Liberal ideas move from fringe to front-burner for Democrats

[CFM]

Is it? You're the one who opposes sex education in schools. You're the one who opposes free birth control in insurance plans. You're the one who pushes abstinence-only education. You're the one who opposes abortion. You're the one who opposes free contraception.

So it seems to me that you purposefully don't educate people on sex, just so you can then sanctimoniously judge those people to make you feel better about being an underachiever personally.

Admit it; that's what you're doing, isn't it?




It absolutely is their responsibility because they're employing the worker, and are relying on government assistance to subsidize their profits.

You love corporate welfare, just admit it!

You love any kind of welfare where you can spin it to sanctimoniously judge others because you feel so shitty about your own station in life. The only way you can feel better about yourself is to judge others. And you can't even do that right because you get your facts wrong constantly. Like the makeup of the average fast food worker. You thought they were dropouts, but it turns out 70% of them have a high school degree.

So you were wrong. Where's your personal responsibility for being wrong?




Whoa, hold on a second. You said before that fast food workers were dropouts. Now you're saying they're not, and that they have a high school degree. You said before that no HS degree was justification for paying low wages, but now that you learned that most of those workers have degrees, suddenly you get back into that sanctimonious judginess.

Why not just admit that you're full of shit?

You sound like the incompetent black President that left office in January, 2017.

 

[CFM]

The one doing the paying makes that decision knowing that there are government assistance programs that provide supplements to the wage they offer.




Better themselves how? You don't want to offer free colleges and they get paid shitty wages and can't save for school, so how are they to "better themselves"? Explain yourself and your position, because it sounds to me like you're being generic because you haven't thought this through. Which is kinda your thing; not thinking things through and reacting.




That is the very definition of a wage. Wow. You're a fucking clueless idiot.

They pay knowing what the skills are worth. That someone is a leech and runs to the welfare office is their choice not the business owner.

That's up to them how to better themselves. It's also up to them to figure out to fund it. It's not up to the taxpayers to do everything for them.

You're for wage growth by it being handed to someone at a level higher than what the job they do is worth.

 

[CFM]

Yes they are because they pay them a wage that qualifies the workers for welfare programs. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Does your brain just not process words when they appear on your computer screen or what?




Not true!

First of all, you justified low wages by pretending that fast food workers were dropouts.

Then, when it was pointed out to you that most fast food workers are high school grads, you changed your argument to a subjective definition of "worth".

So you flip-flopped on your position. A position that you just came up with on the fly, wholly improvised because you're completely uninformed on the subject.

But know that you're not unique in that; most people like you rush to judgement all the time without knowing the facts. Why? Because you're a bunch of underachieving, underwhelming, uninspired moochers and slugs. People who sanctimoniously judge others because their station in life wasn't what they had been promised. Misery loves company.

It's as simple as this. Cut all welfare, pay a worker what their skills are worth not because they exist, and if they can't make it, tough shit on them. The rest of us won't have to deal with the freeloaders for very long.

 

[CFM]

Yes you did! You said they were dropouts! That's why you were justifying their low wages before; because you thought they were all drop outs.

Link.

 

[Cypress]

Well, these are clearly aspirational goals, and the devil is in the details, but this focus on infrastructure, health care, and income inequality just makes more sense on both a policy and ethical level, than the Republicans main concerns: gun humping, bible thumping, and science denying.

 

[CFM]

Well, these are clearly aspirational goals, and the devil is in the details, but this focus on infrastructure, health care, and income inequality just makes more sense on both a policy and ethical level, than the Republicans main concerns: gun humping, bible thumping, and science denying.

It's not ethical for one person demand another person be forced to fund healthcare on that person's behalf. It's not ethical for someone who, because of their lack of skills has a low income, to demand they get paid more simply because they can't make it on what their skills warrant.

Feel free to provide anyone you wish that doesn't have healthcare all of it they want. In fact, pay their bills yourself. If you can't, tough shit for them.

 

[Nordberg]

Truth is universal healthcare is cheaper. The countries that have it, pay half as much for better and complete coverage. We have to rein in the drug companies, appliance companies and hospitals. They are gouging us now. They cannot be allowed to set their own prices while killing competition.

My wife has leukemia. Gleevec, one of her drugs costs 146 thou a year in the US,. it is 8800 in Canada. India has a generic that cost 400 a year. Canada and India are not allowed to sell here.

 

[The Derp]

Gaslight you? No, it's called having a discussion and within that discussion backing up your points with facts.

FACT: The average wage for McDonald's employees is $9.38/hr
FACT: $9.38/hr qualifies for most welfare benefits
FACT: Up to about $15/hr qualifies you for most welfare benefits

 

[The Derp]

What the study doesn't show is how many people work part time at McDonald's? For some 40 hours a week at McDonald's might be a full time job but for many its not.

Doesn't matter if it's full or part-time. If you work, you deserve a living wage high enough where taxpayers don't have to subsidize the profits of the business you work for. Period.

ut it goes back to the point which you ignore and then make personal attacks because the data doesn't support your case and that's minimum wage jobs aren't supposed to support a family.

They are supposed to support a family, and that was the case when the minimum wage was introduced. All you're doing is helping me make the case that the minimum wage should be way higher.

 

[cawacko]

FACT: The average wage for McDonald's employees is $9.38/hr
FACT: $9.38/hr qualifies for most welfare benefits
FACT: Up to about $15/hr qualifies you for most welfare benefits

FACT: There are many many variables involved. A wife can work a full time job and the husband works part-time at McDonald's for extra income. That doesn't mean the husband is getting welfare benefits. There are all kinds of scenarios.

 

[The Derp]

I believe that if you don't like what you're being paid, you have two options. Better yourself to earn more or STFU about what you make.

Businesses are keeping wages artificially low because they know that the government will be there to pick up the slack with assistance programs.

 

[cawacko]

Doesn't matter if it's full or part-time. If you work, you deserve a living wage high enough where taxpayers don't have to subsidize the profits of the business you work for. Period.




They are supposed to support a family, and that was the case when the minimum wage was introduced. All you're doing is helping me make the case that the minimum wage should be way higher.

Again it depends what your goal is. If your goal is to bring automation in quicker then raise the minimum wage. If your goal is to create a loss of jobs for people in the lower income level raise the minimum wage. If your goal is to hurt those deemed most vulnerable raise the minimum wage.

 

[The Derp]

Those businesses aren't the ones going to the welfare office and filing for handouts not do they determine pay based on whether or not people will make that choice.

No, people don't make that choice. And businesses know that their workers will apply for benefits, and they know that the government will provide that assistance, so they keep wages artificially low because of it.

The real welfare dependents are the businesses whose workers qualify for assistance. Those businesses know that government will be there to provide the assistance, so the business will pay the bare minimum because they will not be held accountable to raise wages so long as the government provides assistance.

The best, fastest, and easiest way to get rid of welfare is to raise wages. Businesses aren't going to raise wages just because. They will raise wages only when they are forced to. The labor market isn't putting the pressure on wages, despite near-full employment. Now why is that, do you think?

The pay is determined on what the skills are worth. Ultimately, it goes back to the person either offering skills worth a living wage or not offering them.

In a perfect world, I would agree. But we don't live in a perfect world. Instead, we live in a world where corporations and businesses know that the government will provide assistance to low-income workers, so where's the incentive for business to raise wages if they know government will be there to pick up the slack?

 

[The Derp]

You sound like the incompetent black President that left office in January, 2017.

You sound like a loser.

 

[CFM]

Businesses are keeping wages artificially low because they know that the government will be there to pick up the slack with assistance programs.

If a business is paying a wage equivalent to a skill, it's not artificial nor low.

 

[CFM]

No, people don't make that choice. And businesses know that their workers will apply for benefits, and they know that the government will provide that assistance, so they keep wages artificially low because of it.

The real welfare dependents are the businesses whose workers qualify for assistance. Those businesses know that government will be there to provide the assistance, so the business will pay the bare minimum because they will not be held accountable to raise wages so long as the government provides assistance.

The best, fastest, and easiest way to get rid of welfare is to raise wages. Businesses aren't going to raise wages just because. They will raise wages only when they are forced to. The labor market isn't putting the pressure on wages, despite near-full employment. Now why is that, do you think?




In a perfect world, I would agree. But we don't live in a perfect world. Instead, we live in a world where corporations and businesses know that the government will provide assistance to low-income workers, so where's the incentive for business to raise wages if they know government will be there to pick up the slack?

The easiest way to get rid of welfare is to stop the programs. Wages still won't go up.

Corporations don't operate with that mindset nor do they know workers will be leeches.

 

[CFM]

You sound like a loser.

I'm not black, therefore, your statement can't be true.

 

[The Derp]

They pay knowing what the skills are worth.

No they don't! They pay knowing the government will be there to subsidize their profits by providing assistance to underpaid employees. So businesses rely on welfare to be profitable. Because ostensibly, if they paid their workers a higher wage, the company wouldn't be profitable. Think about that for a moment and then judge the business for it; businesses say they can't pay their employees a higher wage because it would cut their profitability. So businesses are admitting that they're exploiting not just workers, but the government, in order to achieve profit. No judgement of them from you? Weird.

That someone is a leech and runs to the welfare office is their choice not the business owner

The owner is choosing to pay a low wage becuase the owner knows that government assistance will bridge the gap between a worker's true value, and what the business is actually paying.

If businesses paid their workers a living wage, there'd be no need for welfare.

But you're admitting that capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for its workers because a higher wage may mean the business isn't profitable anymore. And if a business cannot be profitable without relying on welfare for its workers, then that business owner is a welfare queen.

 

[CFM]

No they don't! They pay knowing the government will be there to subsidize their profits by providing assistance to underpaid employees. So businesses rely on welfare to be profitable. Because ostensibly, if they paid their workers a higher wage, the company wouldn't be profitable. Think about that for a moment and then judge the business for it; businesses say they can't pay their employees a higher wage because it would cut their profitability. So businesses are admitting that they're exploiting not just workers, but the government, in order to achieve profit. No judgement of them from you? Weird.





The owner is choosing to pay a low wage becuase the owner knows that government assistance will bridge the gap between a worker's true value, and what the business is actually paying.

If businesses paid their workers a living wage, there'd be no need for welfare.

But you're admitting that capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for its workers because a higher wage may mean the business isn't profitable anymore. And if a business cannot be profitable without relying on welfare for its workers, then that business owner is a welfare queen.

Sure they do. In fact, they have to pay more than some jobs are worth with the minimum wage of $7.25.

It's not the system's responsibility to provide that standard of living. It's the responsibility of the individual in the system. If they can't, tough shit.

 

[The Derp]

It's also up to them to figure out to fund it.

Ridiculous.

So you say people need to better themselves, ostensibly through education, but because they make such low wages, they cannot afford the education to better themselves.

So your argument is just masturbation; it's you perpetuating a problem in order to complain about it, so you can feel better about your own shitty station in life.

I think you get off on judging low-income workers because of a personal deficiency or insecurity you have about yourself.

t's not up to the taxpayers to do everything for them.

Yet that is precisely what you're encouraging for business owners...that the government does the work of bridging the gap between the low wage, and a living wage. There would be no need for welfare if businesses paid their workers a living wage. Instead, businesses rely on government welfare so they don't have to cut their profitability. That's entitlement.

You're for wage growth by it being handed to someone at a level higher than what the job they do is worth.

The job's worth is the wage PLUS the welfare the worker qualifies for. That's a "Living wage". The only reason wages are so low is because business relies on welfare to make up the gap between the workers' wage and what would be a living wage. Business owners are welfare queens because they are forcing their workers to take welfare because of the low wages. So a business owner's profits are subsidized by the government picking up the slack on its low-wage workers.

That's welfare dependency, friend.

If there was no welfare, then the businesses would have to pay their workers more.