Liberals reject call for $10/hr. minimum wage

[Recliner Pilot 61]

so who is supposed to flip my burgers during school hours?

 

Edjr.

[Toro 1]

I couldn't disagree more. Who are we as human beings to deny anyone the right to live. The lack of socialized medicine is one of the major flaws with the USA. Privatized medicine is a big f'ing joke making the rich richer while killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people (especially children and the elderly). We have food rotting away in refrigerators and cabinets across the country. We donate billions of dollars in food and medicine as foreign aid to other countries. Why can't we offer these same things to the people of our own land?

 

The BIGGER focking joke is that you think that adding the bureaucracy that is the United States Government on top of the already existing bureaucracy regarding healthcare is going to make anything different. It will make things MORE expensive. Go ask someone in a country with socialized medicine how long it takes to get cataract surgery. I'll answer it for you. It would have taken my grandmother 3 years to get the surgery because it was not something they considered "necessary". You hear people complain about HMOs. Imagine that scenario, only 10 times worse. We went private so that she could see. Typical liberal bullsh*t. Your idea sounds great but won't focking work.

 

So you think we should deny food, medicine, and civil services to everyone in need? Where do you think all of these people are going to go or do if we do that? They're not going to go "oh well I can't feed my kids, get my HIV meds, or have a roof over my head so I'm going to go find a job". They're going to end up on the streets, stealing and begging to make a buck. Their children are going to grow up with no education or hope for any kind of future, further propagating the problem. I'd rather have a few bucks taken out of every paycheck to help these people then to have them stealing my stereo to feed their kids. I understand that not everyone is born with the same oppurtuninties a guy from a white upper middle class family like myself has. Alot of these people are products of generations of uneducated poor parents and grandparents. We're also not just talking about the crackhead down the street either. We're talking about children, the elderly, disabled, etc, etc. People aren't just some expendable piece of trash that we can just throw away and forget about. It's our duty as members of society and the human race to lend a hand to our fellow man and show a little empathy for the plight of others ffs.

 

I think we should have temporary stopgap measures in place for people that are "down on their luck", not longterm welfare for those who choose not to do the necessary work to change their lives. You want help? I'll give you all the help you want to change you life and get OFF welfare. You want money to "feed my kids, get my HIV meds, or have a roof over my head", then make the committment to learn a skill or trade that will provide that income for you.

 

I know and have met too many people that came from circumstances that should have been their demise succeed to let anyone have the excuse that they can't do it. Someone said earlier that we can't all be doctors and you know what, they were right. But do you realize that trashmen make good money. So do truck drivers. You CAN find something out there that will pay enough to get you by. Most people don't want to. If I had to pay for my rent, you think for a second that I wouldn't become a trashman? I'd do it in a second if it meant that I could feed my kids.

 

And this may sound really cold but I don't agree with you. It's my duty as a human to do the right thing. I believe the right thing is to help those that deserve help and to help those that can't help themselves. The people who are able to take care of themselves, but choose not to...well, I could give a crap. Let them die in the streets. For those that need help, want help or seriously can't help themselves: they deserve a chance. Too bad about half of your welfare money is going toward those bastards. Imagine if all the welfare and charity went to those people that truly needed it.

 

So I asked it before and I ask it again: An able bodied, high school graduate. 19 years old. Instead of trying to get into college, he decides to say "fock it" and live with his buddy, work part time as a clerk at the local grocery store and smoke weed all day.

 

You think we should be responsible for his health care? Yes or no. Answer this question.

[mobb_deep 917]

So I asked it before and I ask it again: An able bodied, high school graduate. 19 years old. Instead of trying to get into college, he decides to say "fock it" and live with his buddy, work part time as a clerk at the local grocery store and smoke weed all day.

 

You think we should be responsible for his health care? Yes or no. Answer this question.

 

Yes, I believe everybody is entitled to healthcare, period.

 

You do know that in the UK and Canada where they have socialized healthcare you can also get private health insurance right? Socialized medicine is basically the equivalent of our HMO. The doctors are less then stellar, the waiting list is long, and the red tape is thick (just like the US HMO's). The only difference is everyone is covered under these socialized plans. They don't need to get a COBRA plan or pay into some crappy HMO. People with good jobs, or enough money, can buy private health insurance just like we do in the USA.

