The Progressive Agenda means the Right to Earn a Living Wage for All Americans.

Apparently it's too expensive to live in Norway.

 

So he didn't fix the price. He undercut his competition. This is why cartels never hold, except in the minds of progressives.

 

When you make a grievous error in your argument (see bolded sentence above), it makes it rather pointless to consider the rest of your opinion.

You also destroy your effort by claiming I attempted to paint you as ignorant. Where did I use that word? I used misconception, and uninformed.

https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/poorest-list/10-countries-with-the-worst-income-inequality/
https://www.theguardian.com/inequal...x-where-are-the-worlds-most-unequal-countries

So, as it is your entire post is a funny.

Cheers!

 

What lack of opportunity? It's America, not freaking Bangladesh. You have the golden ticket ... FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL. Take it or leave it.

 

On the contrary, I employ empathy and compassion for those who actually earn it (the starving, the war torn, those who would give anything to have access to the wealth of opportunity in the West, etc). Because it matters to me that I engage in the real thing, and direct it with integrity. Wasting 'compassion' on those who don't need it, want it, or earn it, is immoral, IMO.

And FTR, being 'born into poverty' is an obstacle to overcome, sure, but it is in no way a compulsion to remain there.

 

My thoughts are much different.

When I hear “living wage” or “income inequality” those are words of the have nots wanting the benefits of the labor of the haves. This country became the richest most powerful nation on earth because it unleashed the competitiveness of people. A system that rewarded hardwork and vision. Some will reach higher levels of success than others, some will have an easier path, but we should all have pride in carrying our own weight. We should strive to reach a place in life where we can be happy, and if you haven’t reached that point, then get to work and make it happen. Inflating someone’s worth “just because” will not guarantee a better employee, only a higher cost to the business.

When I hear people say the rich are greedy then proceed to suggest they be taxed more, I wonder why they never see the greed of wanting to take from the wealthy to enrich their own lives.

When I hear people complain of the salaries of CEO’s I never hear them complain about athlete’s salaries. Andrew Luck earns over $23,000,000 per year. The average union head makes about $300,000 per year. Clayton Kershaw of the Dodgers earns over $35,000,000 per year, or roughly 750 times that of the average elementary teacher. While I think these salaries are ridiculous, I understand this country allowed these men the opportunity to hone a skill and sell it to the highest bidder. It’s the people that allow these salaries. And yes, greed is everywhere, in both the rich and the poor.

I think we serve ourselves and our country better when we hold people accountable, preach responsibility, and the simple fact that what you get out of life is what you put into it and success comes from you not what someone else is willing to give you.

 

No honest person could say that a lazy loafer demanding 'welfare' from hard working people - isn't outrageously greedy.

 

Post of the day !!!

 

By bailing all those evil banks out?

Somehow, I'm just not feelin' it.

 

Deport more illegal aliens and limit immigration only to persons with above average skills and American workers will see a jump in employment and pay

 

Don't forget that essential ... fluency in English. Language is a deal breaker.

 

One way to handle that is to conduct all government business in English only

Starting with the election ballots

No one should be given citizenship if they cannot speak and read basic English

 

It's a difficult problem to solve, and it's complicated.

As I said before, I'm fairly conservative, but I'm an Independent, not a Republican, and my views cross over from the conservative side on certain things. So my next remarks are not meant to sound like a partisan conservative merely trying to shoot down the idea.

But I think there are a lot of political liberals who are hypocritical about this. I think they pay lip service to the idea, but, privately, they don't want it if it means cutting into their own piece of the pie. Minimum wages are set by the states. And perhaps the bluest of the blue states is CA. Not only is it dark blue, it's a rich state, having an economy that is greater than most nations in the world. Why doesn't CA lead the way and implement a minimum wage of around $20-25/hour? Right now it's $11/hour if the employer has 26 employees or more - $10/hour if they don't. That is a poverty wage in that state. Try living on $20,800/year in CA.

Last year the two houses of CA's state legislature considered the idea of "health care for all" and tossed the idea back and forth, with neither house being willing to propose funding for it. When neither house was willing to do that, the idea died. CA has a Democratic super majority in both houses and a Democratic governor. CA could have left the federal programs in place, like Medicare and Medicaid, and imposed taxes to pay for the health care of everyone else, but they didn't. The bluest state in the union - and the one with the biggest economy - refused to do it. I was actually hoping they would do it just to see how well it worked out. So please pardon me, but I think there is some hypocrisy afoot, and it isn't coming from the conservatives on this.

