|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 0:33:02 GMT
This makes no sense at all. Better to close the restaurant down and employ no one at all than to raise the wage to a level that Americans are willing to work for? You missed the point. It's better to let the restaurant, and the market conditions determine what they pay their workers and whether or not they have workers to pay. If someone doesn't want to work for $8 or $9 an hour...don't. No, I got the point just fine - I just don't agree with it. Republicans are the ones moaning about how all the small businesses will go under if they're forced to pay a higher minimum wage. Are we concerned for those folks? Are the business owners not Americans too?
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:34:22 GMT
Did you read your own post? You made the comment about taking away a large chunk of your "tax-paying citizens". As far as your property taxes being raised, weren't you one who has stated you'd gladly pay more taxes for a variety of liberal causes? Why would you be opposed to paying more taxes to insure that the wages for actual citizens goes up and that the actual citizens will contribute to the tax base? Arguing over whether or not they're citizens is a red herring; we're talking about the economic contribution they make. But since you want to argue the point, I'll ask you: what would you call someone who has lived and paid taxes here for decades, volunteered, contributed to the community, raised their children here, created jobs here, possibly fought in the armed services, etc., if not a citizen? My family could probably absorb paying more in taxes or paying higher costs for things like produce, but many families can't. Many families of American citizens can't. That's something we have to consider. It's 0kind of inconvenient for your narrative that deporting all the illegal immigrants would hurt actual American citizens, isn't it? And yet that's the case. In no country (well first world country, at least) do you become a citizen by default. And it's inconvenient to you to acknowledge your own double-talk. Many families in this country cannot afford produce now even with the illegal immigrants here. They stand a much better chance in the future under a free-market economy that doesn't suffer from a surplus of people willing to work for peanuts.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:35:14 GMT
Arguing over whether or not they're citizens is a red herring; we're talking about the economic contribution they make. But since you want to argue the point, I'll ask you: what would you call someone who has lived and paid taxes here for decades, volunteered, contributed to the community, raised their children here, created jobs here, possibly fought in the armed services, etc., if not a citizen? My family could probably absorb paying more in taxes or paying higher costs for things like produce, but many families can't. Many families of American citizens can't. That's something we have to consider. It's 0kind of inconvenient for your narrative that deporting all the illegal immigrants would hurt actual American citizens, isn't it? And yet that's the case. In no country (well first world country, at least) do you become a citizen by default. I guarantee you that if I hide out in England for 10 years, my claims of British citizenship will be laughed at by the government as they toss me out of the country. And it's inconvenient to you to acknowledge your own double-talk. Many families in this country cannot afford produce now even with the illegal immigrants here. They stand a much better chance in the future under a free-market economy that doesn't suffer from a surplus of people willing to work for peanuts.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 0:35:48 GMT
God, these damn DACA recipients. Such leeches on our society. Not entirely accurate. While not eligible for federal benefits they are entitled to state benefits, at least in NY, which includes Medicare and welfare. It wouldn't surprise me to find other states do it too. This might be of interest to you: Immigrants don't drain welfare; they fund it.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 0:37:15 GMT
Arguing over whether or not they're citizens is a red herring; we're talking about the economic contribution they make. But since you want to argue the point, I'll ask you: what would you call someone who has lived and paid taxes here for decades, volunteered, contributed to the community, raised their children here, created jobs here, possibly fought in the armed services, etc., if not a citizen? My family could probably absorb paying more in taxes or paying higher costs for things like produce, but many families can't. Many families of American citizens can't. That's something we have to consider. It's 0kind of inconvenient for your narrative that deporting all the illegal immigrants would hurt actual American citizens, isn't it? And yet that's the case. In no country (well first world country, at least) do you become a citizen by default. And it's inconvenient to you to acknowledge your own double-talk. Many families in this country cannot afford produce now even with the illegal immigrants here. They stand a much better chance in the future under a free-market economy that doesn't suffer from a surplus of people willing to work for peanuts.I want you to read the part I bolded and think real hard about it. And then get back to me when you see what's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:41:41 GMT
I'll stand by what I said. The true citizens of this country are hurt by the illegal immigrants who keep the wages unnaturally low.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,744
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Sept 6, 2017 0:49:22 GMT
