You are citing the "priorities of less fortunate" as an disincentive for you to work hard._Pico said:
That seems pretty emotional. What priorities people on welfare have has no bearing on your life or business.
There's a difference.
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
History buffs: "You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer."
- Thread starter hal9000
- Start date
That seems pretty emotional. What priorities people on welfare have has no bearing on your life or business.
There's a difference.
You said it would hit the consumer not the CEO.GDaddy said:
I quoted you.
And that's why you're speculating too.
I'm pointing out the complexity of the situations at hand.
Those taxes come with some very tangible and objective financial benefits.
You brought it up by mentioning net/gross.
We can talk about how healthcare related bankruptcies next if you like.
Of course not, I said ~300% (So 7ish vs 20) initially and I'm saying there is no consistent comparison.
That was all you.
I'm not trying to win anything, I'm just saying that you're not making sense.
I mean you brought up 15% more expensive BigMacs in a place they pay not only $15, but $20/hr.
Sounds like an increase in burgerpurchasingpower to me.
You can feel free to add more confounds at your leisure.
It just adds to the speculation.
GDaddy said:
Why is that gap morality related in your mind?
I never suggested even fairness was part of the equation.
It is what it is.
You're trying to mix in too much subjectivity.
You're trying to paint that picture in a certain direction and you're relying on assumptions; ie you're still speculating.
Thanks for proving correct my post aboveSurfdog said:Didn't see Mary and Joseph standing in line collecting Food stamps, welfare, guv housing and government cheese.GromsMom said:Yeah, bu bu but socialism, welfare.....socialism welfare....Well I guuess you have a point bu but but socialism welfare ....Kento said:Birth control is not 100% effective and it does cost money. People are going to have sex. The concept of abstinence as an effective method is laughable. Even their spokeswoman has gotten knocked up twice. It costs society a hell of a lot less in the long run to provide birth control than to pay for welfare babies.Surfdog said:Or, keep their legs together or both bother to use very effective birth control.Kento said:
But, that takes personal responsibility. Can't require that anymore. "Free condoms and birth control pills for all", especially the poor and minimum wage earners. It's not their fault. It's a "health care right".
That should be Bernies new slogan.He'd be a lock against Hillary.
I'm surprised Obama hasn't championed this already.
Besides, look at Mary. She kept her legs closed and gave birth to a socialist.
Personal responsibility....bootstraps....responsibility...bootstraps...socialism....welfare...gubernment gubernment bad... :banghead: :banghead:
(Surfdog fox news bot is unable to respond further at this time. Please try again later)
Hey, knock yourselves out having kids as much as you want. Just don't come crying and wanting to suckle at the guv teat like your little rug-rat suckles at yo' mama.
Some people conveniently forget (or more likely don't care) that kids cost a HELL of a lot of money to raise properly.
There's no shame in taking guv hand-outs anymore, like there used to be. No such thing as too much welfare to take.
"It's the "man's" fault I'm poor, so I'll take whatever I can get, and what they're stupid enough to hand out, for free."
"Please sir, may I have some more?" Ah, forget please, just gimme that sh!t.
==================================================================
Safety nets are one, and a very important thing. Turning them into hammocks is another.
If you can't afford to live in an nice, expensive 'hood, you need to move to one you can. Everyone else east of the California border does. And if you need your babysitters, house cleaners, lawn mowers and other service workers to live close by, then pay them what they deserve out of your OWN (or that cities) pocket. The rest of the state (and its businesses) doesn't need to pay for overpriced SF, LA/OC/SD to keep their McD's workers, nannys, and all other "service" workers in a place to live.
LA/SF can raise the minimum wage to $25-30/hr and it still wouldn't be "enough", as Ifall might say. If $15 is jackshit, then $25 is at least chicken feed. Maybe min. wage should be about what Ifall makes. Then everyone "might" be happy, but I doubt it.
Hey, I want to live on the beach in La Jolla. I'm just as deserving as everyone else. Oh wait, it has a "value" on it that's beyond my means. That's not fair. :bawling: :bawling:
Get a skill or be stuck in minimum wage hell forever, and learn to like it.
If only your weather prognostications were as reliable as you spewing a bunch of nonsense out of your mouth on this forum.
Seriously, where do you get the time to write all that rambling crap?? You could have written several novels by now with all the stuff you've written here dating back to the early 2000's. Quite pathetic.
You have no viable response or alternate view disproving my points. Just BS flame throwing. Typical, and no surprise from another anon-trollmaster. Come out from the under rock you live, pussy.
Who "were" you, really?
Oh wait, I think I might know. It's coming together now. But I'll give you that chance to come out of the closet. It's OK, we won't tear your head off or anything, like before.
Who "were" you, really?
Oh wait, I think I might know. It's coming together now. But I'll give you that chance to come out of the closet. It's OK, we won't tear your head off or anything, like before.