[Toro 1]

Yes, I believe everybody is entitled to healthcare, period.

 

You do know that in the UK and Canada where they have socialized healthcare you can also get private health insurance right? Socialized medicine is basically the equivalent of our HMO. The doctors are less then stellar, the waiting lost is long, and the red tape is thick (just like the US HMO's). The only difference is everyone is covered under these socialized plans. They don't need to get a COBRA plan or pay into some crappy HMO. People with good jobs, or enough money, can buy private health insurance just like we do in the USA.

 

Good for you. Send those people YOUR money and leave mine alone.

[mobb_deep 917]

Good for you. Send those people YOUR money and leave mine alone.

 

aka, I have nothing more intelligent to offer...

 

Why have a rational discussion when witty one liners are so cute.

 

Fair play man.

[BRANDON ROSS 0]

Just finished reading a book called "The Undercover Economist" by Tim Hartford. It deals with the healthcare issue in a couple chapters. I'm not going into it all, but basically he thinks the government should subsidize catastrophic illness coverage and uninsureable people which would bring down the costs for the rest of us allowing insurance to be affordable for anyone.

 

As far as the minimum wage, if you raise it you raise the unemployment rate, period. Ask any economist. If you are an adult and working at a minimum wage job for more than 6 months, you have serious problems that an extra 1-2 bucks an hour is not going to remedy. Price controls are not an effective form of economic control, and setting a minimum wage is just a price control for labor. I do know that in my area many of the restaurants pay more than minimum wage to find better employees.

[Strike 3,979]

aka, I have nothing more intelligent to offer...

 

Why have a rational discussion when witty one liners are so cute.

 

Fair play man.

 

Your discussions aren't rational anyways so what's the point?

[mobb_deep 917]

Your discussions aren't rational anyways so what's the point?

 

How are my discussions irrational? Just because I swim in another stream then a majority of this board doesn't make me some sort of uneducated twit. Big deal, I follow a more liberal standpoint then you and a majority of this board. Atleast I back my point of view with what I believe to be facts (I guess that all depends on where you get your news from). Would you rather me be more like Rude Rick and just post meaningless drivel day after day. I assure you it would take me alot less effort to do that then to actually carry on a conversation with you guys. It's not easy being one of the few guys with different political views on a board comprised almost entirely of conservatives. I respect each and every one of your views just as much as I would one of my liberal buddies. Change comes through communication and at the very least I think we can all agree that there needs to be some changes.

[Toro 1]

I have nothing more intelligent to offer...

 

You had nothing intelligent to offer in the first place.

 

I don't really feel like buying my own dinner tonight. When can I stop by and pick up my check?

[mobb_deep 917]

You had nothing intelligent to offer in the first place.

 

I don't really feel like buying my own dinner tonight. When can I stop by and pick up my check?

 

I'm sure there is a soup kitchen somewhere in your area. Your taxes are helping fund it so you might as well grab a free meal!

 

Why do you have so much hate in your heart? Does it bother you that much that I'm a liberal? We can't just agree to disagree and/or discuss the issues like mature adults?

 

Are you and all your forum buddies going to gang up on me and call me names now? Is it that time of the week again already?

 

Bring it on. I've got 15 more minutes of work to kill and I've been called alot worse then you could ever get away with on this family friendly forum.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Just finished reading a book called "The Undercover Economist" by Tim Hartford. It deals with the healthcare issue in a couple chapters. I'm not going into it all, but basically he thinks the government should subsidize catastrophic illness coverage and uninsureable people which would bring down the costs for the rest of us allowing insurance to be affordable for anyone.

 

As far as the minimum wage, if you raise it you raise the unemployment rate, period. Ask any economist. If you are an adult and working at a minimum wage job for more than 6 months, you have serious problems that an extra 1-2 bucks an hour is not going to remedy. Price controls are not an effective form of economic control, and setting a minimum wage is just a price control for labor. I do know that in my area many of the restaurants pay more than minimum wage to find better employees.

 

Period. Artificial price controls, or artificial anything for that matter (Socialized healthcare, unlimited welfare etc), never solves the problem and only adds to it. Price controls were the main factor of the gas lines of the 70's where you saw 40 vehicles in line for gas.....which is what i can only assume our hospitals would eventually look like.