In my opinion he has had no problem signing EOs at record rate and he's deferred it 6 months for his own personal reasons. That's why I think he does every.thing. Personal reasons-he, himself and "I'. My opinion of him was formed by reading and information out there long before he became a reality star or ran for office- I simply think he is a not very good person and is ill-fitted to serve as POTUS or any office that is to serve others. He serves himself. He may do something I agree with (not yet) but it will only be because it serves him and little other reason, in my opinion. He is probably deferring it so the buck doesn't stop with him- he doesn't have to take a real stand on a hot topic/controversial issue. It can become someone else's and "not my fault". And/or he can use it as a bargaining chip for something. Like his wall. In my opinion, unless it just happens to coincide with what's best for him, trump does little for moral reasons, even if it is the 'right moral decision'. That would just be a coincidence. Well, at least you're honest enough to preface your remarks with "In my opinion" rather than making them sound like facts like so many others here do. As far as the EO, he's undoing much of what Obama did by EO and shouldn't have. These issues belong with the legislative branch of our government. I just wish I believed he had a clue what the hell he was doing besides the simply undoing what Obama did. That seems to be his mantra. The only winning he cares about is his own and he seems threatened by Obama's legacy or whatever. You never look good by demeaning and trying to make others look bad. We rise by lifting others -he thinks he can rise to the top by pushing others down and/or away. I think he is so far over his skis and just reacting to what is literally in his face at the very moment. Which is why he seems to flip/flop, contradict himself and change his mind at rapid/rabid pace. He is simply reacting. (again, all IMO but that's a given here)
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:51:16 GMT
I think you're wrong. He's not intimidated by Obama or his legacy. He's doing what his base elected him to do. Many of those who voted for him did so precisely because they didn't like Obama's policies and programs and wanted them vacated. They elected him to do exactly what he's doing.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 14:10:52 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 0:52:59 GMT
You missed the point. It's better to let the restaurant, and the market conditions determine what they pay their workers and whether or not they have workers to pay. If someone doesn't want to work for $8 or $9 an hour...don't. No, I got the point just fine - I just don't agree with it. Republicans are the ones moaning about how all the small businesses will go under if they're forced to pay a higher minimum wage. Are we concerned for those folks? Are the business owners not Americans too? If the business owners CHOOSE to not pay a high enough salary, are unable to hire/keep skilled workers to keep their businesses afloat, that's totally their choice. If they choose to pay a higher wage, are able to keep skilled workers in order to keep their businesses open, I'm thrilled for them. Again, it should be their choice (within reason...where the federal current minimum wage comes into play)
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 0:53:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 0:56:54 GMT
I'll take a look at those articles later; too lazy to do so right now.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 0:59:21 GMT
That's what we haven't done; that's why we're at fault for this mess. We've created a huge market for unskilled labor from outside the country, without also creating a legal avenue for people to come here and do those jobs. That's on us. And I would say that you can't cry about the influx of low cost labor and simultaneously oppose raising the minimum wage. Many of these jobs go unfilled because Americans don't want to do them for a low wage. Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage to a livable level for Americans. How does that make sense? Let the market determine the wage. Yes, a federal, minimum wage standard needs to be in place, but not a $10 or $15 an hour wage. If McDonalds or Wendy's cannot keep their restaurants staffed with workers that earn $8 or $9 an hour, McDonalds or Wendy's will have to make the decision, on their own, to pay more, or not have the staff to keep the doors open at their restaurant. Who are you to decide that the average American worker can live on $8 or $9 an hour? I'm honestly curious. Do you have some research to show this is a livable wage? Why not $10 an hour or $15 in very high cost areas? I'm not just talking about Wendy's - I'm talking about the mom and pop operation down the street, the small family-owned cafe, etc. If the store can't do business, that's it for them. It's not like Wendy's where closing one store isn't a big deal. The restaurant is their whole livelihood. And on the one hand you want to say, don't raise the minimum wage too high because it'll put them out of business, and on the other hand you want to say, if they can't afford to pay a wage American citizens are willing to work for, they shouldn't get to have a business. That doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Sept 6, 2017 1:01:05 GMT
I'm talking about our current policies of granting amnesty or some type of deferral of action to people who come to this country in violation of our laws. As for the children of these people, no it's not their fault. But that shouldn't necessarily translate into a right to stay. You realize DACA is about the children right? Because your posts don't seem to align that you get that. Children who were brought here without being able to have a role in entering this country or to violating any kind of immigration laws after their arrival. They were given the opportunity to come forward and say that they can now choose and they are choosing to be upstanding people in this country and would like to stay in some manner. Now you seem to relish at the thought of them being rounded up the Jews in Germany and sent away, as long as you don't have to deal with them. They are allowed to pay in taxes but cannot get federal benefits. How are they hurting you? No one is asking for their parents to be given amnesty, no one is asking to cut in line and be made citizens. They are asking to stay with their status and be a part of the only home they have ever known. Not sure why over 10 pages in multiple threads this is such a hard concept to grasp. If you actually do grasp it, which again- your posts do not support, then make a fucking blanket statement that these kids who have done nothing wrong are scum and you want to see them rounded up. Just put it out there for everyone in black and white.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Sept 6, 2017 1:01:10 GMT
I think you're wrong. He's not intimidated by Obama or his legacy. He's doing what his base elected him to do. Many of those who voted for him did so precisely because they didn't like Obama's policies and programs and wanted them vacated. They elected him to do exactly what he's doing. And you know what? Obama did what his base (which is much larger than Trump's) elected him to do, despite being blocked by republicans every step of the way. And while we are telling what we are sick of,..I'm sick of trump voters blaming democrats for voting for that idiot. The responsibility for voting for him lies on those who chose him. Whether they fell for the various lies that have been out there, or they have a moral compass that would allow them to vote for him, that is on them and them alone. And for those who say that democrats need to compromise to earn their vote as if is a threat...you aren't going to get much compromise on issues that revolve around the rights of others. IMO, human rights for ALL is top priority for democrats. You aren't going to see much flexibility in that, especially in times like now when those rights are being threatened
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 6, 2017 1:01:48 GMT
But why should those who came illegally get precedence over those who are playing by the rules? Where else do we reward improper conduct at the expense of those who follow the rules? It the repeated amnesties and attempts to allow those who came illegally to stay that encourages the never-ending influx of illegals. Because what do they have to lose? Then again, what do they have to gain by doing things the right way? We have created a situation where the law-breaker wins hand-down, over and over again, as compared to the law abider. Again, you're lumping all illegal immigrants into one pot. We've been talking about those that fall under the DACA where they have been complying.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 1:02:18 GMT
I suppose the question could also be asked "who are you to decide how much one worker must give to another"? Remember, the government doesn't just pull money out of thin air; it gets it from the American people who work. Well, no I'm wrong. It gets it from the 51% of American workers who actually pay federal taxes. So who are you to say that someone in that 51% must pay $15.00 per hour to another person who demands that before he/she will work?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 1:02:19 GMT
I'll take a look at those articles later; too lazy to do so right now. I hope you will. I think a lot of the false narrative being thrown around about immigrants these days is due to intellectual laziness. People want to fall back on their pre-conceived ideas and prejudices instead of actually studying the issue.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 6, 2017 1:04:32 GMT
Hire Americans or create a system for allowing legal immigrants to come for these jobs, just like we do with the high tech jobs. You can't cry on the one hand about low wages offered to the American worker and yet support the influx of low cost labor that keeps wages down. One has nothing to do with the other. Many of the jobs held by the DACA are jobs born in US don't want--they think it's beneath them.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 1:04:36 GMT
I suppose the question could also be asked "who are you to decide how much one worker must give to another"? Remember, the government doesn't just pull money out of thin air; it gets it from the American people who work. Well, no I'm wrong. It gets it from the 51% of American workers who actually pay federal taxes. So who are you to say that someone in that 51% must pay $15.00 per hour to another person who demands that before he/she will work? You're missing the point. I'm not saying that at all. I'm asking if she's aware of any research that shows what a livable wage is, since she was making the argument that businesses that can't afford to pay American workers a livable wage should just go out of business rather than hire cheaper immigrant labor.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 1:05:06 GMT
I think you're wrong. He's not intimidated by Obama or his legacy. He's doing what his base elected him to do. Many of those who voted for him did so precisely because they didn't like Obama's policies and programs and wanted them vacated. They elected him to do exactly what he's doing. And you know what? Obama did what his base (which is much larger than Trump's) elected him to do. I don't dispute that. But as always, the tide turns. We have a new base that elected a new president who reflected their desires, values and concerns about the actions of his predecessor. There are many who were quite open about expressing their remorse for voting for Obama the second time around. There are people who have remorse about voting for Trump. In the end, each president, if he hopes to keep his base and be re-elected, is going to do what he can to satisfy that base.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 1:06:15 GMT
I think you're wrong. He's not intimidated by Obama or his legacy. He's doing what his base elected him to do. Many of those who voted for him did so precisely because they didn't like Obama's policies and programs and wanted them vacated. They elected him to do exactly what he's doing. And you know what? Obama did what his base (which is much larger than Trump's) elected him to do. And let's not forget - it turns out that a big portion of his base doesn't want him to repeal the ACA after all, now that they understand the potential effects. Can we trust his base to actually know what they voted for or what they want?
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Sept 6, 2017 1:07:20 GMT
In my opinion it is not so cut and dry. There will always be a segment of our society that is not able to turn down a job that only pays $8 or $9 an hour as that is the only jobs that they can get. So while they are working and being a productive part of our society as you (general you) want them to, the reality is they still can't survive without assistance. Therefore they need to take food stamps or other assistance and then you (again general you) are complaining that they are worthless and no good for nothings that are sucking off the Governments teat.
And I know what it coming...Well then they should get a better job. Wouldn't that be nice. But no matter how many stories you have of people pulling themselves up by their boot straps or over coming adversities, that is not how the real life works many times. Those people were lucky in addition to working hard. Well there are a lot of people who aren't lucky but are still hard workers.
I think minimum wage should be a livable wage for at least your basic needs. But I do believe that the minimum wage for different areas of the U.S. will be different and therefore a national minimum wage may not be the best approach.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 1:08:51 GMT
I suppose the question could also be asked "who are you to decide how much one worker must give to another"? Remember, the government doesn't just pull money out of thin air; it gets it from the American people who work. Well, no I'm wrong. It gets it from the 51% of American workers who actually pay federal taxes. So who are you to say that someone in that 51% must pay $15.00 per hour to another person who demands that before he/she will work? You're missing the point. I'm not saying that at all. I'm asking if she's aware of any research that shows what a livable wage is, since she was making the argument that businesses that can't afford to pay American workers a livable wage should just go out of business rather than hire cheaper immigrant labor. I guess I am missing the point. I also think you're missing her point. I think she's saying that it's all well and good to demand that employers pay a "livable wage" but that doesn't take into account the employer's ability to actually pay the arbitrary minimum wage the government (or the workers) demand. And what would you expect a company that cannot meet it's costs of business and make a livable profit for the employer to do other than go out of business? And how does hiring cheap immigration labor help the overall labor force? If nothing else, it keeps wages low.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 1:10:04 GMT
And you know what? Obama did what his base (which is much larger than Trump's) elected him to do. And let's not forget - it turns out that a big portion of his base doesn't want him to repeal the ACA after all, now that they understand the potential effects. Can we trust his base to actually know what they voted for or what they want? Considering Obamacare was enacted by a Congress that had not read the bill, are you really going to ask that question? I'm sure you remember Nancy Pelosi's unforgettable gaffe "we have to pass the bill in order to know what's in it"?
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,744
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Sept 6, 2017 1:10:49 GMT
Not entirely accurate. While not eligible for federal benefits they are entitled to state benefits, at least in NY, which includes Medicare and welfare. It wouldn't surprise me to find other states do it too. This might be of interest to you: Immigrants don't drain welfare; they fund it.and how more American and patriotic can you be than serving in the military. Kick 'em out?!