I love CharmSoph's "ENVIRONMENTALISM=RELIGION" !! )FecalFace said:
regarding the ism #1 on your list !! ( :
one day as some one was telling me that a tenet of Islamism is blaming others for your troubles
ok then
RACISTS are more Religious than MUSLIMS !! )
I was so happy when I bought that car used. But it was still nice._Pico said:
Everyone said, Oh my god. That service on that thing will bankrupt you. You will just have to pay and pay.
People hate it when I'm happy.
Yes, great cornering. I used to get bussed and race over the Ortega Hwy. That car loved that stuff.
Now I drive slow and 19 year old girls in Toyotas tailgate me and flip me off.
It's interesting that the maxim doesn't work the other way around, i.e.,
"You cannot lift the wage payer by pushing down the wage earner"
....because that's exactly how the wealthy become wealthy, by keeping a well-polished boot on the neck of the working classes.
No but we did see Jesus handing out free fish, bread, and wine. Damn wedding parties wanting free handouts. Hung out with hookers too.Surfdog said:Didn't see Mary and Joseph standing in line collecting Food stamps, welfare, guv housing and government cheese.GromsMom said:Yeah, bu bu but socialism, welfare.....socialism welfare....Well I guuess you have a point bu but but socialism welfare ....Kento said:Birth control is not 100% effective and it does cost money. People are going to have sex. The concept of abstinence as an effective method is laughable. Even their spokeswoman has gotten knocked up twice. It costs society a hell of a lot less in the long run to provide birth control than to pay for welfare babies.Surfdog said:Or, keep their legs together or both bother to use very effective birth control.Kento said:
But, that takes personal responsibility. Can't require that anymore. "Free condoms and birth control pills for all", especially the poor and minimum wage earners. It's not their fault. It's a "health care right".
That should be Bernies new slogan.
I'm surprised Obama hasn't championed this already.
Besides, look at Mary. She kept her legs closed and gave birth to a socialist.
Personal responsibility....bootstraps....responsibility...bootstraps...socialism....welfare...gubernment gubernment bad... :banghead: :banghead:
(Surfdog fox news bot is unable to respond further at this time. Please try again later)
Hey, knock yourselves out having kids as much as you want. Just don't come crying and wanting to suckle at the guv teat like your little rug-rat suckles at yo' mama.
Some people conveniently forget (or more likely don't care) that kids cost a HELL of a lot of money to raise properly.
There's no shame in taking guv hand-outs anymore, like there used to be. No such thing as too much welfare to take.
"It's the "man's" fault I'm poor, so I'll take whatever I can get, and what they're stupid enough to hand out, for free."
"Please sir, may I have some more?" Ah, forget please, just gimme that sh!t.
==================================================================
Safety nets are one, and a very important thing. Turning them into hammocks is another.
If you can't afford to live in an nice, expensive 'hood, you need to move to one you can. Everyone else east of the California border does. And if you need your babysitters, house cleaners, lawn mowers and other service workers to live close by, then pay them what they deserve out of your OWN (or that cities) pocket. The rest of the state (and its businesses) doesn't need to pay for overpriced SF, LA/OC/SD to keep their McD's workers, nannys, and all other "service" workers in a place to live.
LA/SF can raise the minimum wage to $25-30/hr and it still wouldn't be "enough", as Ifall might say. If $15 is jackshit, then $25 is at least chicken feed. Maybe min. wage should be about what Ifall makes. Then everyone "might" be happy, but I doubt it.
Hey, I want to live on the beach in La Jolla. I'm just as deserving as everyone else. Oh wait, it has a "value" on it that's beyond my means. That's not fair. :bawling: :bawling:
Get a skill or be stuck in minimum wage hell forever, and learn to like it.
I think you're a little off the rails there. I don't think anyone is asking for enough money to buy the V-tours house (still on the market?). However, being able to eke out a living and have access to reasonably priced health care and education is something that should be provided. Even trade schools are expensive, in the 5 figures.
It's not like the old days where you could get through school with minimal homework, the advanced rigors of Algebra II by senior year, and then go anywhere you wanted for college with very reasonable fees. The baby boomer generation had it so, so, so easy. I would bet the average 1st grader today has more homework than a senior in high school from that generation.
Actually, the people east of the border, specifically in Republican states, are the biggest beneficiaries of welfare. Yeah, you have some of the fashionably homeless in some beach communities but the largest group of welfare recipients are in flyover country. Little podunk towns where there is nothing. It's hard to get up and move when you can barely afford to survive.
I don't think anyone is asking for 6 figures for everyone, just for wages to increase at rate that reflects the increase in cost of living.
Oh yeah, the poor were always grabbing those bootstraps in ancient times. Welfare is a brand new, 20th Century invention
And where exactly do you think the poorest people are going to come up with the money to move? Bootstraps? Selling a child?
Moving ain't cheap
And where exactly do you think the poorest people are going to come up with the money to move? Bootstraps? Selling a child?
Moving ain't cheap
Furthermore, for the baby boomers on here, what did health care cost you back then? How about transportation costs? Housing? School?
How many of you even had to take a final exam in high school let alone middle school? Carry several dozen pounds of textbooks to and from school?
