Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe people should have stopped partying, taken school seriously, really thought their major through (grown up) and then they wouldn't have to depend minimum wage.
No matter how much you bi*ch about it freemkt your life is the result of "your" actions.
??? high grades, high test scores, stayed in school, didn't do crime or drugs...what bad decissions did I make?
Fancyfeast's errors in supporting government for charity, have already been pointed out in Post 76. He seems intent on ignoring them. When I pointed them out, he began the usual ranting and raving, making up things I'd never said and trying to bash me for them, etc.... the typical response of hysterical leftists who are debunked and have no coherent reply.
Translation: You didn't like my response to your position so you started the usual ranting and raving, and making things up, bashing me.....typical response of many typical, rigid, hardened right-wing conservatives who, when confronted with their own silliness, then respond with an incoherent reply bashing anyone who would dare to question their positions. LOL Your posts and your perspective about these things are a hoot. Thanks for the chuckle.
Btw, what is this "non-human" entity which you call "the government"?
One more thing. YOUR Post #76 was wrong. It did not debunk anything, and you totally ignored my response to the silliness of #76. Continually being on the offense and declaring yourself always correct doesn't always work L.A........lol Sounds like someone accustomed to interrogating people accused of being in trouble. Also interesting that you don't address the poster personally and directly, but address everyone else in the thread when you are trying your humiliation tactic on individual posters who disagree with you. Some people are sooo amusing.
Some cities are passing a law called a "Living-Wage Law", that says someone working for a large retailer must be paid at least 1-1/2 times the city's Minimum Wage. The purpose, they say, is so that the person can support a family (I presume a family of 4?) on his wages.
What if his work (clerking or flipping burgers or whatever) doesn't increase the company's revenue by that much?
What cosmic law suddenly made that company responsible for this person's family? Isn't that the person's responsibility himself? I thought companies (whether the corner store or K-Mart) were founded to sell good and make a profit for the people who risked their money to invest in them and set hem up?
Did God hand down a new commandment, saying that a family's needs must be supplied by working as a clerk or burger flipper?
As far as I know, that kind of work has never been sufficient to support a family of four. Someone who tries to support such a family while only working for McDonalds or Joe's Lawnmower Shop, is himself guilty of neglect. It's no different from trying to lift a 50-pound weight by using only a piece of kite string.
Does someone think they can change that by passing a law?
I haven't read any posts before posting mine but this is how I see the increase in minimum wage. After the economy tanked, many people were making livable wages were laid off. I am talking about well educated people who earned 50 to 100 thousand a year. Those jobs no longer exist, and yet most of those people who didn't find a job making a similar salary had to accept a low paying minimum wage to support their families. Are you saying that it was neglectful for those people who had to settle down and take a minimum wage or a job earning a whole lot less than what they were accustomed to support their families as neglectful? I don't think so.
Corporations are getting tons of tax breaks at the expense of the American tax payer, and to add insult to injury, many of these same corporations getting tax breaks are laughing to the bank when they hire people over seas to do the same job for even a significant lower wage. Yet the tax breaks are set in place for them to have more money to hire American workers that we aren't really seeing.
To me it's a big game because corporations have the right to think about their bottom lines as well as their investors who are gambling their money to profit off of any gains. Also, retailers bottom line is to keep wages as low as possible and that's why Corporations like McDonald's and Macy's don't care about their high employee turn over rate because it keeps the new workers at the same minimum wage. Even if the worker were to stay there for 5 years, he or she may be fortunate if they were making about 10.25 an hour for working their butts off while stuck at that salary until that person can find something better or learning a trade, and or attending school to better themselves. So to me, if the corporation is profiting millions to billions, then why not reward the employees who were at least loyal in helping that corporation make those profits by giving those loyal workers adequate raises OR BONUSES FOR PROFITABLE YEARS as they remain on the job.
What part of "government" does not contain human beings making choices and laws for other human beings who elected them to do so?
