Sure we can do that. Lets cut government pay in half, and use the other half to employ the rest. Easy peasy. Better yet, since some still wont work, lets just cut the poverty line down to $1 a year, send everyone a buck - problem solved. Thanks for that argument, no need to repost it ad nauseum anymore. Go back to the war time tax rates for a war on drugs post you trolled last summer.
Why do you believe I make up the strings of words I do; because, I always end up having to quibble. How does that solve for real poverty?
So its okay for a CEO to make 9000 an hour yet 10.00 seems to high??? Wow like in competition someone will come along that can do it and make a profit. Honestly them would still make a profit the poor CEO might actually only make 8,000 poor little CEO
You haven't defined what you mean by "real" poverty. Is real poverty not being able to afford pay channels on cable? Or being stuck with a 50" plasma TV? Is real poverty having last year's I-phone? For some reason, many many MANY people on the unconstitutional federal dole seem to be doing quite well. So why shouldn't others quibble when you haven't defined your terms? - - - Updated - - - Are you paying the CEO? No? Then his wages aren't your concern. Are you paying the minimum wage slug? Yes? Then you should pay more. If you're not, his wages aren't your concern. What part of "Its not your money" slipped past you unnoticed?
Real poverty is what the right claims to be real poverty; we only have relative poverty under our form of Socialism, because providing for the general welfare is in our social contract. Official poverty has already been fixed as a Standard of those weights and measures of it.
i would have said $9/hour but since it wasnt up there i just chose $10. i think $7.25 these days is too low but no way in hell should a fry cook make $15/hr, or the equivalent of a decently experienced automechanic.
I presume he meant, based on his production. If he is the only employee and his production earned an employer $20 an hour net (after all other overhead) then maybe he earns between $8.00 and $10 an hour.
Here's what's going to happen guys. First, the Democrats will triumphantly raise the minimum wage, despite opposition from the Republicans (and by opposition, I mean that they won't be able to do it without Republican votes). Then, the Republicans will triumphantly lower welfare benefits and subsidies, despite opposition from the Democrats (and by opposition, I mean that they won't be able to do it without Democrat votes). Finally, they will do a song and dance routine. The Democrat will be singing, "You hate teh poor," and the Republican will sing, "Well, you hate responsibilityyyyy," and they will spin around and touch their fingers together.
Here's a clue: Read the 13th Amendment. By doing that, you'll realize that involuntary servitude is unconstitutional (which doesn't mean as much as it should in a nation whose courts unconstitutionally rewrote a law so that out pretend to be Constitutional via an invalide reading of Article I, Section 8....and thus directly in violation of Article I, Section 7, Part 1...).. But, the very premise of capitalism, which the people dumb enough to vote for Obama are always whining about, is that that people have CHOICES. If an employer chooses to pay someone what the employee feels is too little, the employee has the choice of finding a job that pays more, quitting without a job to step into, or keeping the job he has. If the employee CHOOSES to keep the job he has, then he agrees, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, that his time provides no greater value to the company than the wages he is earning, and that he cannot find better pay elsewhere. Or that he's too friggin' lazy to look, and that means he's getting paid what little his admittedly lazy ass is worth in the job marketplace. Really, the free market of jobs isn't a complicated thing to understand. The employee and employer come to a MUTUALLY AGREED UPON compensation package, or the prospective employee keeps looking. Why do you people act like people have a right to a job, or a right to make a living? There's no such right, since this infringes on the rights of others to own property.
Nope. Do read Federalist 41. The reason the Constitution grants Congress ONLY specifically enumerated powers is that Congress does not have unlimited power. Playing Robbin' Hood isn't enumerated, and hence Congress can't do it legally. The Congress has authority to do only those things enumerated in Article I, Section 8. "Provide for the general welfare" isn't one of the enumerated powers. It's all in your head.
It depends on what you mean by "unlimited power". In any case, I have read The Federalist Papers, especially number 41. Here are the Specifically Enumerated, General Powers delegated to our federal Congress:
It's good to rub elbows with powerful types, huh? - - - Updated - - - Yup...you got it. The more you have, the more you deserve. The harder you work, the less you're allowed to make.
More simplistic clap-trap. Where does it say that your right to own property enables you to deny others the right to a living?
Actually no! But the problem with trying to force a change will cause massive labor problems and disruptions in our economy. A huge majority of CEOs don't need to ever work again, but they do because of the incentives of very high pay. Forcing a change will introduce less effective CEOs into the mix with the subsequent loss of profits which will have negative effects on our prosperity. That is not at all true. The harder and the smarter people work the more they get. Most failures either have obsolete skills or bad attitudes.
I don't agree with all that, but some of it makes sense. In particular, Most of the jobs we lost only required unskilled workers. I do believe the less wealthy workers need more money, but how we give it to them must be in such a way as to improve their standard of living, not something which will simply move the poverty level higher,
I don't require a work ethic. I require that you accept and deal with the consequences of your choices without burdening others, and relinquish you of any responsibility to share the fruits of your choices with me.