I find it incredibly disingenuous when people from that generation talk about the youth of today being lazy and entitled. It's exactly the opposite by comparison. Houses by the beach? That's exactly what you DID get from standard paying jobs. The generation coming up works harder, has more stress, and faces far tougher a road towards economical viability. And then the audacity to call them entitled for wanting the same opportunities that the baby boomers got?! Laughable. Absolutely laughable.
How many of you even had to take a final exam in high school let alone middle school? Carry several dozen pounds of textbooks to and from school?
I find it incredibly disingenuous when people from that generation talk about the youth of today being lazy and entitled. It's exactly the opposite by comparison. Houses by the beach? That's exactly what you DID get from standard paying jobs. The generation coming up works harder, has more stress, and faces far tougher a road towards economical viability. And then the audacity to call them entitled for wanting the same opportunities that the baby boomers got?! Laughable. Absolutely laughable.
You know what I am saying is true. I am certainly not the only poster around here who would tell you this.Surfdog said:
I am not going to engage in a debate with you over your points because:
1. I wouldn't at all be able to change your opinion on anything. In addition to that, you probably are the most brainwashed poster around here politically speaking.
2. Your posts are not coherent in nature and hard to respond to because they go all over the place and are basically rambling.
Just take a look at yourself and ask "are all these long winded posts really worth it?"
"You want a house? Well, you better move two hours away from where all the jobs are because we already own the homes there and are making sure that our "investment" continues to rise. Its ok, just stop bitching and pull yourself up by your bootstraps like we did when wages were high and everything was cheap. You lazy entitled bastards. Oh yeah, you're going to need to care for me while I get sick and old"Kento said:
You can blame democrat ruled school/college admins for the education FUBAR situation. Talk about corporate greed.
And according to the story, Jesus didn't use the peoples tax $$$ to feed them fish, bread and wine. But, I guess we've come to expect government to be like God from heaven too? Poof, it's there, here ya go.
People on all sides get welfare. Inner city urban/suburb areas in ALL states get just as much, and even more welfare as the po-dunk hicks out in BF Egypt. There may be a lot in Repub states, but claiming there's more repubs on welfare than dems is a stretch, if not unfounded (need stats on that one, please). There's a lot of dems in red states too, just like there's a lot of repubs in blue states (rich and poor).
Our supposed Obama inspired comeback economy sure doesn't look so, if we have so many more poor that need help than ever before. California is still amongst the highest percentage on welfare states.
Like I said, no problem raising minimum wage. But it should be left up to the cities or counties at the most. Bigger city or metro areas are notoriously more expensive to live in compared to rural areas. Making a small time farmer or other small town business pay no-skill labor the same as much higher skilled workers is only going to either drive him out of business or away to where he himself can make a living. Otherwise costs for everything a minimum wage earner touches are going to go up substantially faster than we've seen since the 70's. How will that generate income "equality" when costs for all else go up 50% in a couple years? Few realize that taxes and SS percentages go up along with wage increases. Who pays that? The employer. Who benefits? The government (state and fed).
We are just going to accelerate inflation to the heights these last couple generations have never seen. Or, low wage jobs will dwindle to minimums themselves, and services will be **** poor. Small-medium businesses will not be able to hire more than absolute minimum to cover their service needs. Then the entry level workers will have a REAL reason to be pissed off about our economy.
Do you guys really think this action is going to create a boom in hiring?
And according to the story, Jesus didn't use the peoples tax $$$ to feed them fish, bread and wine. But, I guess we've come to expect government to be like God from heaven too? Poof, it's there, here ya go.
People on all sides get welfare. Inner city urban/suburb areas in ALL states get just as much, and even more welfare as the po-dunk hicks out in BF Egypt. There may be a lot in Repub states, but claiming there's more repubs on welfare than dems is a stretch, if not unfounded (need stats on that one, please). There's a lot of dems in red states too, just like there's a lot of repubs in blue states (rich and poor).
Our supposed Obama inspired comeback economy sure doesn't look so, if we have so many more poor that need help than ever before. California is still amongst the highest percentage on welfare states.
Like I said, no problem raising minimum wage. But it should be left up to the cities or counties at the most. Bigger city or metro areas are notoriously more expensive to live in compared to rural areas. Making a small time farmer or other small town business pay no-skill labor the same as much higher skilled workers is only going to either drive him out of business or away to where he himself can make a living. Otherwise costs for everything a minimum wage earner touches are going to go up substantially faster than we've seen since the 70's. How will that generate income "equality" when costs for all else go up 50% in a couple years? Few realize that taxes and SS percentages go up along with wage increases. Who pays that? The employer. Who benefits? The government (state and fed).
We are just going to accelerate inflation to the heights these last couple generations have never seen. Or, low wage jobs will dwindle to minimums themselves, and services will be **** poor. Small-medium businesses will not be able to hire more than absolute minimum to cover their service needs. Then the entry level workers will have a REAL reason to be pissed off about our economy.
Do you guys really think this action is going to create a boom in hiring?