This twat Obama has been wrong every step of the way
This twat Obama has been wrong every step of the way
Ahhh Yes !!! I remember it well, but what face ????
Romney was right there is 47% who are dependent on the government; which is just the rest of us who work. Government has no money and produces nothing, it takes from productive citizens and buys the votes of the leeches with that money. At least 47% just voting to extend their government benefits. If Obama has it his way he will increase that to over 50% so that Democrats will always have the power; this is what Obamacare is all about; making everyone dependent on the government.
Sometimes a revisionists look at history can be fun, but not when it's used this way.
Your choice of ' Donkey' in you name is a source of amusement, understanding just how 'stubborn & stupid' you are is expressed in your 'Che' avi, a pure commie if there ever was one.
Maybe change you name & avi to DUMB BELL.... suites you very well !
- A donkey is stronger than a horse of the same size.
- Donkeys have an incredible memory - they can recognise areas and other donkeys they were with up to 25 years ago.
- Donkeys are not easily startled (unlike horses) and have a keen sense of curiosity.
- Donkeys have a reputation for stubbornness but this is due to their highly developed sense of self preservation. It is difficult to force or frighten a donkey into doing something it sees as contrary to its own best interest or safety.
- Donkeys are more independent in their thinking than horses and will reason, then make decisions based on their safety.
- Training a donkey relies upon showing him or her, by words and action, that they can trust you to protect them from harm. They learn what it is we want them to do if we take time to show them.
Apparently donkeys are being maligned unfairly. They apparently are neither stubborn nor stupid.
You are welcomed to cast aspersions at me but I agree with SD about Romney. Romney is right on both counts. The two heads are not contradictory. Both statements are true.
If Romney and his party believe Americans deserve more take home pay, why is it always republicans fighting against any increase to minnimum wage ?
This is a typical strawman argument. Poor democrats have been voting Democrat forever and they are still poor Democrats so they use the old standby of "let's engage in class warfare and blame those rich republicans". Not the ultra rich democrats mind you, only those fat cat republicans. Read a bit about it and you'll see why there are people on both sides of the fence who are opposed to the raise.
And before you call me a tea bagger or some other inane colloquialism I'm neither republican or democrat. They are both crooks that wipe themselves with the documents they purport to defend.
Roughly 2.3 percent (one reference showed it as high as 4.7%) of hourly workers make the "minimum wage". That means for that 2.3 percent (to 4.7%), assuming they are working a 40 hour work week, are making roughly $15,100 a year. That is a big assumption because obamacare has made many employers cut their employees hours under 30 so they don't have to pay the obama tax.
Now if we raise the minimum wage to the proposed $9.00 an hour the earner now makes roughly $18,700 a year, again assuming that they aren't limited to under 30 hours a week due to obamacare fees.
Is that going to solve the problem? No way. As a matter of fact as businesses normally do they will raise the prices of things like happy meals and groceries to make up for the extra money they have to spend. This will raise the prices for the people who just got a bump in pay. They will also cut their work force to make up for the extra cash outlay.
So let's just bump everyone to $15.00 an hour, right? Makes sense. Then the earners in an entry level job will be making double what they are now. And the businesses will just take it in stride and not raise the prices of products right?
Wrong. Two things will happen. Employers will lay off employees and prices will go up in every industry affected.
Here's another point of view by Don Boudraeux;
"If government enacts legislation setting the minimum price that people can pay for a new car at $50,000, do you believe that this legislation will result in people paying $50,000 for the likes of Toyota Corollas and Ford Fiestas? Or do you realize that if government obliges car buyers to pay at least $50,000 for a new vehicle, these buyers will choose to buy no low-end cars and opt (if they buy a new car at all) instead to purchase a new BMW, Lexus, or other luxury model?"
If a company has to pay 15 an hour for a worker do you think he's going to hire the people that they currently have working for them or more qualified people? Who would you hire? I'm hiring the guy who graduated from college with a human studies degree who has no hope of using it to become gainfully employed over someone without a HS degree. I guess I'm just a dick that way.
Where did you get the idea that he or I were talking about welfare? I was responding to the minimum wage question. What you just did was pull out a strawman argument. If you think that the majority or even the minority of hourly workers are making $7.25 you are sorely mistaken. I pretty much spelled that out.
I believe there are a lot of people that need welfare to survive. My aunt was one of them and I'm thankful she had it. She was on it long enough to find a job then got off of it. But I've seen with my own eyes that there is a lot of corruption in the welfare system. I have worked with people that refuse to get married so the "wife" gets to stay home and collect welfare while the "husband" goes to work and makes 50-60K. I used to work at a grocery store where a several couples would drive in a a nice SUV, dressed to the nines and sit there while the wife pays for all the food the WIC plan and food stamps could buy then have the husband come in behind her paying for the beer,cigarettes, steak etc with his debit card.
We have all seen that there are more Americans accepting handouts from the government plantation than are not. Whose paying for all that? The ones of us not on the plantation.