Good post! Daniel gets stuck on that record, and he doesn't even know what he said means. I keep him on ignore now, but when you quote him I see it in your post. He parrots "work ethic", "free choice," and "on an at-will basis. He is somewhere about as smart as a fence post, and he trolls all of the threads just to get a rise out of people. He touts socialism, which has always been a dismal failure. He claims that government is a form of socialism which reflects his ignorance. He whines and cries about "what our Founding Fathers said in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, yet even when presented with absolute proof his reasoning is useless, he will go full circle and start posting the same stupid things he posted at the beginning hoping someone will humor him and go through all the proofs once again. He is ignorant, but clever, and his trolling is mostly hoping someone will post something insulting to him such that that someone is infracted. Don't fall for his nonsense.
"Hooray for me and FU"! Awesome dude! Keep advocating how wonderful it is doing the bidding of the very wealthy and, you'll continue to thrive, no doubt. They need their spokespeople these days, as they're getting few and far between. Socialism? I've always heard how bad it would be but frankly, I'm beginning to question that theory. Crapitalism has been a disastrous conundrum lately.
Why do you say that since I do not advocate for the very wealthy? I may express some facts about them, but I do not advocate for them. The post to which you responded only addressed some issues by our locally grown troll who cries "socialism" as a way to do everything. If you think Capitalism is bad, why don't you move to a socialist state? I can assure you, given the opportunity, you will be rushing back to the relative comfort of Capitalism even with all its over paid CEOs and sports stars.
You continually defend the status quo. Clearly, you advocate for them. Why do you do that? Crapitalism is killing us, if you hadn't noticed. Without massive freshly printed cash dumps to the big boys every month, all would crash. You have to realize that, do you not? SOMEBODY benefits from crapitalism, surely. It just ISN'T society at large. All IT is doing, is sinking deeper, and deeper, yet you seem to try and spin it all as some sort of fantastic thing, and 'all hail' the corporation (which is nonsense). Socialism? Again, I don't know if it's bad or good. I just know the PRESENT system, stinks to high heaven.
1. Just 2.8% of American workers earn at or below the minimum wage. The U.S. Department of Labor says 1.6 million people make the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Another 2 million earn below that rate, such as restaurant servers who make tips in addition to a lower base hourly wage which, according to U.S. News and World Report, "in many cases actually puts them significantly above the minimum wage in reality, if not officially." That means in a nation of 317 million people, just 3.6 million (1.1%) make at or below the minimum wage. As a share of the U.S. workforce, just 2.8% of people working make minimum wage. 2. Half of all minimum wage workers are 16 to 24 years old. According to the Department of Labor, "minimum wage workers tend to be young," and "about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less" are below age 25. Many of these are students working while in school or teenagers with part-time or summer jobs. That means half of the people most affected by a minimum wage hike are among those least likely to show up at the polls to vote, especially in a midterm election year. Indeed, minimum wage workers who are 16 and 17 years old are not even legally eligible to vote. 3. Labor workers already make well above the minimum wage. Democrats and unions hoping labor workers will be energized by a minimum wage bump will be sad to know that laborers in every single sector of what the government calls "production and nonsupervisory employees"like manufacturing, construction, mining, retail, transportation, etc.already earn well above the minimum wage. In fact, in November 2013, the government reported that the average hourly labor wage across all industries was $20.31a figure nearly three times the federal minimum wage. And as the unions themselves boast, a union member's annual salary is already $10,400 higher than a non-union worker. 4. Even those who support minimum wage hikes concede it could kill jobs. Many economists and conservatives point to the body of economic literature that shows minimum wage increases kill jobs and simply encourage companies to pass along the added cost in the form of higher prices. But even ardent supporters like socialist Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant, who recently helped pass a $15 minimum wage in the SeaTac, Washington, concede the move could spawn job losses. "There may be a few jobs lost here and there, but the fact is, if we don't fight for this, then the race to the bottom will continue," said Sawant. 5. Minorities and the poor are hit hardest by the minimum wage. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously noted that "the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law." Higher wages mean employers seek higher, more skilled workers. That, said Friedman, puts those with disproportionately less education and experience at a significant disadvantage when looking to put their foot on the first rung of the employment ladder. 6. Even progressives concede the minimum wage is no panacea for America's economic woes. President Barack Obama's former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Economic Advisers Christina Romer says, "economic analysis raises questions about whether a higher minimum wage will achieve better outcomes for the economy and reduce poverty." As a result, says Romer, "most economists prefer other ways to help low-income families." Similarly, progressive Daily Beast writer Jamelle Bouie says while he supporters the move, "the minimum wage is a Band-Aid for wage stagnation and income inequality" and "doesn't make up for our sluggish economy and weak labor market." 7. 21 states already have minimum wages that are higher than the federal $7.25/hr rate. Just last week, 13 states boosted their minimum wage rates above the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25/hr. That means 21 states now already have minimum wages that exceed the federal rate