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 1:11:13 GMT
You're missing the point. I'm not saying that at all. I'm asking if she's aware of any research that shows what a livable wage is, since she was making the argument that businesses that can't afford to pay American workers a livable wage should just go out of business rather than hire cheaper immigrant labor. I guess I am missing the point. I also think you're missing her point. I think she's saying that it's all well and good to demand that employers pay a "livable wage" but that doesn't take into account the employer's ability to actually pay the arbitrary minimum wage the government (or the workers) demand. And what would you expect a company that cannot meet it's costs of business and make a livable profit for the employer to do other than go out of business? And how does hiring cheap immigration labor help the overall labor force? If nothing else, it keeps wages low.No. Go back and read those three articles you said you were too lazy to read before you keep throwing around misinformation like this.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 1:12:22 GMT
And let's not forget - it turns out that a big portion of his base doesn't want him to repeal the ACA after all, now that they understand the potential effects. Can we trust his base to actually know what they voted for or what they want? Considering Obamacare was enacted by a Congress that had not read the bill, are you really going to ask that question? I'm sure you remember Nancy Pelosi's unforgettable gaffe "we have to pass the bill in order to know what's in it"? And I'm sure you read that quote in context so you know it didn't mean what Fox and Breitbart told you it meant, right? Didn't you?
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Sept 6, 2017 1:14:18 GMT
And you know what? Obama did what his base (which is much larger than Trump's) elected him to do. I don't dispute that. But as always, the tide turns. We have a new base that elected a new president who reflected their desires, values and concerns about the actions of his predecessor. There are many who were quite open about expressing their remorse for voting for Obama the second time around. There are people who have remorse about voting for Trump. In the end, each president, if he hopes to keep his base and be re-elected, is going to do what he can to satisfy that base. When Any other president was elected did they go in and reverse every f'ing thing that the previous president did? Did the congress in any other presidency openly state that their goal was to block anything that the president wanted to do? Did any other idiot question whether a president was born in this country and have people actually question it and keep it going for years?
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 1:17:44 GMT
In my opinion it is not so cut and dry. There will always be a segment of our society that is not able to turn down a job that only pays $8 or $9 an hour as that is the only jobs that they can get. So while they are working and being a productive part of our society as you (general you) want them to, the reality is they still can't survive without assistance. Therefore they need to take food stamps or other assistance and then you (again general you) are complaining that they are worthless and no good for nothings that are sucking off the Governments teat. And I know what it coming...Well then they should get a better job. Wouldn't that be nice. But no matter how many stories you have of people pulling themselves up by their boot straps or over coming adversities, that is not how the real life works many times. Those people were lucky in addition to working hard. Well there are a lot of people who aren't lucky but are still hard workers. I think minimum wage should be a livable wage for at least your basic needs. But I do believe that the minimum wage for different areas of the U.S. will be different and therefore a national minimum wage may not be the best approach. I think you're painting Republicans (and many Independents) with that broad brush liberals hate when it's used against them. I have no problem with a single parent who's working their butt off to support their children getting food-stamps or medicaid or college assistance or day care assistance while they work. My good friend worked full time, went to college and raised three children on her own because the dead-beat dad wouldn't give a dime or keep a job. I don't begrudge her a penny of government assistance. But then, she did everything she could in order to get herself and her children off assistance. It wasn't luck that she ended up with a comfortable life financially. It was sacrifice and hard work. I have a very real problem with people who are accepting government monies to find way not to work, intentionally lose jobs so they don't have to get up early in the morning, keep having more kids when they can't afford the ones they have, failing out of government subsidized schooling or training or refusing to maintain employment and seeking medicaid and foodstamps even though they are not supporting children. There's a vast difference. It's the age of idea of working hard vs. hardly working. Sure, there are some people who fall upon hard times or who have bad luck. But there's a whole lot who make a conscious choice to remain in those circumstances because it's preferable to working.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 6, 2017 1:17:55 GMT
I don't dispute that. But as always, the tide turns. We have a new base that elected a new president who reflected their desires, values and concerns about the actions of his predecessor. There are many who were quite open about expressing their remorse for voting for Obama the second time around. There are people who have remorse about voting for Trump. In the end, each president, if he hopes to keep his base and be re-elected, is going to do what he can to satisfy that base. When Any other president was elected did they go in and reverse every f'ing thing that the previous president did? Did the congress in any other presidency openly state that their goal was to block anything that the president wanted to do? Did any other idiot question whether a president was born in this country and have people actually question it and keep it going for years? More proof that it's anything to undo what Obama did... Let's hope Congress does exactly that!
|
|