Now the minimum wage. What should it be? What's the liveable wage? $15 an hour? $19 an hour? How much more of your paycheck do you want to give up to pay for it? How much should we pay an entry level burger flipper at a fast food place? Those are entry level jobs and not skilled labor. The market wont bear it and it will result in more unemployment.
Instead of hookers with STD analogies come up with an argument on how this should work.
"Wrong. Two things will happen. Employers will lay off employees and prices will go up in every industry affected."
Employers will lay off employees.
The employees left after the layoffs will be overworked, have a loss of moral and be unmotivated to provide proper customer service.
The employer will experience higher rates of employee turnover and incur increased employee costs related to increased employee recruitment and training.
Increased costs due to increased turnover causing increases in recruitment and training will reduce profit margins.
The employees hired will not be as productive due to lack of experience.
Employers will have a reduction in customer service levels leading to a decline in customer satisfaction.
As a result customers will stop buying goods and services from the employers company and migrate to where they receive higher levels of customer service.
The company profit margin will decline due to declining customers resulting in lost sales.
The company will go out of business due to lack of customers.
Employers + Employees + Customers form a symbiotic circle of economic life :-D
You see this a lot in businesses like grocery stores that employ large numbers of part time employees at minimum wages that do not provide benefits like paid sick leave.
Or in any business like a restaurant that follows the above pay low wages and benefits employee compensation models.
There are high rates of employee turnover, high levels of inexperienced employees , instability in staffing patterns, a reduction in productivity leading to declines in customer service and customer satisfactions in those businesses.
So when you go into a grocery store, cannot find anyone to assist you at say the deli counter and find yourself standing in long lines at the checkout counter then don't complain.
Also don't complain when due to a lack of paid sick leave some of those employees go to work sick and contaminate with viruses and bacteria what you are buying in a grocery store and eating in a restaurant.
Taking a chance on being infected and getting sick as hell due to sick employees who do not get sick pay is worth it as long as you do not have to pay say 5 cents more for the cost of your meal and your groceries to provide those employees with paid sick leave.
The people that benefit the most from a company/business that employs a large number of part time workers that receive minimum wages and low or no benefits are the wealthy investor economic classes that own stock in those companies.
The owners of that company/business.
Or the highly compensated executives of those companies.
The ROI and profits from those companies/businesses is flowing to the top.
The rest of us suffer from the crap levels of customer service found in those businesses related to the type of employees that are employed in those businesses due to the levels of compensation those businesses provide.
The impacts of high rates of employee turnover, high levels of inexperienced employees , instability in staffing patterns, and reduction in productivity lead to declines in customer service and customer satisfactions in those businesses.
right or wrong these fucking clowns in America would still vote Obama again. He lied in the first 4 years and the American people gave him 4 more. Even after the debacle that has been his 2nd term people would still vote Obama again over Romney. Even if there was a machine that would show people had they voted for Romney they would be better off they wouldn't believe it and still voted Obama.
I for one voted Romney and believe he would have been astronomically better than Obama, but personally I'm glad Romney didn't win. As an LDS man I believe had Romney won every fucked up thing this country went through would have been blamed on Mormons. It wouldn't be about the difficult decisions Romney had to make, but the decisions "Mormon Romney" makes.
Either way 52% of this countries voting populace is retarded for voting for Obama the second time, and somehow they will defend that ridiculous vote like it is their last gulp of air as they go under the waves on a sinking boat
And saying that is my only defense after I typed several paragraphs stating my stance shows me you really either didn't read or don't understand what I wrote.
You haven't offered any solutions or addressed what I have said in any way. You're arguing on liberal talking points and not out of experience or research.
If you look at the stats (from the dept of labor) half of the people making minimum wage are under 25 and a good percentage are in school. A large portion of those jobs are part time jobs. A portion of those are in the food service industry as servers and are paid no less then $2.13 an hour but make well over minimum wage with tips added in. They are still counted as minimum wage earners.
Raising the minimum wage in effect is welfare. You are forcing businesses to pay people 2-3 times more then the market bears for unskilled labor in the name of giving them a "livable wage". What in your opinion is a livable wage? either hourly or annually?
If businesses are forced to double someones pay across the board how can you possibly think it wont result in thousands of lost jobs and increased prices for products we use on a daily basis? Do you think the management and ceo's are going to take it on the chin and lose profits or do what they have to to stay profitable.
Another question, if we double the wages and now the fry cook is making as much as the guy who worked his way up to management what happens then?
I think you're short sighted and just can't see the far reaching ramifications this will have.
Economists projected that in the US it would take a good 6-8 years for the de-levegeraing process in the US to start. 5 years later bankruptcy data shows that the majority of debt in the US is being discharged and is not being payed down, wage stagnation and loss might have something to do with that.
Savings rates go up for those that can, spending goes down as debt payments are now the focus.
So if one person or sectors spending is the income of another how exactly would the economy be better under a different POTUS when the current status of weak aggregate demand it's clearly a function of economics.