Government is not a person. It's an organization.
Quote:
I think the Bible talks about human beings helping and loving each other. Government is NOT an entity outside the control of human beings, citizens, who have been elected by the majority of other human beings in the state and/or country, to make those laws and decisions.
Taking money from one person and giving to another is not charity. It's theft. If you want to help the poor, give your OWN time and money. That's what those of us who have empathy do. That's how you help the unfortunate people. Greedy people just like to take other people's money and spend it. That's what our government does. That's not charity and it's not empathy.
Quote:
It is an illusion that you really "own" or "control" everything and all the circumstances of your life.
No illusion at all. Nobody says they own or control everything. Where did you get that silly idea?
Quote:
You (your ego) have uncritically "bought" the conservative propaganda that you can live independently of all other human beings and that you can really "control" anything. The only constant in life is change. Your life could change in a nanosecond and you could find yourself in need of assistant from our government which is made up of people and to whom you choose to donate taxes each year in order to live in this society.
Once again, where did you get the silly idea that people think they can live alone and independent of others?
I have always said I need others. I need others to provide electricity, grow peaches, build my house and build my BMW.
By definition, government necessarily redistributes wealth.
Not true at all.
Quote:
When you demand that I subsidize a military, you demand that the state take money from me and transfer it to government employees who work within this bureaucracy. That you have concluded for me that I benefit from this bureaucracy does not alter the fact that a redistribution of wealth has occurred.
Taxing people for the defense of the country and protection of the people is not even close to wealth redistribution.
Taking money from a plumber working 60 hours a week to feed his family and giving it to somebody else who is not working is WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION.
Taking money from one person and giving to another is not charity. It's theft. If you want to help the poor, give your OWN time and money. That's what those of us who have empathy do. That's how you help the unfortunate people. Greedy people just like to take other people's money and spend it. That's what our government does. That's not charity and it's not empathy.
No illusion at all. Nobody says they own or control everything. Where did you get that silly idea?
Once again, where did you get the silly idea that people think they can live alone and independent of others?
I have always said I need others. I need others to provide electricity, grow peaches, build my house and build my BMW.
My point has been that "government" is made up of people (human beings).....I'm a person, you're a person, we make up the "government" in that we participate in electing people to represent what we want our government to do.
Your babbling about the "government" (you and I) stealing from one person (we all contribute to these programs) to give to another (we actually help many people) is absurd. Our government, made up of people we elect to do what we want, is passing laws to help other members of our society/community who need help. Majority in this case rules. There are conditions set in order to qualify for public assistance, and those conditions are determined by our "government" which means that we the people make that determination. I think you need to look up the definition of the word "stealing" and spend some time meditating on what it really means. You might also want to spending some time meditating on the meaning of GREED and GREEDINESS.
How funny that you talk about you "need" other people to do work for you to build your BMW. LMAO. You have absolutely no control over the future or how circumstances in your life could change. You appear to be one of the many old folks out there who believe that everything remains the same and who hold on so tightly to the illusion of control which seems to be their religion.
Taxing people for the defense of the country and protection of the people is not even close to wealth redistribution.
Taking money from a plumber working 60 hours a week to feed his family and giving it to somebody else who is not working is WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION.
You may need to broaden your perspective and take a long, critical look at the religion of the illusion of control over all the circumstances of your life. You have been deeply conditioned by the right wing think takes who preach "personal accountability" to the exclusion of social responsibility every day. That, of course, just helps the ultra-wealthy who do no work at all get richer and richer at your expense and with your support. You don't have the control you think you do. That plumber who works 60 hours a week, would seem to be in a very risky position in terms of bad health and injuries which could ultimately cause him/her to no longer be able to work and then need public assistance. Plus, who knew so many people had "plumbing" issues that a plumber could stay busy 60 hours a week, every week of the year?
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 08-29-2013 at 09:11 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for the chuckle. 
