|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Why does entitlement reform always come with cutting entitlements and the taxes that fund them? It would be like if I was going balance my budget, but also not buy cloths any more because I have enough for the rest of my life.
|
On July 01 2017 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:07 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 06:06 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2017 05:49 semantics wrote:
More often than not legitimately small businesses that are run well are rare, it's hard for 1 person starting out to properly negotiate a commercial lease(yes you can negotiate terms not rent but a lot of other things), dealing with taxes, dealing with employee health insurance, let alone the basics of inventory and where you get your inventory, employing people and managing overhead; more often not they get tripped up by things they didn't expect. It's not required for you to actually be good at business to start a business. Sure, but how well someone is doing at something should certainly be considered when they say there is something they can't accommodate. When it comes to $15/hour, it is difficult to have sympathy for businesses that say they can't afford it, as if they can't for some divine reason. Just saying "I can't afford that" often makes people think the wage is the problem rather than the business. As a society, people often trust a small business owner when they say there's nothing they could do to accommodate a $15/hour wage. There is a society-wide, undue respect for small business owners as a whole. But what about the areas where it could end business built on a lower minimum wage? And there are no other jobs to replace those lost wages. In the abstract, it is easy to say “well that business wasn’t viable, so it shouldn’t exist”. But what about when there is nothing to takes its place? There are some businesses that can’t support those wages. If we insist that because a place was somewhere to live before, that it should be in perpetuity, economics be damned, then there are more effective welfare programs than ones that blindly subsidize businesses that can't support themselves and their employees. I'm not sure that is going to convince my home town that everyone needs to make $15 an hour. Or the entire western part of my state. Maybe your hometown isn't economically relevant and needs to make some choices. For instance, it might be more in their best interest to support a UBI instead of a higher minimum wage or obsolescence. So you're not disagreeing that jobs are lost anymore, and that on average workers (as a whole), lost money. You're just arguing if it's bad or good now?
No, I'm arguing we're effectively subsidizing busy work and not real jobs, but because of the context, people think like p6 described. Despite the fact that they are already living off of welfare they say they don't want a better system. Both the businesses and the people who would resist making it more effective and efficient.
I'm saying if you had a deliberate effort by a party that actually wanted to improve the situation and not just try to balance winning elections with doing the bidding of their corporate donors you could convince many of the most stubborn people why it's in their interest to make the system work for them instead of the wealthy and elite.
|
don't know why minimum wage needs to be discussed in such an absolute fashion. Just draw a line of two thirds of the median wage in the region or whatever and you're probably fine
|
On July 01 2017 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:07 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 06:06 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2017 05:49 semantics wrote:
More often than not legitimately small businesses that are run well are rare, it's hard for 1 person starting out to properly negotiate a commercial lease(yes you can negotiate terms not rent but a lot of other things), dealing with taxes, dealing with employee health insurance, let alone the basics of inventory and where you get your inventory, employing people and managing overhead; more often not they get tripped up by things they didn't expect. It's not required for you to actually be good at business to start a business. Sure, but how well someone is doing at something should certainly be considered when they say there is something they can't accommodate. When it comes to $15/hour, it is difficult to have sympathy for businesses that say they can't afford it, as if they can't for some divine reason. Just saying "I can't afford that" often makes people think the wage is the problem rather than the business. As a society, people often trust a small business owner when they say there's nothing they could do to accommodate a $15/hour wage. There is a society-wide, undue respect for small business owners as a whole. But what about the areas where it could end business built on a lower minimum wage? And there are no other jobs to replace those lost wages. In the abstract, it is easy to say “well that business wasn’t viable, so it shouldn’t exist”. But what about when there is nothing to takes its place? There are some businesses that can’t support those wages. If we insist that because a place was somewhere to live before, that it should be in perpetuity, economics be damned, then there are more effective welfare programs than ones that blindly subsidize businesses that can't support themselves and their employees. I'm not sure that is going to convince my home town that everyone needs to make $15 an hour. Or the entire western part of my state. Maybe your hometown isn't economically relevant and needs to make some choices. For instance, it might be more in their best interest to support a UBI instead of a higher minimum wage or obsolescence. So you're not disagreeing that jobs are lost anymore, and that on average workers (as a whole), lost money. You're just arguing if it's bad or good now? No, I'm arguing we're effectively subsidizing busy work and not real jobs, but because of the context, people think like p6 described. Despite the fact that they are already living off of welfare they say they don't want a better system. Both the businesses and the people who would resist making it more effective and efficient. I'm saying if you had a deliberate effort by a party that actually wanted to improve the situation and not just try to balance winning elections with doing the bidding of their corporate donors you could convince many of the most stubborn people why it's in their interest to make the system work for them instead of the wealthy and elite.
