Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Costco also doesn't represent every business in the world.

No they don't. That is why they are getting a shout out.

Like I am going to give Walmart a shout out? Heck no. I am not going praise the CEO from Subway moaning and groaning about health care when they had a record year either. I like Subway sandwiches but he can kiss my rear end.

I feel for a struggling small businesses owners which is why the government needs to pass the small business payroll tax cuts in the American Jobs Act. A billionaire crying about health care when his businesses is doing well has no simply.

Other big businesses experiencing record profits have no excuse not to follow Costco.

Papa John's CEO is another all about me sociopath.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
No they don't. That is why they are getting a shout out.

Like I am going to give Walmart a shout out? Heck no. I am not going praise the CEO from Subway moaning and groaning about health care when they had a record year either. I like Subway sandwiches but he can kiss my rear end.

I feel for a struggling small businesses owners which is why the government needs to pass the small business payroll tax cuts in the American Jobs Act. A billionaire crying about health care when his businesses is doing well has no simply.

Other big businesses experiencing record profits have no excuse not to follow Costco.

Papa John's CEO is another all about me sociopath.


In 1980 I got my first job as a bus boy and minimum wage was $3.10 an hour. With an hour's pay, I could buy a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, and a gallon of gas. Today, minimum wage is $7.25 and if someone earning that wage wanted to buy all of those things he would spend my hour's pay, plus what minimum wage was when I first started working. Minimum wage should be adjusted to the cost of living. Businesses are getting a relative bargain when compared to when I was making.
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
In 1980 I got my first job as a bus boy and minimum wage was $3.10 an hour. With an hour's pay, I could buy a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, and a gallon of gas. Today, minimum wage is $7.25 and if someone earning that wage wanted to buy all of those things he would spend my hour's pay, plus what minimum wage was when I first started working. Minimum wage should be adjusted to the cost of living. Businesses are getting a relative bargain when compared to when I was making.

fn7f5l.jpg
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
I guess I just don't get the popular acceptance that if you work hard, do well, become wealthy, and create jobs....
why that automatically translates into:
because you have money, you now bare more responsibility, and you should just shut up and take all the crap, tax hikes, and increased costs.

Entitlement is growing my friends, and will continue until people get off their lazy @$$es and go vote. Unfortunately this will not happyen as we're a frog in a pot with a slowly rising temperature.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I guess I just don't get the popular acceptance that if you work hard, do well, become wealthy, and create jobs....
why that automatically translates into:
because you have money, you now bare more responsibility, and you should just shut up and take all the crap, tax hikes, and increased costs.

Entitlement is growing my friends, and will continue until people get off their lazy @$$es and go vote. Unfortunately this will not happyen as we're a frog in a pot with a slowly rising temperature.

Seems to me the businesses getting labor at half the real cost as it was when iI was a kid are the ones who feel entitled to keep it that way.
 
Last edited:

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Seems to me the businesses getting labor at half the real cost as it was when i waa a kid are the ones who feel entitled to keep it that way.

There are soooo many reasons for why food and gas costs are out of whach now... I'll just leave you with one.

I'd point out that your argument (what you can buy, or not buy), is all impacted by gas prices (food and general goods both). 50+ cents per gallon going to government. Perhaps the utilization of our own natural resources could help? Perhaps making it more attractive to hire people in the US instead of pushing business to look off shore would help (another impact that helps skew everything).

Bonus --- Back to entitlement.... do you know Venezuelans see gas as an entitlement? did you know the government subidized gas to point you fill up a twenty gallon tank for under 2 buckaroos. Yes, less than 10 centavos per gallon. If I were Ok with subsidies, that's one I might be OK with....
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,197
Reaction score
774
By then you'll be a conservative.....so I'll vote for you!

Exactly!!!

Funny how I thought differently when I was in college. A few decades later in the real world and how those views have changed. The first eye opener was my first yearly bonus I earned and was all fired up (had the money spent in my mind) and received about 45% of my actual earnings. That is when I started questioning taxes and Government spending.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Entitlements are earned benefits.

I am not saying there is no abuse in Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, etc. Sure there are people that abuse.

There are tons people out there that try there best to make ends meat but can't seem to do so they really need do need some help. Then I suggest volunteer in a low income community for just a short period of time.

It is such a me society out there. No ever thinks they are going to be the one that loses their job. Nobody thinks they are going to be the one get a serious illness.