 

Capitalism isnt an "ism" at all, its the natural by-product of a free society. Why do people insist on phucking this unbelievably successful model up? In 200 years we have become the most successful nation as far as economy, charity, scientific advancements to man, military etc etc. IN ONLY 200 YEARS!!! Why in the name of hayzues would you want to phuck with that?

[Toro 1]

Why do you have so much hate in your heart? Does it bother you that much that I'm a liberal? We can't just agree to disagree and/or discuss the issues like mature adults?

 

All internet-persona-bullshat aside, I am actually a lot more liberal than you would think. But when someone tells me: "I think you should pay for someone else's healthcare even though that person can pay for his own but chooses not to" really infuriates me. Your vote and your decisions take money out of my pocket to feed my OWN children.

 

The things you talk about really don't affect me. My taxes go up 50 bucks a month. No big deal. 50 bucks is a Thursday night dinner at Chili's. I sneeze at 50 bucks. But I also grew up in a house where my father worked his ass off (50+ hours a week as a cop, not to mention 20+ hours of extra jobs) to pay the bills. 50 dollars was the difference between the lights getting cut off or being able to buy school clothes. So when someone says that they think that my father, while taking care of 3 stepchildren and 2 children from a previous marriage, should pay for a 19 year old worthless piece of sh*t's healthcare, I tend to get pissed.

 

But hey, maybe my dad should of just said fock it instead of working his ass off to make sure the lights were on.

 

 

Your agenda is completely understood. But it's not realistic.

[jerryskids 5,206]

The lack of socialized medicine is one of the major flaws with the USA.

Sorry, but this could not be more untrue. Ask yourself, do people tend to go from the US to socialized countries for advanced medical procedures, or vice versa? The reason is that the opportunity for people/companies to make money on medical investments justifies said investments. Without that opportunity, there is no incentive to invest. It is a basic capitalism vs. socialism issue, really.

[MDC 5,893]

I don't believe for a second that a higher minimum wage is going to result in lost jobs. No smart company today employs one more person than they can get away with and still deliver an acceptable product to consumers. If BK has to pay its cashiers $8/hour what are they going to do? Lay off a fry guy and make you wait another five minutes for a Whopper? No, they're going to relay some of the costs onto the consumer and swallow the rest, and I'm fine with that.

 

If you want to argue that there should be no minimum wage, fine, but all the warnings about mass layoffs if we pay min. wage workers a reasonable rate are BS.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I don't believe for a second that a higher minimum wage is going to result in lost jobs. No smart company today employs one more person than they can get away with and still deliver an acceptable product to consumers. If BK has to pay its cashiers $8/hour what are they going to do? Lay off a fry guy and make you wait another five minutes for a Whopper? No, they're going to relay some of the costs onto the consumer and swallow the rest, and I'm fine with that.

 

If you want to argue that there should be no minimum wage, fine, but all the warnings about mass layoffs if we pay min. wage workers a reasonable rate are BS.

 

 

Eh hem. Just because you dont believe it, doesnt mean its not true.

 

"In a dramatic speech to the European Parliament last summer, British Prime Minister Tony Blair hit the mark when he criticized all Western European economies for their inability to compete on an acceptable global level. Asked Blair, "What type of social model is it that has 20 million unemployed in Europe? Productivity rates falling behind those of the USA? That, on any relative index of a modern economy -- skills, R&D, patents, information technology -- is going down, not up?"

 

Financial Times international editor Olaf Gersemann blames French and European unemployment on high minimum-wage requirements and overly strict employment-protection laws."

[Strike 3,979]

How are my discussions irrational? Just because I swim in another stream then a majority of this board doesn't make me some sort of uneducated twit. Big deal, I follow a more liberal standpoint then you and a majority of this board. Atleast I back my point of view with what I believe to be facts (I guess that all depends on where you get your news from). Would you rather me be more like Rude Rick and just post meaningless drivel day after day. I assure you it would take me alot less effort to do that then to actually carry on a conversation with you guys. It's not easy being one of the few guys with different political views on a board comprised almost entirely of conservatives. I respect each and every one of your views just as much as I would one of my liberal buddies. Change comes through communication and at the very least I think we can all agree that there needs to be some changes.

 

Blah Blah Blah. Your "facts" are out of context or incomplete. Didn't you say yesterday that everyone in this country is a "foreigner"? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but people from your thinking "stream" say that constantly. Most people in this country are NOT immigrants. And the comparison of our health system to Canada or some other country is just as ludicrous, as it ignores the difference in circumstances of each country. So keep thinking you're somehow enlightened but I see through your crap and choose not to engage in discussion when you can't even admit that most people here are not "foreigners".

[IndyTom 0]

Simple really.

 

If I had a small business with 10 employees working for me making the current minimum wage - and the gov. raised it? I would lay off a couple of them in order to continue making a profit for the company to employ the remaining 8. Otherwise, you risk everyone getting let go by keeping all of them at the new rate.

 

Which option do you think the employees prefer in that scenario?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I don't believe for a second that a higher minimum wage is going to result in lost jobs.

 

Who can live on a measely 10 bucks an hour? Why not make it $25, or $50, mebbe even $100 an hour? Then everyone could live comfortably and nobody would be without a job.

[vuduchile 1,941]

I don't believe for a second that a higher minimum wage is going to result in lost jobs. No smart company today employs one more person than they can get away with and still deliver an acceptable product to consumers. If BK has to pay its cashiers $8/hour what are they going to do? Lay off a fry guy and make you wait another five minutes for a Whopper? No, they're going to relay some of the costs onto the consumer and swallow the rest, and I'm fine with that.

 

If you want to argue that there should be no minimum wage, fine, but all the warnings about mass layoffs if we pay min. wage workers a reasonable rate are BS.

 

I don't know about mass layoffs, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how this could negatively impact (at least) the short term employment prospects of some min. wage earners.

 

Large corporations (especially public companies) lay people off, or re-structure jobs all the time for a variety of reasons. Payroll is the number one controllable expense for most companies. Right or wrong, they have to answer to Wall St. on a quarterly basis, and some will use a spike in the min. wage as an opportunity to reduce head count. I guarantee it.

[mobb_deep 917]

Blah Blah Blah. Your "facts" are out of context or incomplete. Didn't you say yesterday that everyone in this country is a "foreigner"? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but people from your thinking "stream" say that constantly. Most people in this country are NOT immigrants. And the comparison of our health system to Canada or some other country is just as ludicrous, as it ignores the difference in circumstances of each country. So keep thinking you're somehow enlightened but I see through your crap and choose not to engage in discussion when you can't even admit that most people here are not "foreigners".

 

Everyone in this country came here as a foreigner at one point or another. Whether we crossed the ancient ice bridges, were brought over here as slaves from Africa, fleeing religious persecution in parts of Europe, or however else we all colonized here. For you to base who is and isn't a foreigner using some sort of time line is laughable. You think you have some god givin' right to some piece of land because your great great great grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War. Good for you man.

[Birdseed 1]

Are you and all your forum buddies going to gang up on me and call me names now?

 

You suck at fantasy football.

 

[Strike 3,979]

Everyone in this country came here as a foreigner at one point or another. Whether we crossed the ancient ice bridges, were brought over here as slaves from Africa, fleeing religious persecution in parts of Europe, or however else we all colonized here. For you to base who is and isn't a foreigner using some sort of time line is laughable. You think you have some god givin' right to some piece of land because your great great great grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War. Good for you man.

 

LOL. Exactly. Thanks for proving my point.

 

P.S. Could you provide me a list of countries that don't have any foreigners in it, using your idiotic definition. TIA.

[jerryskids 5,206]

Who can live on a measely 10 bucks an hour? Why not make it $25, or $50, mebbe even $100 an hour? Then everyone could live comfortably and nobody would be without a job.

I tried this approach a while back, it is futile. People like MDC claim that the minimum wage could be raised to X with no impact on employment. I tried to figure out where the line is. No luck.

[spottedowl 1]

It appears most of the people posting in this thread are sane individuals with an understanding of how the U.S. economy works. I enjoyed the discussion. In my state of Oregon, I would like to see clean drug tests before receiving benefits from the public dollar. Good night.

[Snoopy1 0]

I don't know about mass layoffs, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how this could negatively impact (at least) the short term employment prospects of some min. wage earners.

 

Large corporations (especially public companies) lay people off, or re-structure jobs all the time for a variety of reasons. Payroll is the number one controllable expense for most companies. Right or wrong, they have to answer to Wall St. on a quarterly basis, and some will use a spike in the min. wage as an opportunity to reduce head count. I guarantee it.

 

 

The thing is, it's not really true. In studies in states where they raised the min. wage above the federal set wage unemployment stayed the same, in a a couple of cases it went down. People tend to look at this from one perspective, forgetting that those who recieve the increase wage pump that money right back into the economy.

 

Saw a portion of this study online before-can't find it now

In a work that has important implications for public policy as well as for the direction of economic research, the authors put standard economic theory to the test, using data from a series of recent episodes, including the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case they present a battery of evidence showing that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs.

 

The no loss in jobs probably has a lot to do with the price control of a minimum wage that has been kept way behind the costs of lving. Did unemployment spiral out of control when the minimum wage was increased in the mid 90s, did prices skyrocket?

 

 

If I recall correctly 50% of min wage workers are teenagers. What do you think they do with that money? It goes right back into the system.

[MDC 5,893]

I tried this approach a while back, it is futile. People like MDC claim that the minimum wage could be raised to X with no impact on employment. I tried to figure out where the line is. No luck.

 

No smart company is employing a single person more than they need to deliver an acceptable product. That is particularly true at the minimum wage level. If Burger King could get away with one fewer cashier don't you think they'd already try it? Even assuming you're right, wouldn't a hike in the min. wage force companies to be more economical and workers to be more productive? The other argument you guys always toss out is that costs will be shifted on to the consumer. Maybe to a point, but costs are driven by consumer demand - BK doesn't charge $10 for a Whopper because no one would buy it. Some companies may pass costs along to consumers to a small point but they risk cutting down on the volume they're selling if they overprice their products. I'm not saying the min. wage should be $15 or $20 - I'd just like to see it hiked to keep pace with inflation.

 

I'm open to changing my mind on this, but you guys never give me much reason to. I've seen articles from think tanks like the Cato Inst. or Heritage Foundation that say raising the min. wage would be a problem, but those organizations are against all government regulation. At least in that regard they're consistent, if not reliable as a source on economics. Pennsylvania just voted a statewide increase in the min. wage, two whole dollars over the next two years. I'll let you know if that raise is accompanied by mass layoffs of min. wage workers. If not, I'm sure you'll find some way to continue to justify your belief, that's what ideologues do. Some conservatives are so used to repeating the same things without question that it never occurs to them they could be wrong ...

[hoytdwow 202]

No one is entitled to ANYTHING.

People aren't entitled to Social Security and Medicare?

 

Battered women aren't entitled to safe shelter?

 

Abused children aren't entitled to a safe home?

 

Old people not entitled to a free bus ride to pick up their meds at the pharmacy?

 

Sick/handicapped people not entitled to assistance in their everyday lives?

 

Yesterday you're boasting about how you like to swerve in front of people on the highway and slam on your brakes, today it's a tax-obsessed rant about how you, a very well off person (as you constantly remind us), can't be bothered to help anybody else out.

As long as you can huddle up in your white suburban paradise with your guns and your pick-up truck, everything's fine, eh?

 

You suck

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

Another one of the dumber things you've ever said.

It's a long, long list.

[D_House 0]

People aren't entitled to Social Security and Medicare?

 

Battered women aren't entitled to safe shelter?

 

Abused children aren't entitled to a safe home?

 

Old people not entitled to a free bus ride to pick up their meds at the pharmacy?

 

Sick/handicapped people not entitled to assistance in their everyday lives?

 

not if Toro has to spend a dime on it. He also believes that American citizens abroad aren't entitled to the protection of the government, and that research into diseases not currently at epidemic proportions is not the responsibility of the gov't. I've long since concluded that he is rather parsimonious, and allows that to dictate his politics to a large degree.

[Toro 1]

not if Toro has to spend a dime on it. He also believes that American citizens abroad aren't entitled to the protection of the government, and that research into diseases not currently at epidemic proportions is not the responsibility of the gov't. I've long since concluded that he is rather parsimonious, and allows that to dictate his politics to a large degree.

 

Anyone else have to google "parsimonious"??

 

Congratulations. You put words into my mouth on two different subjects in one post. Great job.