So increasing minimum wage is a job killer, because increasing minimum wage is a band-aid solution for living expenses that need to be covered by other systems and infrastructure.
|
On July 01 2017 07:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:03 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 02:33 Simberto wrote:On July 01 2017 02:22 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:58 Mercy13 wrote:On July 01 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
You don't find it even a little funny that a full repeal vs a very expensive Obamacare 2.0 gets the same coverage score? I don't even like the bill and was rolling my eyes. To play off your post, you don't have to act like a humorlous bore even if it's politics. Full repeal vs. replacement doesn't matter when they all delete the Medicaid insurance expansion in one way or another. Everything else is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If anything, this just shows that none of their "2.0s" are actually designed to increase coverage in a meaningful way. Which is almost certainly the case since the authors of these bills don't care about the coverage numbers at all. When you consider that health outcomes for people on Medicaid are provably no better than the uninsured, the value of coverage numbers related to expanded Medicaid coverage decays massively. And making insurance shittier for all makes nothing matter on a wide variety of fronts. Congratulations, you're covered, you don't qualify for subsidies, you're paying almost full price for your medication, and your plans more than twice as expensive with more than double the deductible! Join our statistic of coverage successes! If you're referring to the Oregon study, you have to wildly misinterpret it's results to reach that conclusion. Is the expansion the crucial measure saving millions from death? I wouldn't need to cite the study if the rhetoric wasn't already at the level of Medicaid expansion acting like the divine intervention of God. Those despicable individuals whose tweets several cited a few pages back remind me how detached the debate has become from solid grounding in the federal programs, the ACA changes, and the bills under consideration in the House (formerly) and Senate. Don't turn this around. You claimed that "health outcomes on Medicaid are provably no better than uninsured". People have asked you to back that claim up, which shouldn't be that hard if it is "provably" the case. So far, you have failed to show any proof of anything. And now you try to shift the discussion away from that subject. I had an assertion to the contrary thus far. One person wanted to shift to access, when I said health outcomes. If you want to read the study and ground your own personal objection rather than assertion, be my guest. There's also the fact that the study in question does not exactly account for everything. The big, big, big issue is the fact that people without insurance are hesitant to get care. I feel cheesy "playing this card", but my father in law ended up passing away from a treatable form of cancer because he didn't want to incur the huge cost of going to the doctor. Did he have every opportunity to get care? Absolutely. But this is sadly very common. People being afraid of the cost of care, then dying because of it, when the whole thing could have been prevented, is an enormous cost to not just a family but society as a whole. Healthcare costs as a whole are larger when someone dies of cancer rather than being treated for cancer. Do you not see this dynamic as an issue? I am certain I am not the only one who knows someone who didn't want to incur medical costs and got severely burned for it. I see the high costs as a very important dynamic, one unfixed by shoving taxpayer money into subsidies until kingdom come. Let's talk about showing consumers what different hospitals will charge and move the tax system to an individual-focused and not employer-focused. Let's talk insurance as a means to manage risk of sudden catastrophes and expensive long-term treatments and not pre-pay buffet. Yes, let's even put universal catastrophic on the table along with welfare program reform for the poor, severely handicapped, orphans and widows. Let's talk about the cost to the taxpayer as funder and the choice the taxpayer can make as a free individual purchasing for himself/family. I see these all particularly unaddressed by Medicaid chants, murder assertions, previously rape-as-preexisting-condition accusations. I linger back and forth between this being an unapproachable poisoned debate and productive discourse at the margins (because some of this will be ideologically motivated by the normal nanny-state division). This feels more like a soapbox speech than a conversation. What do you think should be done so that poor people aren't afraid to incur medical costs?
Hi there, your broad question of "Do you not see this dynamic as an issue?" begs for broad answers. Do you not see the trillion dollars we spend on welfare being a large and complex problem to confront? You know, I want to lower costs and I identified several key areas where that can be accomplished. Do I need to highlight the text on welfare reform to make it stick out better? The problem with operations here simply costing more than the same in say India is cost visibility, tort reform, and regulatory reform. Start with these and incurring medical costs would trend to the mental quandary of buying white or wheat bread. Here's the rub: the specifics will be borked until we remove political haymaking about sending granny off the cliff. So give it another read as my sincere policy approach talking about broad stroke reforms, and see that I'm willing to accept state involvement (and particularly discussions at the scope of state involvement) for those whose choice is rent or pulling the tooth out (one Medicaid success story was the covered patient dying before finding his dental operation. Clearly we should expand this program.)
|
On July 01 2017 07:29 Nyxisto wrote:
don't know why minimum wage needs to be discussed in such an absolute fashion. Just draw a line of two thirds of the median wage in the region or whatever and you're probably fine
Be careful; in theory, this sort of policy would lead to some unstable feedback loops.
Minimum wage rises -> low wage people lose jobs -> median wage rises because they're no longer counted-> minimum wage rises, repeat.
Minimum wage falls -> low wage people re-enter the workforce -> median wage falls -> minimum wage falls, repeat.
If the wage gini curve is steeper around the median than at the bottom, which it usually is, the instability is amplified.
|
On July 01 2017 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Look everyone, Danglars is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what you're saying the health care changes will result in.
He doesn't like the language you are using to describe those changes, and would like you to frame it in vocabulary that will appeal to his sensibilities.
Clearly another supporter of literal slavery. You do know we fought a civil war over that, right?
Words matter.
|
On July 01 2017 07:29 Nyxisto wrote:
don't know why minimum wage needs to be discussed in such an absolute fashion. Just draw a line of two thirds of the median wage in the region or whatever and you're probably fine
To be honest, I'm thinking GH is so adamant that $15 is so absolute and everyone else is the problem only because Sanders ran on a $15 nationwide platform.
I have never seen him so adamant that unemployed people lost their jobs because they deserved it.
On July 01 2017 07:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Look everyone, Danglars is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what you're saying the health care changes will result in.
He doesn't like the language you are using to describe those changes, and would like you to frame it in vocabulary that will appeal to his sensibilities. Clearly another supporter of literal slavery. You do know we fought a civil war over that, right? Words matter.
Well, we got public health care funded by taxes and no slavery, and that was without the civil war. Maybe that was your problem?
|
On July 01 2017 07:31 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:07 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 06:06 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2017 05:49 semantics wrote:
More often than not legitimately small businesses that are run well are rare, it's hard for 1 person starting out to properly negotiate a commercial lease(yes you can negotiate terms not rent but a lot of other things), dealing with taxes, dealing with employee health insurance, let alone the basics of inventory and where you get your inventory, employing people and managing overhead; more often not they get tripped up by things they didn't expect. It's not required for you to actually be good at business to start a business. Sure, but how well someone is doing at something should certainly be considered when they say there is something they can't accommodate. When it comes to $15/hour, it is difficult to have sympathy for businesses that say they can't afford it, as if they can't for some divine reason. Just saying "I can't afford that" often makes people think the wage is the problem rather than the business. As a society, people often trust a small business owner when they say there's nothing they could do to accommodate a $15/hour wage. There is a society-wide, undue respect for small business owners as a whole. But what about the areas where it could end business built on a lower minimum wage? And there are no other jobs to replace those lost wages. In the abstract, it is easy to say “well that business wasn’t viable, so it shouldn’t exist”. But what about when there is nothing to takes its place? There are some businesses that can’t support those wages. If we insist that because a place was somewhere to live before, that it should be in perpetuity, economics be damned, then there are more effective welfare programs than ones that blindly subsidize businesses that can't support themselves and their employees. I'm not sure that is going to convince my home town that everyone needs to make $15 an hour. Or the entire western part of my state. Maybe your hometown isn't economically relevant and needs to make some choices. For instance, it might be more in their best interest to support a UBI instead of a higher minimum wage or obsolescence. So you're not disagreeing that jobs are lost anymore, and that on average workers (as a whole), lost money. You're just arguing if it's bad or good now? No, I'm arguing we're effectively subsidizing busy work and not real jobs, but because of the context, people think like p6 described. Despite the fact that they are already living off of welfare they say they don't want a better system. Both the businesses and the people who would resist making it more effective and efficient. I'm saying if you had a deliberate effort by a party that actually wanted to improve the situation and not just try to balance winning elections with doing the bidding of their corporate donors you could convince many of the most stubborn people why it's in their interest to make the system work for them instead of the wealthy and elite. So increasing minimum wage is a job killer, because increasing minimum wage is a band-aid solution for living expenses that need to be covered by other systems and infrastructure.
I mean I'm taking P6 at his word that his town can't support itself, if that's the case, then the increasing the minimum wage isn't a job killer, the town is.
|
On July 01 2017 07:22 Plansix wrote:
Why does entitlement reform always come with cutting entitlements and the taxes that fund them? It would be like if I was going balance my budget, but also not buy cloths any more because I have enough for the rest of my life.
They bankrupt the country and you get no money to spend on anything if left untouched. One hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities is where these stand; that's a whole lotta rich people you don't have sitting around to fleece.
|
On July 01 2017 07:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:31 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:07 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 06:06 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 01 2017 05:49 semantics wrote:
More often than not legitimately small businesses that are run well are rare, it's hard for 1 person starting out to properly negotiate a commercial lease(yes you can negotiate terms not rent but a lot of other things), dealing with taxes, dealing with employee health insurance, let alone the basics of inventory and where you get your inventory, employing people and managing overhead; more often not they get tripped up by things they didn't expect. It's not required for you to actually be good at business to start a business. Sure, but how well someone is doing at something should certainly be considered when they say there is something they can't accommodate. When it comes to $15/hour, it is difficult to have sympathy for businesses that say they can't afford it, as if they can't for some divine reason. Just saying "I can't afford that" often makes people think the wage is the problem rather than the business. As a society, people often trust a small business owner when they say there's nothing they could do to accommodate a $15/hour wage. There is a society-wide, undue respect for small business owners as a whole. But what about the areas where it could end business built on a lower minimum wage? And there are no other jobs to replace those lost wages. In the abstract, it is easy to say “well that business wasn’t viable, so it shouldn’t exist”. But what about when there is nothing to takes its place? There are some businesses that can’t support those wages. If we insist that because a place was somewhere to live before, that it should be in perpetuity, economics be damned, then there are more effective welfare programs than ones that blindly subsidize businesses that can't support themselves and their employees. I'm not sure that is going to convince my home town that everyone needs to make $15 an hour. Or the entire western part of my state. Maybe your hometown isn't economically relevant and needs to make some choices. For instance, it might be more in their best interest to support a UBI instead of a higher minimum wage or obsolescence. So you're not disagreeing that jobs are lost anymore, and that on average workers (as a whole), lost money. You're just arguing if it's bad or good now? No, I'm arguing we're effectively subsidizing busy work and not real jobs, but because of the context, people think like p6 described. Despite the fact that they are already living off of welfare they say they don't want a better system. Both the businesses and the people who would resist making it more effective and efficient. I'm saying if you had a deliberate effort by a party that actually wanted to improve the situation and not just try to balance winning elections with doing the bidding of their corporate donors you could convince many of the most stubborn people why it's in their interest to make the system work for them instead of the wealthy and elite. So increasing minimum wage is a job killer, because increasing minimum wage is a band-aid solution for living expenses that need to be covered by other systems and infrastructure. I mean I'm taking P6 at his word that his town can't support itself, if that's the case, then the increasing the minimum wage isn't a job killer, the town is.
Small towns tend to have very different economies than big cities, so no, I guess if we're splitting hairs then the town is not the job killer, them big city folk like you are the job killers.
|
On July 01 2017 07:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:29 Nyxisto wrote:
don't know why minimum wage needs to be discussed in such an absolute fashion. Just draw a line of two thirds of the median wage in the region or whatever and you're probably fine To be honest, I'm thinking GH is so adamant that $15 is so absolute and everyone else is the problem only because Sanders ran on a $15 nationwide platform. I have never seen him so adamant that unemployed people lost their jobs because they deserved it. Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:35 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Look everyone, Danglars is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what you're saying the health care changes will result in.
He doesn't like the language you are using to describe those changes, and would like you to frame it in vocabulary that will appeal to his sensibilities. Clearly another supporter of literal slavery. You do know we fought a civil war over that, right? Words matter. Well, we got public health care funded by taxes and no slavery, and that was without the civil war. Maybe that was your problem?
So you stand with slavery in my country. That's good to know. You want to condescend with language, ye who wish to put men in chains? Words matter.
|
On July 01 2017 07:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:29 Nyxisto wrote:
don't know why minimum wage needs to be discussed in such an absolute fashion. Just draw a line of two thirds of the median wage in the region or whatever and you're probably fine To be honest, I'm thinking GH is so adamant that $15 is so absolute and everyone else is the problem only because Sanders ran on a $15 nationwide platform. I have never seen him so adamant that unemployed people lost their jobs because they deserved it. On July 01 2017 07:35 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2017 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Look everyone, Danglars is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what you're saying the health care changes will result in.
He doesn't like the language you are using to describe those changes, and would like you to frame it in vocabulary that will appeal to his sensibilities. Clearly another supporter of literal slavery. You do know we fought a civil war over that, right? Words matter. Well, we got public health care funded by taxes and no slavery, and that was without the civil war. Maybe that was your problem? So you stand with slavery in my country. That's good to know. You want to condescend with language, ye who wish to put men in chains? Words matter.
Well, as you are citizens of your own sovereign nation I don't think I'm allowed to own an American yet, but feel free to ask me again when that changes.
|
if trump and republicans keep running america into the ground, being owned by a canadian might become seriously attractive.
|
On July 01 2017 07:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Look everyone, Danglars is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what you're saying the health care changes will result in.
He doesn't like the language you are using to describe those changes, and would like you to frame it in vocabulary that will appeal to his sensibilities. Clearly another supporter of literal slavery. You do know we fought a civil war over that, right? Words matter.
You know the concept behind the ACA is pretty much the same as the single-payer system that the rest of the civilized world uses to successfully give their populace healthcare, and that you dismiss the idea as "wealth transfer"? I've heard that term before plenty of times by ignorant folk who don't understand how a society works. Fundamentally that's what taxes are, but taxes exist for a reason. I would gladly pay an upped tax out of my check if it meant health insurance was a thing of the past. That doesn't make me a "slave to the infirm".
If you want to say words matter, try choosing words that aren't blatantly ignorant.
|
How the fuck did we jump from healthcare to slavery. You seriously lost me where that one came from...
Danglers, you want people to be able to afford healthcare, guess what? So do the Democrats. You could have had single payer, you could have had the government from a strong position as the sole insurer of all Americans tell the pharmaceuticals and the Hospitals to drive down costs.
All it took was for some Republicans to reach across the isle and declare support for it when the Democrats were trying to find the votes for it.
Instead it was 'nothing Obama wants can pass' and so we end up here. Where the Democrats did the best they could, which wasn't good enough. And now the Republicans want to tear it all down and leave everyone fucked.
I know you don't like the Democrats, and you say you don't like the Republicans either but for fuck sake at least the Democrats tried to do something.
Every other first world nation has managed to get itself a healthcare system. Their not all perfect, they have their issues but they exist and prices are a hell of a lot lower here as a result.
Stop putting your head in the sand and pretending America has to be special. The only thing your country is being special in, is being more stupid the everybody else.
|
I think the picture with 5 nails, one of them broken with the capture "just because you're special, doesn't mean you're useful" is fitting.
Is there actually still an argument or do all parties here agree that the GOP is not trying to "fix" your healthcare system?
|
On July 01 2017 07:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 07:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:31 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 01 2017 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 07:07 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2017 06:06 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Sure, but how well someone is doing at something should certainly be considered when they say there is something they can't accommodate. When it comes to $15/hour, it is difficult to have sympathy for businesses that say they can't afford it, as if they can't for some divine reason. Just saying "I can't afford that" often makes people think the wage is the problem rather than the business. As a society, people often trust a small business owner when they say there's nothing they could do to accommodate a $15/hour wage. There is a society-wide, undue respect for small business owners as a whole. But what about the areas where it could end business built on a lower minimum wage? And there are no other jobs to replace those lost wages. In the abstract, it is easy to say “well that business wasn’t viable, so it shouldn’t exist”. But what about when there is nothing to takes its place? There are some businesses that can’t support those wages. If we insist that because a place was somewhere to live before, that it should be in perpetuity, economics be damned, then there are more effective welfare programs than ones that blindly subsidize businesses that can't support themselves and their employees. I'm not sure that is going to convince my home town that everyone needs to make $15 an hour. Or the entire western part of my state. Maybe your hometown isn't economically relevant and needs to make some choices. For instance, it might be more in their best interest to support a UBI instead of a higher minimum wage or obsolescence. So you're not disagreeing that jobs are lost anymore, and that on average workers (as a whole), lost money. You're just arguing if it's bad or good now? No, I'm arguing we're effectively subsidizing busy work and not real jobs, but because of the context, people think like p6 described. Despite the fact that they are already living off of welfare they say they don't want a better system. Both the businesses and the people who would resist making it more effective and efficient. I'm saying if you had a deliberate effort by a party that actually wanted to improve the situation and not just try to balance winning elections with doing the bidding of their corporate donors you could convince many of the most stubborn people why it's in their interest to make the system work for them instead of the wealthy and elite. So increasing minimum wage is a job killer, because increasing minimum wage is a band-aid solution for living expenses that need to be covered by other systems and infrastructure. I mean I'm taking P6 at his word that his town can't support itself, if that's the case, then the increasing the minimum wage isn't a job killer, the town is. Small towns tend to have very different economies than big cities, so no, I guess if we're splitting hairs then the town is not the job killer, them big city folk like you are the job killers.
Well then I'd blame capitalism and be happy to be looking at alternatives and alternative manifestations. But it's not the wage.
As to the $15/hr, I'm not actually particularly tied to that number, that's why I usually just use the phrase living wage. I suppose the issue is that $15 still isn't enough for plenty of places much of Washington being such a place so I usually use $15 if I use a number.
I'd expect any federal $15 bill to be watered down to less in rural America, but let Republicans make that argument. So the rest of the country will be getting $15+ and Republicans can brag to their constituents and dying towns how they saved their jobs with wages that leave them qualifying for welfare but think they shouldn't get it.
If Democrats can't win that argument they should die off as a party.
|
On July 01 2017 08:04 m4ini wrote:
I think the picture with 5 nails, one of them broken with the capture "just because you're special, doesn't mean you're useful" is fitting.
Is there actually still an argument or do all parties here agree that the GOP is not trying to "fix" your healthcare system?
I think no one here is happy with the GOP's attempts.
Its just that some people think having nothing would be better then what they have now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