Personally I am not rich man nor do I come from a rich family. I grew up in a 50k family and I couldn't feel more blessed. I am tract to having a nice career in a growing health care field. Sure I got some debt to pay off but I can't complain.

According to some folks I should be happy and just F everyone else because I got mine. Sorry I just can't think that way.

The constitution talks about the general welfare. I think we start standing up for the real constitution not some omg Obama is coming to take your guns away fear mongering.

America with our crumpling roads, soon to be out dated electrical, communications, and transportation infrastructure, the growing income inequality is going be considered the richest third world countries. I can't drive a mile in Chicago with having to avoid a darn pot hole.

Believe it or not if you met me I am a very upbeat and positive guy. I actually don't think any of our problems is that bad and if we look to fixing our nation instead of destoying as much government as possible I think we can do a lot of great things.
 
Last edited:

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
There are soooo many reasons for why food and gas costs are out of whach now... I'll just leave you with one.

I'd point out that your argument (what you can buy, or not buy), is all impacted by gas prices (food and general goods both). 50+ cents per gallon going to government. Perhaps the utilization of our own natural resources could help? Perhaps making it more attractive to hire people in the US instead of pushing business to look off shore would help (another impact that helps skew everything).

Bonus --- Back to entitlement.... do you know Venezuelans see gas as an entitlement? did you know the government subidized gas to point you fill up a twenty gallon tank for under 2 buckaroos. Yes, less than 10 centavos per gallon. If I were Ok with subsidies, that's one I might be OK with....

Whatever the reasons for higher prices the minimum wage should keep pace with cost pf living. Businesses aren't charging prices that have not kept pace and shouldn't be entitled to cheaper labor because prices went up. That is screwing the workers so businesses can prosper.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Entitlements are earned benefits.

I am not saying there is no abuse in Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, etc. Sure there are people that abuse.

There are tons people out there that try there best to make ends meat but can't seem to do so they really need do need some help. Then I suggest volunteer in a low income community for just a short period of time.

It is such a me society out there. No ever thinks they are going to be the one that loses their job. Nobody thinks they are going to be the one get a serious illness.

Personally I am not rich man nor do I come from a rich family. I grew up in a 50k family and I couldn't feel more blessed. I am tract to having a nice career in a growing health care field. Sure I got some debt to pay off but I can't complain.

According to some folks I should be happy and just F everyone else because I got mine. Sorry I just can't think that way.

The constitution talks about the general welfare. I think we start standing up for the real constitution not some omg Obama is coming to take your guns away fear mongering.

America with our crumpling roads, soon to be out dated electrical, communications, and transportation infrastructure, the growing income inequality is going be considered the richest third world countries. I can't drive a mile in Chicago with having to avoid a darn pot hole.

Believe it or not if you met me I am a very upbeat and positive guy. I actually don't think any of our problems is that bad and if we look to fixing our nation instead of destoying as much government as possible I think we can do a lot of great things.

Wait...didn't this exact same argument play out like 5 or 10 pages ago?
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
How is this not getting talked about by the nationa media but austerity is? Rather it be the GOP austerity or slightly less Obama version of austerity.

Congressional Progressive Caucus : Balancing Act

The Balancing Act

Cut Handouts, Not Jobs

The Balancing Act eliminates the haphazard cuts in the sequester and ensures that we reduce our long-term deficit in a balanced way. The bill equalizes budget cuts and revenue by closing loopholes for America’s wealthiest individuals and corporations. It also creates over 1 million jobs by investing in infrastructure, teachers, and putting money in consumers’ pockets, paid for by cutting wasteful Pentagon spending to achieve balance with non-defense cuts.

In 2011 and 2012, Congress and the President enacted $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction, slashing everything from loans for college students to funds needed to fix our crumbling roads and bridges. The 2011 budget alone included $600 million in cuts to community health centers, $503 million in cuts to the Women and Infant Children nutrition program, $1.6 billion in cuts to environmental programs, $400 million in cuts to home energy assistance, $296 million in cuts to the Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, and $150 million in cuts to the National Science Foundation. Middle Class Americans shouldn’t be forced to pay the price for cuts like these while we maintain a bloated Pentagon budget and give massive tax breaks to millionaires and billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies.

In January 2013, Congress and the President took the first step towards a more balanced approach to deficit reduction, enacting $737 billion in revenue and interest savings. Yet to date, more than two-thirds of deficit reduction has come from cuts to critical programs.

We cannot afford to make deeper cuts to vital investments and to lifelines for many working families, but the “sequester” enacted under the Budget Control Act would do just that. The Balancing Act would repeal the sequester, which would save over 600,000 jobs in 2013 alone. Instead, it achieves the same long-term deficit reduction by closing tax loopholes and by asking the wealthiest among us to contribute a little more.

In doing so, the Balancing Act rectifies the inequitable approach to deficit reduction taken so far. By replacing the sequester with $960 billion in revenue, the Act achieves a 1:1 ratio of cuts to revenue. The Balancing Act would close tax loopholes that encourage companies to ship jobs overseas, that pay billions of dollars annually to the highly profitable fossil fuel industry, and that allow tax breaks for yachts and corporate jets. It would also limit deductions from the wealthiest tax payers, close loopholes for hedge fund managers, and close estate tax loopholes.

In 2011, US corporations paid an effective tax rate of just 12%, the lowest level in the last forty years. Likewise, tax rates for the wealthiest families have plunged, with households earning more than $1 million a year paying only 23% of their income in tax in 2007 – down nearly 10 points from the mid-1990s.

In addition, the Balancing Act eliminates $278 billion in wasteful Pentagon spending – the amount needed to equalize cuts to the defense and non-defense side of the budget – and invests the savings in our number one economic priority – job creation. By focusing our Pentagon budget on 21st century threats and making smart decisions about the weapons we need in the modern era, we can invest in a one-year tax credit of $800 for low- and middle-income families, prevent up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, modernize 35,000 public schools, and make infrastructure investments that if sustained could protect 3.5 million jobs by 2020.

If enacted, the Balancing Act would result in more than $3.3 trillion in total deficit reduction since 2010, and would do so in a fair, balanced approach that protects working families who continue to work harder and harder for less and less.

The Math:

• Round 1: $1.7 trillion in cuts

• Round 2: $737 billion in revenue

• Round 3: The Balancing Act

Achieves 1:1 Revenue and Cuts – by replacing sequester ($948 billion) with revenue

o Achieves 1:1 Defense and Non-Defense Cuts – by eliminating $278 billion in wasteful Pentagon spending and investing it in job creation

o Job investment provisions would create over 1 million jobs

• Total long-term deficit reduction from the three rounds of over $3.3 trillion

Replace Sequester with Revenue:

Section By Section

Replace Sequester with Revenue

• Repeal of Sequester – Sec. 101

• 28 Percent Limitation on Certain Deductions and Exclusions ($482 billion) – Sec. 201

Lowers the cap on individual income tax breaks to 28%, providing a flat rate benefit for itemized deductions. Only 30% of taxpayers itemize their deductions. Further, the value of a deduction corresponds to an individual’s marginal tax rate – making itemization highly regressive. For example, itemized deductions totaling $10,000 reduce taxes for a person in the 15 percent bracket by $1,500 (15 percent of $10,000) but cut taxes by $3,900 for a person in the 39 percent bracket (39 percent of $10,000). While “itemizers” include individuals from all income levels, this proposal holds lower earners completely harmless, only affecting households earning above $223,000 annually.

• Close Carried Interest Loophole ($17 billion) – Sec. 201

Ensures that carried interest income from service partnerships is taxed as ordinary income. Hedge fund executives and other investment managers can currently count their share of the firms’ profits as an investment in the partnership rather than as a fee for service. This allows some of the highest-income Americans to pay much lower tax rates (15% in 2012 and 23% in 2013) than they would pay if their fee was correctly taxed as ordinary income (up to 39%), even though the funds they manage are not their own and managing the money is their job.

• Close Loopholes for Jets and Yachts ($4 billion) – Secs. 251 & 421

Removes tax advantages provided to owners of private jets and yacht owners. Current law enables owners of private airplanes to receive a more generous five-year depreciation instead of the seven years provided to commercial airlines. This provision allows a seven-year depreciation for all jet owners. Also, about 500,000 boat owners nationwide can decrease their income-tax bill every year by declaring their vessels a second home. This provision only permits people who use their boats as their primary residence to receive a tax benefit. (includes bill text from Rep. Quigley)

• Close International Tax System Loopholes ($161 billion) – Secs. 401-405

Closes corporate tax loopholes and cracks down on offshore tax abuses that encourage corporations to move jobs offshore. Offshore corporations that are managed from the United States would no longer be able to claim foreign status and dodge taxes on their non-U.S. income. In addition, the bill eliminates tax incentives for moving U.S. jobs offshore and transferring intellectual property offshore. The bill gives the Treasury Department stronger authority to take tough new actions to combat tax haven banks and jurisdictions that help U.S. clients evade taxes. (includes bill text from Sen. Levin and Rep. Neal)