[Strike 3,979]

No smart company is employing a single person more than they need to deliver an acceptable product. That is particularly true at the minimum wage level. If Burger King could get away with one fewer cashier don't you think they'd already try it? Even assuming you're right, wouldn't a hike in the min. wage force companies to be more economical and workers to be more productive? The other argument you guys always toss out is that costs will be shifted on to the consumer. Maybe to a point, but costs are driven by consumer demand - BK doesn't charge $10 for a Whopper because no one would buy it. Some companies may pass costs along to consumers to a small point but they risk cutting down on the volume they're selling if they overprice their products. I'm not saying the min. wage should be $15 or $20 - I'd just like to see it hiked to keep pace with inflation.

 

I'm open to changing my mind on this, but you guys never give me much reason to. I've seen articles from think tanks like the Cato Inst. or Heritage Foundation that say raising the min. wage would be a problem, but those organizations are against all government regulation. At least in that regard they're consistent, if not reliable as a source on economics. Pennsylvania just voted a statewide increase in the min. wage, two whole dollars over the next two years. I'll let you know if that raise is accompanied by mass layoffs of min. wage workers. If not, I'm sure you'll find some way to continue to justify your belief, that's what ideologues do. Some conservatives are so used to repeating the same things without question that it never occurs to them they could be wrong ...

 

Hmmm, I guess that's why large corporations go through massive layoffs when their profits don't meet expectations and they want to pad their stock price. Those thousands of people they lay off at once were clearly just charity cases.

[Toro 1]

People aren't entitled to Social Security and Medicare?

 

You should take care of your own retirement and medical expenses.

 

Battered women aren't entitled to safe shelter?

 

Battered women, just like any citizen, have a right to protection under the law. Just as you should be protected from assault. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

Abused children aren't entitled to a safe home?

 

As stated, children should be entitled to protection under the law. If a parent cannot take care of their children - food, clothing, etc - or they abuse the children, the child should be taken from them. Again, we are talking about protection of children based on laws.

 

Old people not entitled to a free bus ride to pick up their meds at the pharmacy?

Sick/handicapped people not entitled to assistance in their everyday lives?

 

I stated that there should be programs in place for people that are uncapable of taking care of themselves.

 

 

 

Yesterday you're boasting about how you like to swerve in front of people on the highway and slam on your brakes, today it's a tax-obsessed rant about how you, a very well off person (as you constantly remind us), can't be bothered to help anybody else out.

As long as you can huddle up in your white suburban paradise with your guns and your pick-up truck, everything's fine, eh?

 

You suck

 

alias.

[D_House 0]

Anyone else have to google "parsimonious"??

 

Congratulations. You put words into my mouth on two different subjects in one post. Great job.

 

You are very kind, but no congratulations are merited on my part. They are your own words from this bored. I paraphrased your stances from here:

 

Bottom line is the fact that Americans that go overseas should understand the risks involved, especially going to a highly volitile part of the Middle East. I am not saying that the government shouldn't do all they can to help it's citizens in a time of crisis, but expecting for the American taxpayers (me) to pay for your evacuation from somewhere that is known to be a place where this kind of thing happens is not fair.

 

here:

 

Let's discuss the use of tax dollars to fund medical research, such as stem cells. I don't believe the government should be in the business of funding development of technology to fight disease that is not an immediate threat to the general population.

 

and here:

 

Protection from our government for emminent threats should be a part of their business: national security, spread of deadly contagious diseases. The government should not be in the business of researching cures to help little Billy out of a wheelchair.

[hoytdwow 202]

You should take care of your own retirement and medical expenses.

 

I am, thanks. But I've also been paying into Social Security and Medicare for 15 years. I am entitled to get that money back, and enroll in Medicare so I don't have to pay a higher rate for private health insurance.

 

Battered women, just like any citizen, have a right to protection under the law.

 

Really? That's big of you. I guess they should just wander the streets, though. Or stay with Johnny Wifebeater. They must have had it coming.

 

the child should be taken from them.

 

And put where? Who's going to pay for housing? Who's going to pay for medical treatment fot he child? Who's going to pay the social workers to rehabilitate the child?

 

I stated that there should be programs in place for people that are uncapable of taking care of themselves.

 

Well, good for you. Welcome to civilized society. Those programs are called entitlements, and they're paid for out of taxes.

