trees. Any effort made to crack down on such handouts is always met with the harshest of responses by the left.
You are a lot more worried about people you think are not deserving getting welfare than you are worried about good hard working people who have fallen on hard times getting welfare. Seems backward and rotten to me. I'm not trying to distract you from the minor problem of welfare abuse by bringing up the much larger problem of corporate welfare. There are a lot more rich people living off of "your dime" than poor. The reason your taxes are higher than they could be is because the poor cant pay them and the rich refuse. Plus our obscene military spending which low tax righties love. I've traveled quite a bit and have known plenty of people who receive welfare and have yet to see any living a good lifestyle. Your welfare good life thing is a myth. I hope you never fall on hard times and have to live off of welfare, you'd be in for a rude awakening.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment