Reply With QuotelinkOriginally Posted by Into the Night
you just saying something without proof is meaningless
Truthmatters
you don't get the final decision on that one
that is for the people to decide how they will run the nation
If you don't use debt wisely you don't get rich
If you don't use debt like the financial tool it is you never get much of anywhere
Corporations run debt all the time to build into the future
so should the government
the people want those things you don't want
they want roads
schools
bridges
police hospitals
firefighters
clean water
clean air
regulations on corporations who have proven over and over again they refuse to place people first
they use all the infrastructure
so your idiot rants is meaningless
Truthmatters
link
you just saying something without proof is meaningless
fully immersed in faith..
why do you waste our time repeating that shit.....there are deficits because spending is the problem.......now stfu.....
serene
- piffle -"...there are deficits because spending is the problem...." PP #528
Deficit means spending exceeds revenue.
It would be just as true to say: ...there are deficits because insufficient revenue is the problem... .
Slashing spending is the refrain of the ignorant. President Trump declared NATO obsolete, and threatened to withdraw the U.S. from NATO. After Trump was informed of his folly he flip-flopped.
Certainly with a budget as big as that of the U.S. there's room to $cut.
But every status quo has a constituency. How do you think we got here?
"It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18
Banned
What we need is for those with skills so low they have to beg for a minimum wage increase to do is stop begging that someone give them $15/hour for $2/hour skills. It must be sad for you knowing that the only way you could ever get that amount is for a law to be passed.
1960s Chick Magnet
Democrats with three digit IQs definitely do NOT like the flat rate tax idea.
The progressive income tax is the mainstay of a civilized nation and even a semi-civilized one like ours.
As for Banjofuck, if it weren't for him, I wouldn't know that food stamps could be used to pay for internet access.
Verified User
Dude, the minimum wage only means, "I would pay you a lot less, if I only could".
The last time we set a minimum wage for $7.30 back in 1992, you could still buy a brand new car for $12K- you could buy a brand new 3 bedroom house for $68K.
Let me just do the math for you. Basically, the price of homes or cars have tripled since then. So, even if the minimum wage was to keep up with inflation, we should actually be paying $21.90 an hour as a minimum wage just to keep up.
You cannot have a country that allows prices to triple for everything bought and sold in the country- except the cost of labor. Labor may be just another commodity, but it has a cost to it, and that cost should always keep up with inflation.
Government can't just protect the interests of big business and totally ignore the concerns of workers, consumers, and families. When you do that, we are back in the days of sweatshops, monopolies, labor disputes, runaway inflation, poverty, and despair. That is not democracy- that is plutocracy!
You cannot have a country that allows business to take advantage of cheap labor, by allowing cheap labor to even exist in the first place, just because the labor market has no one in the government looking after the worker's interests as well.
serene
CFM #530
What do you think the minimum wage should be?
tq
"It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18
Verified User
Don just added to both while cutting taxes to subsidize the ruling aristocracy.
Verified User
Our predatory capitalists have another way currently up and running; you subsidize their workers so that they as employers don't have to pay them enough to live on.
Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc.../#6a17112b720b
Taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize Amazon’s growth
http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2017/s...mazons-growth/
Taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing the growth of Amazon, the world’s largest internet-based retailer. Our public policy shouldn’t bend toward giving handouts to a company that had a revenue of almost $136 billion last year, and whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, has a net worth hovering around $90 billion, making him one of the richest people on the planet.
But outrageously, that’s exactly what’s happening across America. Governments are buying into the fallacy that using corporate welfare to attract Amazon is going to be beneficial to our communities and offset millions of dollars in subsidies. In Baltimore, Amazon received $43 million in subsidies. In Jacksonville, Fla., the subsidy windfall for Amazon has topped $26 million. Joliet, Ill. has handed the company more than $30 million in subsidies, in Kenosha, Wis., subsidies have topped $32 million, and in the state of Pennsylvania, Amazon has been granted subsidies of more than $22 million.
All told, since 2015, Amazon has benefited from at least $241 million in tax abatements, infrastructure improvements and other subsidies in dozens of places, selling the idea that when Amazon comes to town, it will help everybody. But what are taxpayers and communities getting for their money and depleted tax base?
These subsidies help Amazon drive retailers and other competition out of the market by selling products, even at below its own cost. The company is selling more and more of its own products and promoting them over the third-party goods that helped build their business model. With its own products, distribution network and ability to drive competitors out of business, we see the dark underpinnings of a vast monopoly that has the power to permanently change our economy and eliminate our choices and the free market as we know it.
sear (09-15-2018)
serene
FL #535
It's corporate welfare.
Wal~Mart under-pays them, and the tax payer makes up the difference.
"It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18
Banned
The minimum means the government tells a business they have to pay someone more than they're worth. Businesses should be able to pay someone whatever the business wants.
The skills it took to do a minimum age job in 1992 are the same ones it takes to do the same job today. Sorry, no improvement in skills, no increase in pay.
While you may support it, I don't support the concept of 'I breather, therefore, someone owes me more'.
Sure you can have that country. If you continue to give people something just because they exist, there is no incentive to get better.
When you offer cheap skills, you get a lower pay.
Banned
Easy solution. Stop providing social welfare. Deal?
If someone isn't making enough to live on, they should improve their skills. No one owes them a living.
Are you saying if social welfare didn't exist Walmart would pay people more?
Verified User
I am not making a decision. I am describing what is.
I am not talking about a decision. Remember, we are not a democracy in the United States.
I already described this, and what 'wisely' is.
I already described this too.
Sometimes good debt, sometimes bad debt.
I have no problem with good debt.
I never said I don't want roads.
I never said I don't want schools. The federal government has no authority over schools.
I never said I don't want bridges. They are part of the roads you say I don't want.
I never said I don't want police.
I never said I don't want hospitals. The federal government has no authority over creating hospitals.
Firefighters are not federal government.
Clean water is not created by any government.
Clean air is not created by any government.
Little needed. Corporations that do not place their customers first die.
So?
You seem to carry a lot of anger and assume a rant where there is none.
Verified User
Non-sequitur fallacy. The argument I made was, "Price controls don't work. They always cause shortages."
Posting Rules
Bookmarks