[Strike 3,979]

You are very kind, but no congratulations are merited on my part. They are your own words from this bored. I paraphrased your stances from here:

here:

and here:

 

I don't normally support Toro but you're taking his stance on Lebanaon completely out of context, and on that particular issue I agree with him. Americans have been told for years not to go to Lebanon, and were told to get the fock out as soon as the sh!t hit the fan there. Anyone who was there was there of their own choosing. Now, if Americans are in the U.K. and sh!t hits the fan I'd absolutely expect the gov't to save their A$$, but when you choose to go in to a war zone you shouldn't expect us to save you. We might choose to save you anyways but to consider it a given is a bit much.

[Toro 1]

You are very kind, but no congratulations are merited on my part. They are your own words from this bored. I paraphrased your stances from here:

here:

and here:

 

Holy stalker, batman.

 

 

Seriously though. I'll walk through this slowly for you...

 

He also believes that American citizens abroad aren't entitled to the protection of the government

 

This is not the same as:

 

I am not saying that the government shouldn't do all they can to help it's citizens in a time of crisis, but expecting for the American taxpayers (me) to pay for your evacuation from somewhere that is known to be a place where this kind of thing happens is not fair.

 

I never said they weren't entitled to protection. I said they should pay for it. Just as some guy who decides to climb Mt. Everest should pay for his rescue costs if he gets stranded and needs help.

 

Moving on....

 

research into diseases not currently at epidemic proportions is not the responsibility of the gov't

 

This is not the same as:

 

Protection from our government for emminent threats should be a part of their business: national security, spread of deadly contagious diseases. The government should not be in the business of researching cures to help little Billy out of a wheelchair.

 

The government should be funding research for things that pose a high risk to the general public and I said NO WHERE that they shouldn't research diseases "not currently at epidemic proportions".

 

So that's about it.

 

To summarize:

 

You said that I didn't think american citizens abroad show be entitled to protection from the government. I ACTUALLY said that americans who choose to take risks by living in regions known for violence should be entitled to protection BUT they should be financially liable for it. See the difference?

 

You said that I didn't think the government should research into diseases not currently at epidemic proportions. I ACTUALLY said the govt should research only those diseases that are a threat to the general public and national security. See the difference?

 

 

Thanks for playin.

 

I am, thanks. But I've also been paying into Social Security and Medicare for 15 years. I am entitled to get that money back, and enroll in Medicare so I don't have to pay a higher rate for private health insurance.

 

You are entitled to those things because YOU PAID FOR THEM. Do you even understand what "entitled" means?

 

Really? That's big of you. I guess they should just wander the streets, though. Or stay with Johnny Wifebeater. They must have had it coming.

 

You are a lousy sack of crap. That is NOT what I said and you focking know it. There are things called friends, families and motels. Usually someone has the ability to stay with one of those 3. If not, there are CHARITIES out there that provide this service from people who DONATE their money, rather than being robbed of it via taxes.

 

And put where? Who's going to pay for housing? Who's going to pay for medical treatment fot he child? Who's going to pay the social workers to rehabilitate the child?

Well, good for you. Welcome to civilized society. Those programs are called entitlements, and they're paid for out of taxes.

 

As I stated before (twice now), I have no problem funding programs to help those who cannot help themselves. STOP. Go back. Read that sentence again. Ok, now make sure you remember it this time because I don't want to have to restate my position a third time.

 

Thanks.

[D_House 0]

Holy stalker, batman.

 

 

Seriously though. I'll walk through this slowly for you...

This is not the same as:

I never said they weren't entitled to protection. I said they should pay for it. Just as some guy who decides to climb Mt. Everest should pay for his rescue costs if he gets stranded and needs help.

 

Moving on....

This is not the same as:

The government should be funding research for things that pose a high risk to the general public and I said NO WHERE that they shouldn't research diseases "not currently at epidemic proportions".

 

So that's about it.

 

To summarize:

 

You said that I didn't think american citizens abroad show be entitled to protection from the government. I ACTUALLY said that americans who choose to take risks by living in regions known for violence should be entitled to protection BUT they should be financially liable for it. See the difference?

 

You said that I didn't think the government should research into diseases not currently at epidemic proportions. I ACTUALLY said the govt should research only those diseases that are a threat to the general public and national security. See the difference?

Thanks for playin.

Stalker? It was actively involved in both of those threads, as were you. I remembered your posts because I actually couldn't believe someone could be so selfish.