• End Fossil Fuel Subsidies ($94 billion) – Secs. 301-311

Repeals tax breaks, financial assistance, exploration and development expensing, preferential tax treatment of royalties, and domestic manufacturing deductions, for oil, natural gas, and coal producers. Despite the fossil fuel industries being among the most profitable on earth, the U.S. government gives them tens of billions of dollars in subsidies through the tax code. The five largest U.S. oil companies earned about $1 trillion in profits over the past decade, yet in recent years, companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron paid zero federal income taxes. These subsidies distort markets and are detrimental to creating a clean energy economy, reducing our reliance on oil, and cutting carbon pollution.

• Close Exclusion of Foreign-Earned Income Loophole ($71 billion) – Sec. 231

Closes an exclusion enabling U.S. citizens working abroad to avoid paying any federal U.S. taxes on incomes below $95,100 for individuals and $190,200 for couples. This allows citizens to shelter income and violates the principle that U.S. citizens with similar income should incur similar tax liabilities. This measure closes the exclusion, but retains the tax deductions and credits for taxes paid to a foreign government and housing benefits for U.S. citizens working abroad. (bill text from Rep. Tierney)

• Close Corporate Deductions for Stock Options Loophole ($25 billion) – Secs. 331-332

Repeals the “Facebook loophole” that allows a company to deduct stock options cashed in by an employee at the inflated current market value, rather than the original cost to the corporation. In addition, this provision would impose a $1 million cap on deductions related to stock options, the current standard applied to other types of executive compensation. (bill text from Sen. Levin)

• Close Estate Tax Loopholes ($23 billion) – Secs. 501-504

Closes estate tax loopholes to ensure that the value of the property is recorded consistently between estates and beneficiaries. It requires that all estates’ values be reported to the IRS, that grantor retained annuity trusts have a minimum ten year basis, and that generation skipping trusts have minimum and maximum terms. (bill text from Rep. McDermott)

• Close S Corporation Loophole ($13 billion) – Sec. 241

Closes a loophole that allows wealthy professionals, like lobbyists or lawyers, to avoid paying Medicare tax on their earnings. Under current law, businesses organized as S-corporations do not pay corporate taxes, and income earned is passed through to shareholders who report that income on their personal tax returns. But if these shareholders are also employees, they can choose to treat some of their income as business profit, which lets them escape payroll taxes. Newt Gingrich used this loophole to avoid paying $69,000 in Medicare taxes in 2010, by declaring much of his income as S Corporation profits.

• Reduce Corporate Meal and Entertainment Deduction to 25% ($70 billion) – Sec. 341

Lowers the corporate deduction of the cost of meals and entertainment to 25%. Current law allows businesses to write off 50% of the cost of meals and entertainment, even though eating and entertaining are personal expenses and this exception is subject to frequent abuse.

Cut Pentagon Waste

• Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures ($106 billion) – Secs. 601-604

Rep. Markey’s Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures (SANE) Act would scale down our nuclear weapon arsenal to a size more appropriate to meet 21st-century security threats. It makes strategic reductions to specific nuclear weapons and related programs, such as superfluous nuclear submarines, and postpones the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.

• Limiting Excessive Contractor Compensation ($50 billion) – Sec. 611

Lowers the cap on taxpayer dollars paid to private defense contractors from the all-time high current cap of $763,029 to $199,700. This change reflects the notion that taxpayer money should not be used to pay private defense contractors more than the maximum annual salary of federal civil servants, and is roughly the equivalent of the salary of a 4-star general. This would not limit what private companies can pay their employees, only what taxpayers pay to compensate Pentagon contractor employees. American taxpayer money should not be used to enrich private defense contractors when civilian Pentagon employees can often do the same work at a fraction of the cost. (bill text from Reps. Speier and Tonko)

• Relocate Troops from Europe to the U.S. ($3 billion) – Sec. 615

Significant defense savings can be achieved by simply relocating a fraction of our troops in Europe to the United States. The Cold War ended more than 20 years ago, and we no longer need to station troops in Europe to hold the line against the Soviet Union. Our European allies are some of the richest countries in the world, but we continue to subsidize their defense, with the average American paying five times as much on defense than the average European. It’s time to reexamine our troop commitment to Europe and relocating 10,000 troops to the United States is a reasonable first step. (bill text from Rep. Polis)

• Reduce Troop Levels 4% by Attrition ($48 billion) – Sec. 621

The conclusion of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan begins a transition away from large protracted counter-insurgency operations and reduces the need for “high-end” conventional war-fighting capabilities. The future need for ground forces will involve smaller-scale contingencies, special operations and security assistance. This proposal would reduce U.S. active-duty ground forces through attrition by 4 percent over five years, resulting in an Army of 470,000 active-duty troops and a Marine Corps of 175,500 troops.

• Limiting the Purchase of Virginia-class Nuclear Subs to one per year ($22 billion) – Sec. 631

Significantly and rapidly increasing our fleet of Virginia Class submarines will do little to improve U.S. security. The U.S. Navy currently possesses more firepower than the next 20 navies in the world combined, the majority of which are allies. Also, the missions of new Virginia Class submarines are shared by the existing fleet of Virginia Class submarines and refurbished SSN-688 Los Angeles Class submarines. There is no urgent strategic need to make large investments to increase the size of the submarine fleet and more gradual construction will more accurately reflect our security needs.

• Replacing F-35s with F-18s ($23 billion) – Sec. 633

Replaces the Navy’s buy of 237 F-35Cs with 240 F/A-18E/Fs and replaces half of the Marine Corps’ F-35B buy with F/A-18 variants. The F-35 program has failed in its purpose to save U.S. taxpayers money, and has received widespread criticism. The United States currently has 3,029 fourth-generation tactical aircraft—three times more than our nearest competitor—and is the only nation fielding a fifth-generation fighter. Many in the Navy point out that the existing fleet of F/A-18E/Fs can perform the F-35’s air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, has a greater range than the F-35C with similar speed and is a durable, proven airframe that can be improved with electronic and payload enhancements. Similarly, replacing half of the Marine Corps’ F-35B buy with F/A-18 variants will achieve savings while preserving the Corps’ short take off and vertical landing capability.

• Eliminate one Ford-class Carrier ($14 billion) – Sec. 632

The United States currently fields 11 aircraft carriers when no other country has even one of comparable size and power. Given this tremendous imbalance, the Pentagon could hold off building one Ford-class carrier, which is estimated to cost a whopping $14 billion over the next decade, out of the three currently under development. The increasing adoption of anti-access and area-denial weaponry by potential adversaries, along with unmanned technology, means that a very uncertain operational environment is developing for the traditional aircraft carrier and we would benefit from further analysis of this environment before rushing forward with a third new air craft carrier.

• End Production of the V-22 Osprey ($9 billion) – Sec. 634

Boeing’s V-22 Osprey aircraft has been referred to as “dangerous pork with wings,” and for good reason. A 2009 GAO report found that the aircraft was not suited to fly in extreme heat, excessive sand or under enemy fire – making it effectively useless for combat given the countries where America has fought wars recently. Sadly, the V-22 has taken the lives of 36 individuals, including 31 service members. In addition, the GAO found that the Osprey was 186 percent over budget, costing over $100 million per unit to produce, or five times more than the Sea Knight helicopter it was designed to replace. It’s long past time to cut our losses, especially when the more affordable MH-60 helicopter is available.

• Limit Military Bands ($2 billion) – Sec. 641

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates often noted that there are more members of Pentagon bands than all U.S. Foreign Service Officers, who are our first line of defense at American embassies around the world. Over the past four years the Department of Defense has spent more than $1.5 billion on military bands, musical performances, and concert tours around the world. This reasonable reform reduces Pentagon spending on military bands and musical performances from $388 to $200 million. (bill text from Rep. McCollum)

• Reduce General & Flag Officers to Cold War Standard ($1 billion) – Sec. 651

The proportion of generals and admirals in the military has grown 40 percent since the end of the Cold War. Citing the problem of a top-heavy military, former Secretary Gates emphasized in 2010 the “need to create a system of fewer, flatter and more agile and responsive structures.” As a step in that direction, this initiative would roll back the number of general and flag officers by 200 over five years, from the current standard of seven admirals and generals per 10,000 active-duty personnel to the Cold War ratio of six per every 10,000. This will compel a much-needed streamlining of command functions.

• Audit the Pentagon – Sec. 661

Addresses the ongoing failure of the Department of Defense to produce audit ready financial documents by imposing a modest financial cost to any federal agency that cannot pass an audit.

Invest in Job Creation

• Making Work Pay Extension for 1 year ($61 billion) – Sec. 701

The Making Work Pay Credit is targeted towards low- and middle-income families and provides them additional revenue to stimulate our economy. This provision would extend for one year a tax credit of $400 (or $800 for married couples) that was in effect in 2009 and 2010. Extending the Making Work Pay credit would help make up for the expiration of the payroll tax credit.

• Support for Teachers and School Modernization ($55 billion) – Secs. 711-741

This proposal mirrors President Obama’s call in the American Jobs Act to invest in America’s education system by preventing the layoffs of up to 280,000 teachers and investing $25 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools. Education has always been one of our greatest sources of strength and global economic competitiveness, as well as the engine of incredible progress in science, technology and the arts. The recent recession left many state and local governments scrambling for funding, causing nearly 300,000 educators losing their jobs since 2008 and resulting in over-crowded classrooms. Many school buildings also do not meet the needs of 21st century students, undercutting their ability to learn. Unless education is provided the funding it deserves, many school districts will be forced to further reduce the number of educators they employ, and the quality of their school buildings and classrooms.

• Transportation Infrastructure Investments ($160 billion) – Secs. 751-780

Infrastructure forms the foundation of the U.S. economy, yet negligence and lack of investment have left it in a state of disrepair. This proposal includes $150 billion in immediate investments in modernizing our highway, aviation, transit, and rail infrastructure. It also invests $10 billion to capitalize a National Infrastructure Bank to leverage public and private capital to invest in a broad range of infrastructure projects.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) finds that between now and 2020, we face an infrastructure gap of $1.1 trillion between what is needed and what is planned. The ASCE recommends investing an additional $157 billion per year in infrastructure, predicting that if we made this investment each year through 202
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
In 1980 I got my first job as a bus boy and minimum wage was $3.10 an hour. With an hour's pay, I could buy a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, and a gallon of gas. Today, minimum wage is $7.25 and if someone earning that wage wanted to buy all of those things he would spend my hour's pay, plus what minimum wage was when I first started working. Minimum wage should be adjusted to the cost of living. Businesses are getting a relative bargain when compared to when I was making.

We need to get the minimum wage up were it should be and then tie it to the cost of living.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
We need to get the minimum wage up were it should be and then tie it to the cost of living.

Absolutely. That's why I was talking about the purchasing power that my $3.10 minimum wage had compared to today's $7.25.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387

Large scale inflation is called supply issues. I had a big rant about the inflation in Zimbabwe a couple pages back. It was caused by a food shortage not becauase their were too many Zimbabwe dollars (whatever real currency is) in circulation. The high price of food bidded up the entire economy there. Just like the oil embargo caused some inflation in the United States.
 
Last edited:

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
And you shouldn't be fighting for min wage. They're usually unskilled workers that don't have educations. The goal in someone's life shouldn't be to work at a min wage job.

Only 2.9% of working Americans are making minimum wage...so 97% are making above it.

Half of minimum wage workers are between the ages of 16-24....so what the hell do they need the increase for?

The average income for a minimum wage earners family? 54k a year...because they're usually not the breadwinner in the family. Even with older min wage workers, Three-fourths of workers 25 and older earning the minimum wage live above the poverty line. In fact, 62 percent have incomes over 150 percent of the poverty line.

Two-thirds of min wage workers earn a raise within a year.

And only 4% of min wage workers are single parents. So there goes that argument as well.




So the left needs to drop this stupid fight for raises for teenagers.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
And you shouldn't be fighting for min wage. They're usually unskilled workers that don't have educations. The goal in someone's life shouldn't be to work at a min wage job.

Only 2.9% of working Americans are making minimum wage...so 97% are making above it.

Half of minimum wage workers are between the ages of 16-24....so what the hell do they need the increase for?

The average income for a minimum wage earners family? 54k a year...because they're usually not the breadwinner in the family. Even with older min wage workers, Three-fourths of workers 25 and older earning the minimum wage live above the poverty line. In fact, 62 percent have incomes over 150 percent of the poverty line.

Two-thirds of min wage workers earn a raise within a year.

And only 4% of min wage workers are single parents. So there goes that argument as well.




So the left needs to drop this stupid fight for raises for teenagers.

Yup. Minimum wage isn't there for a guy/ woman to raise a family. If you're in your 30's or 40's making minimum wage, that's a you problem.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
And you shouldn't be fighting for min wage. They're usually unskilled workers that don't have educations. The goal in someone's life shouldn't be to work at a min wage job.

Only 2.9% of working Americans are making minimum wage...so 97% are making above it.

Half of minimum wage workers are between the ages of 16-24....so what the hell do they need the increase for?

The average income for a minimum wage earners family? 54k a year...because they're usually not the breadwinner in the family. Even with older min wage workers, Three-fourths of workers 25 and older earning the minimum wage live above the poverty line. In fact, 62 percent have incomes over 150 percent of the poverty line.
Two-thirds of min wage workers earn a raise within a year.

And only 4% of min wage workers are single parents. So there goes that argument as well.




So the left needs to drop this stupid fight for raises for teenagers.

What about the other 25 percent?

Have you tried living on 150% of the poverty line for a long period of time?

There was talk of putting in a provision to keep minimum wage lower for teenagers.

So your arguement is that things are not that bad. Fair enough maybe not. What is down side hear. Kill jobs? Inflation? Every study I have looked doesn't seem have a significant effect on either good or bad. Show me some evidence on the downside and maybe I'll consider your view point.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
And you shouldn't be fighting for min wage. They're usually unskilled workers that don't have educations. The goal in someone's life shouldn't be to work at a min wage job.

Only 2.9% of working Americans are making minimum wage...so 97% are making above it.

Half of minimum wage workers are between the ages of 16-24....so what the hell do they need the increase for?

The average income for a minimum wage earners family? 54k a year...because they're usually not the breadwinner in the family. Even with older min wage workers, Three-fourths of workers 25 and older earning the minimum wage live above the poverty line. In fact, 62 percent have incomes over 150 percent of the poverty line.

Two-thirds of min wage workers earn a raise within a year.

And only 4% of min wage workers are single parents. So there goes that argument as well.




So the left needs to drop this stupid fight for raises for teenagers.

I could ask the same about subsidies to the oil companies or about taxloop holes for the rich. But as to not answer your questions with a question .. how about, to eat. How about to save for college so they don't have to work to be uneducated, low skill workers who don't deserve to be paid even what poor people make. As you have pointed out several times in this thread, $40K is considered poor. What is $16K considered? You can't see a scenario in which a 23 year old is on their own and trying to survive on wages that are less than half of what is considered poor? Forget trying to go to school and make something of yourself, you are stuggeling just to eat when you make wages that low. And, if it only affects 2.9% of workers, it shouldn't be that big a deal, right?
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Whatever the reasons for higher prices the minimum wage should keep pace with cost pf living. Businesses aren't charging prices that have not kept pace and shouldn't be entitled to cheaper labor because prices went up. That is screwing the workers so businesses can prosper.

That's a joke right. You think you're going to get a 99cent double cheeseburger if you're paying fast food workers $12/hour, or a 60in LED if you aren't buying electronics made overseas by workers for far less than our current minimum wage.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Okay I have a solution for the folks worried about minimum wage hurting small business. Raise the minimum wage and pass the small business tax cuts in the American Jobs Act (which I am sure noboby read even though I posted it and asked for feedback).

1. TAX CUTS TO HELP AMERICA’S SMALL BUSINESSES HIRE AND GROW

• Cutting the payroll tax cut in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.

• A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).

• Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment.

• Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.
 
Last edited:

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
What about the other 25 percent?

Have you tried living on 150% of the poverty line for a long period of time?

There was talk of putting in a provision to keep minimum wage lower for teenagers.

So your arguement is that things are not that bad. Fair enough maybe not. What is down side hear. Kill jobs? Inflation? Every study I have looked doesn't seem have a significant effect on either good or bad. Show me some evidence on the downside and maybe I'll consider your view point.

I could ask the same about subsidies to the oil companies or about taxloop holes for the rich. But as to not answer your questions with a question .. how about, to eat. How about to save for college so they don't have to work to be uneducated, low skill workers who don't deserve to be paid even what poor people make. As you have pointed out several times in this thread, $40K is considered poor. What is $16K considered? You can't see a scenario in which a 23 year old is on their own and trying to survive on wages that are less than half of what is considered poor? Forget trying to go to school and make something of yourself, you are stuggeling just to eat when you make wages that low. And, if it only affects 2.9% of workers, it shouldn't be that big a deal, right?

Chicago- You got it. My point was that it's not as bad as people liek to think it is. There isn't a problem with "min wage". It's with getting people prepared to take that next step. Education, techincal schools...etc. I'd rather focus on those things, than keep hammering this min wage argument. We can raise it all we want....but the people will never change. (think lotto winners)



GoIrish- I never said I agreed with the loopholes. We should close them. And NOT raise taxes. It's unecessary if we just curb spending and cut loopholes.

And if you're really concerned about what's best for the country.....2.9% isn't worth screwing the whole system up for, right? (even though you pulled the same crap with our health care system 90% of our pop is covered...but THAT wasnt' good enough)

I'm saying that the numbers do not point to a bunch people dying the streets because they're making min wage.

I don't lack compassion. I feel for the guy out there busting his *** trying to make it. I really do (I was that guy)...but I also realize that you can do better if you're willing to sacrifice and work hard. I have to say..I've RARELY met someone making min wage in their 20's that didn't deserve it.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
That's a joke right. You think you're going to get a 99cent double cheeseburger if you're paying fast food workers $12/hour, or a 60in LED if you aren't buying electronics made overseas by workers for far less than our current minimum wage.

The cost of labor usually reflects only about 10 percent of the items cost.

The minimum wage from LBJ's presidency in 1968 in today's dollars would be $10.55 an hour. Now I was not born yet but I was told by people that were alive that they still could afford to cheeseburgers from McDonalds.

Most manufacturing workers are already making of above the minimum wage anyway so the arguement of low wages hurting US manufacturing any more than it already has is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Shout out to Costco for paying its employees a minimum of 11.50 an hour. Costco also gives its employees health care. Costco also had record profits last year.

Before we go making assumptions based on two numbers, lets look at the whole picture.

Costco has about $100b in total sales, mostly in the US. Its employment base is about 160,000 people.

Wal-mart had about $275b in US sales, with an employment base of about 1.4million.

Given the above, even if we assume all the costco EE's are full time and all of the wal-mart EE's are 20 per week workers, Costco employs a fraction of the people that Wal-Mart does.

I understand that the strategy and business structure of Costco and Wal-Mart as a whole are different, but simply saying they have record profits and pay their people well doesn't mean they are spending more money on total labor costs.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Most polls out there have about 70 percent wanting to raise the minimum wage. I actually think this could be the Democrats ticket to beating the gerrymandering taking back the House of Representitives.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
That's a joke right. You think you're going to get a 99cent double cheeseburger if you're paying fast food workers $12/hour, or a 60in LED if you aren't buying electronics made overseas by workers for far less than our current minimum wage.

Well, I guess its a matter of priorities. Is it more important to get a 99 cent double cheesburger or that sandwich seems expensive to the guy who is serving it to you.

If you are advocating outsourcing because TVs are cheaper when they are made by near-slave labor, I don't want to hear anything out of you about unemployment numbers in this country or poverty in other countries.

Low costs always come at a price. If you are OK with someone else paying the price so you can have a cheaper TV, then you are no different than the folks who the GOP complains about being "takers."

People who own that burger chain or electronics company are getting rich by taking advantage of people who are poor. Is the fact that people are living in poverty less important than a sandwich? If you think so, then we clearly have vastly different perspectives. I bet ND games are amazing on your 60-inch LED.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Before we go making assumptions based on two numbers, lets look at the whole picture.

Costco has about $100b in total sales, mostly in the US. Its employment base is about 160,000 people.

Wal-mart had about $275b in US sales, with an employment base of about 1.4million.

Given the above, even if we assume all the costco EE's are full time and all of the wal-mart EE's are 20 per week workers, Costco employs a fraction of the people that Wal-Mart does.

I understand that the strategy and business structure of Costco and Wal-Mart as a whole are different, but simply saying they have record profits and pay their people well doesn't mean they are spending more money on total labor costs.

Don't cry poor for Walmart.

If you want to cry poor for small business fine. That is why I say lets pass at least the portion regarding small business tax breaks in the American Jobs Act to offset the cost on them. Personally I want the whole thing but extra government investment in infastructure scares the heck out of some people. We can do the part for small businesses and couple it with a minimum wage increase.
 
Last edited:

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Don't cry poor for Walmart.

If you want to cry poor for small business fine. That is why I say lets pass at least the portion regarding small business tax breaks in the American Jobs Act to offset the cost on them. Personally I want the whole thing but extra government investment in infastructure scares the heck out of some people. We can do the part for small businesses and couple it with a minimum wage increase.

This is the point on minimum wage tho. If Wal-Mart paid like Costco, Wal-Mart would start to employ the same proportional amount of people as Costco does. Plain and simple. Additionally, as pointed about before, the majority of the people making min wage or teenagers. You really think people are going to want to pay more to the least productive segment of the workforce? Hell no. They simploy will hire less of them.
 
Top