Another problem to consider is that if government imposes a "living wage" on corporations, the temptation to move operations out of country is going to become even greater than it already is. This country does not need more of that. If imposing a "living wage" requirement had the effect of reducing employment, then it would be self-defeating.

So, philosophically, I support the idea that one person who works full time should be able to minimally support themself. And while the idea of a "living wage" may seem attractive on it's face, there is always the specter of unintended consequences lurking out there.

Your thoughts?

 

Are you sure he didn't say the financial crash? Bush did stop it and then Obama tried to take credit for it and double count the profit from it, yes that government made money on TARP, to lower his deficit numbers.

What was hilarious was claiming Obama saved the auto industry. GM was not the auto industry. Bush was considering some kind of bridge loan, which I opposed, but his term ended. What Obama did was rip off the bondholders and thenthe stockholders effectively wiping out about 90% of their equity and just gave 40% of the company to the unions with majority ownership by the government. Yeah that's pretty socialistic. And after he sold all that government owned stock it cost the taxpayer hundred's of billions. And it was unfair to all the other autoworkers in this country and all those not only individual investors but all the institutional investors where millions of other Americans have their IRA's and 401k's invested. He did it to save hisvunion buddies. And his bailing out Chursler which he then sold to an Italian company? Another slap in the face to US autoworkers and taxpayers. And it was all probably unconstitutional.

 

"To pay all of the bills" - too vague. Can you be more specific? I understand that the last time I asked about this, you simply sneered at me and did not answer. If you want to do that again, I understand, and actually expect it.

 

What's the logical argument behind the minimum wage being required to support somebody. You say "philosophically", but nothing in the preceding paragraphs points to that, which points me to a non sequitur.

 

It's the difference between what I believe on a philosophical level vs the problems of implementing it.

I do think that if your work is valued enough that someone would hire you to do it full time, that that work should be worth a living, at least minimally. A modest apartment, a cheap used car, food and clothing, etc, without forcing the government (taxpayers) to help you get by.

Medical care and insurance is another example of the ideal situation vs the problems of making it actually happen. We may agree that all Americans should have access to medical care and insurance, but how we make that happen is the bugaboo.

All young people being able to go to college without incurring massive debt is a nice ideal, but how we accomplish that is what we can't agree on.

On another thread, I suggested a four-point plan to reduce murders in Chicago. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ence-in-chicago.539112/page-5#post-1069457527 But some of those ideas would be controversial. We all agree that something ought to be done to reduce the murder rate in Chicago (the philosophical ideal), but how we do that, again, is the bugaboo.

Seth

 

Still your own shortcomings onto others?

Your drivel was DEBUNKED by your own link and your alt right disinformation has ZERO CREDIBILITY.

 

Exploiting children living in poverty a pittance to work in appalling conditions does not count as "real wage growth".

 

Excellent point. Thanks for finding that link.

 

Republicans and conservatives have EMBRACED and ENACTED the libertarian fiscal malfeasance agenda so you are just going to deal with the FACT that your own party has BETRAYED you on the issue of immigration in spite of their constant lying to you about wanting to do the opposite.

 

Those who have been paying attention to progressives like Bernie Sanders will know all about what is needed. Why not take the initiative for yourself and google his positions and the movement called "our revolution"?

Alternatively I could spoonfeed you but that is not an effective means of learning new ideas and concepts.

 

Awwww, c'mon and humor us. Spoonfeed away.

 

Denial of reality does not alter reality one iota!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-ayres/america-the-land-of-oppor_1_b_5208374.html

 

Your abject failure to grasp the meaning of the terms empathy and compassion is duly noted.

Jesus did not require that someone had a job before he helped them and neither did he demand that children work their way out of poverty before they could come to him.

So no, you do not understand the meaning of those terms.

The hard stark reality is that TODAY, under the current malevolent regime of Greed is Good children who are born into poverty with parents who cannot pay their bills because they are NOT paid a living wage are NOT going to be able to do what you are DEMANDING that they accomplish.

Adults and children in poverty are suffering because Greed is Good is HARMING We the People. Anyone with actual empathy and compassion understands that this is their unfortunate reality.