 

I think the point that you are missing is that in all the above cases we are talking about Americans who benefit, Americans who, like you, pay taxes as well. It seems like you are so self-involved that it pains you to think that any of your own money is going towards something that doesn't directly benefit YOU. American citizens suffering from a disease such as Alzheimers, which isn't a threat to the general public, likely have paid a lifetime's worth of taxes... don't they deserve some help from the gov't? They may never catch the bird flu or whatever general threat comes next, but by your logic, they should complain that they paid taxes to aid in research for that.

 

Citizens that travel abroad also pay taxes, why the fock shouldn't they expect reasonable aid in times of emergency? Lebanon was not in fact a warzone prior to the Isreali's attack. It was and is one of the few democracies in the Mideast. American interests were present there in large numbers because it was relatively stable. It's intellectually easy to lump Lebanon in with Iran in terms of danger, but that doesn't make it true.

 

Do you see my point? Basically, it is that Toro isn't the only one in the US that pays taxes.

[hoytdwow 202]

You are entitled to those things because YOU PAID FOR THEM. Do you even understand what "entitled" means?

Dude, Social Security and Medicare are entitlements. Along with welfare, they're the grandaddies of entitlements.

You are a lousy sack of crap. That is NOT what I said and you focking know it. There are things called friends, families and motels. Usually someone has the ability to stay with one of those 3. If not, there are CHARITIES out there that provide this service from people who DONATE their money, rather than being robbed of it via taxes.

LOL. Can you see it now? A woman calls the police and is told, "I'm sorry to hear that ma'am, uh, there's a Best Western about 10 miles down the road..." Or, "while there's a lull in the beating, why don't you check on-line to see if there's a charity near you that can help."

You think battered women's shelters are robbing you via taxes?

 

As I stated before (twice now), I have no problem funding programs to help those who cannot help themselves. STOP. Go back. Read that sentence again. Ok, now make sure you remember it this time because I don't want to have to restate my position a third time.

 

Thanks.

 

You said:

No one is entitled to ANYTHING. You want health care. Get a focking job and pay for it yourself. You want to eat? Get a focking job and pay for it yourself. HTFH.

[parrot 789]

Simple really.

 

If I had a small business with 10 employees working for me making the current minimum wage - and the gov. raised it? I would lay off a couple of them in order to continue making a profit for the company to employ the remaining 8. Otherwise, you risk everyone getting let go by keeping all of them at the new rate.

 

Which option do you think the employees prefer in that scenario?

What were these employees doing that you can just lay them off and continue making a profit? Apparently they aren't all that essential to begin with. Also, if you have 10 employees all making minimum wage and your entire profitability is resting on them continuing to make minimum wage, you have a pretty crappy business to begin with.

 

I don't have strong feelings about the minimum wage but some of the arguments against it here are pretty laughable. I think a nominal raise like maybe a buck an hour wouldn't hurt much of anything, but I don't think it would help much either. It would mostly be a feel-good measure. If you go much beyond that, into living wage territory, then you're in danger of pushing wage levels up across the board, creating an inflation push where quite likely the people at the wage bottom are no better off in the long run anyway.

 

It's pretty much a non-issue to me. I don't have numbers but I would guess with current labor demands there aren't a lot of people working for minimum wage anyway. My company owns convenience stores, pretty close to the bottom of the labor food chain, in one of the worst median income states in the country, and we pay our clerks at least $6.50 to start.

[Strike 3,979]

What were these employees doing that you can just lay them off and continue making a profit? Apparently they aren't all that essential to begin with. Also, if you have 10 employees all making minimum wage and your entire profitability is resting on them continuing to make minimum wage, you have a pretty crappy business to begin with.

 

I don't have strong feelings about the minimum wage but some of the arguments against it here are pretty laughable. I think a nominal raise like maybe a buck an hour wouldn't hurt much of anything, but I don't think it would help much either. It would mostly be a feel-good measure. If you go much beyond that, into living wage territory, then you're in danger of pushing wage levels up across the board, creating an inflation push where quite likely the people at the wage bottom are no better off in the long run anyway.

 

It's pretty much a non-issue to me. I don't have numbers but I would guess with current labor demands there aren't a lot of people working for minimum wage anyway. My company owns convenience stores, pretty close to the bottom of the labor food chain, in one of the worst median income states in the country, and we pay our clerks at least $6.50 to start.

 

6.50, that's mighty generous of you lol.