Push for Higher Minimum Wage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think the issue is the definition of “poor”. Our “poor” people, as has been pointed out earlier, shit in water cleaner than most of the world drinks from. EVERYONE is not “entitled” to and iPhone. Or a car. or easy, convenient food. Or a nice house in the 'berbs. But that’s what the liberal MEDIA is selling. My point is this: ANYONE can attain a level of income to have all of those things. But EVERYONE simply will not make the choice to work hard enough to get the skills to get the job to EARN that income.

Why? Because people are stupid, lazy and ignorant. Because our public education system continues to lower the bar to cover up the piss poor performance of it’s teachers who only have a job because of misguided Unions.

Businesses shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of society’s general laziness.

When I started working back in '87, I made $3.85 an hour. When I was FOURTEEN! Why can’t a fucking ADULT aspire to a greater skill set than making fucking pizza? That isn’t a BUSINESS’S fault!

When I began working as an adult (fresh out of prison) I did not have a car OR a cell phone. I took the bus to work and saw my parole officer on my lunch hour (and got docked the time I missed). I started off landscaping, then painting, then carpentry, then an electrician’s helper and then FINALLY after applying three times got into the apprenticeship, got my Journeyman card and was able to command a higher wage.

I could have been happy with that. But I saved my money, made a few smart investments and explored a few other income vehicles as well. I am a felon without a high school diploma. All I had were my wits, my hands and my back. So please tell me why, in a world where there are programs that will GIVE YOU MONEY to go to school or learn a trade for FREE, are there people who just want to sit on their ass and do nothing with their life and get paid?

To work on a construction job even as a laborer, all you really have to do is SHOW UP ON TIME. That’s it! That’s NINETY NINE PERCENT of the job right there: Show up on time, every day and do what you are told… Why can’t people do that? Is that too much for a business to expect? Should they NOT be fired when they are caught hiding in the corner texting on their cellphone? People talk about immigration being a problem, I see it just the opposite. I’ll take crew of immigrants - doesn’t matter where they are from, I’ve worked with them all, and get TWICE the production out of them as a crew of American laborers. Why? Because no one wants to work hard. They want it easy. In short, they are lazy pieces of shit. They feel ENTITLED to the American dream because no one told them they had to WORK for it.

Why should businesses be forced to pay for their ignorance and laziness? That translates directly into higher costs for ALL consumers, so we not only get fucked by the government with more taxes to support these lazy fuckers, we get fucked at the checkout line with increased cost of goods and services. Fuck that shit. I say open the door to immigrant labor - at least they will show up everyday and work hard.

I went from making $3.85 to $48.95… I learned a skill and am able to deliver a value that not many people can. There is a HUGE shortage of skilled labor right now. With all of the infrastructure of the US crumbling (sometimes literally) there will continue to be a huge demand. So why are we talking about minimum wage? We should be funneling people to THOSE kinds of jobs, not paying for their college degrees that will be worthless in 4 years. Let the teenagers flip the burgers and get the adults to WORK at a REAL job where they are actually PRODUCING something.[/quote]

America has a great safety net but you need to come to Phoenix and see the homeless . I know a lot of the South West has this problem

Beans wants you to think there is no class war , it is real and it was started from above
[/quote]

How is an equal opportunity for EVERY AMERICAN class warfare? We have countless examples of people from very modest beginnings rising to very high levels in society. In case you haven’t noticed, we live in a consumer driven economy. When MORE people have money to spend, companies make more profits. Who exactly benefits from this “class warfare” you are speaking of?

The ONLY possible benefactor is the Democratic party. If they keep people poor and down (i.e. sucking on the government teat), then they can offer to take shit from people who actually produce something and give it to them for free - essentially buying votes.

Who does that serve long term? The recipients of welfare who will be coddled into never realizing their full potential? I think not. You rail against “greedy corporations” and “the top one percent who don’t pay their share”, how about digging a little deeper into this “class warfare” you are speaking of and go to it’s roots? I think LBJ had a quote about that…

62

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The ONLY possible benefactor is the Democratic party. If they keep people poor and down (i.e. sucking on the government teat), then they can offer to take shit from people who actually produce something and give it to them for free - essentially buying votes.
[/quote]
Yet who keeps pushing the war on drugs? Both parties profit off the poor.

63

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Despite this, my eldest son is an honor role student - because I taught him how to play the stupid, liberal game: cater to their ego, make sure they “like” you, be seen helping other kids, don’t get caught doing dumb shit, etc… Once the teacher “likes” a student, they will do just about anything to make sure he succeeds.
[/quote]
Instead of teaching your kid to not get caught doing dumb shit how about teaching him to just not do dumb shit?

BTW, most teachers do not like ass kissers. I also don’t see how any of that is a liberal game. Catering to someone’s ego is a liberal thing? Really?

64

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Despite this, my eldest son is an honor role student - because I taught him how to play the stupid, liberal game: cater to their ego, make sure they “like” you, be seen helping other kids, don’t get caught doing dumb shit, etc… Once the teacher “likes” a student, they will do just about anything to make sure he succeeds.
[/quote]
Instead of teaching your kid to not get caught doing dumb shit how about teaching him to just not do dumb shit?

BTW, most teachers do not like ass kissers. I also don’t see how any of that is a liberal game. Catering to someone’s ego is a liberal thing? Really? [/quote]

When you have a teenager, then you can start offering your opinion on how to raise one.

65

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The ONLY possible benefactor is the Democratic party. If they keep people poor and down (i.e. sucking on the government teat), then they can offer to take shit from people who actually produce something and give it to them for free - essentially buying votes.
[/quote]
Yet who keeps pushing the war on drugs? Both parties profit off the poor. [/quote]

Not that it has ANYTHING to do with the topic, but since when is drug use strictly a “poor” problem? People from all walks of life and from all socioeconomic levels use drugs. Smarter people tend to make better decisions and get caught less. Or at least know how to beat a piss test when they know they are dirty.

My personal thoughts on “the war on drugs” is that it’s a complete waste of time, energy and money. It causes more problems than it fixes.

Do I think you should be able to buy heroin at 7-11? NO. Should pot be legalized in every state? YES. As for everything in between, there should at least be a change in the “mandatory minimum” sentencing laws that lock people up for ridiculously long periods for tiny amounts.

There are many lessons to be learned from Prohibition here - namely that illegal substances in high demand boost criminal activity. And there ain’t no coca fields here in the US…

66

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think the issue is the definition of “poor”. Our “poor” people, as has been pointed out earlier, shit in water cleaner than most of the world drinks from. EVERYONE is not “entitled” to and iPhone. Or a car. or easy, convenient food. Or a nice house in the 'berbs. But that’s what the liberal MEDIA is selling. My point is this: ANYONE can attain a level of income to have all of those things. But EVERYONE simply will not make the choice to work hard enough to get the skills to get the job to EARN that income.

Why? Because people are stupid, lazy and ignorant. Because our public education system continues to lower the bar to cover up the piss poor performance of it’s teachers who only have a job because of misguided Unions.

[/quote]
Wrong. The govt will give people just enough to not go out and kill for it because it’s easier than actually trying to level the playing field. People in the inner cities, for example, who live off the govt are not all lazy but rather they have simply been pacified and duped into accepting whatever the govt gives them.

Teachers are not underperforming, that’s a myth. If you look at schools that are failing they are in communities that are failing. But rather than point the finger at families and communities the weakest link in the chain, teachers, carry the burden for the problems. Yes, bad teachers are the reason why teens get pregnant, kids do and sell drugs, join gangs and murder, and parents are not parenting.[/quote]

It’s quite simple, good parents are going to have kids who perform well in school (on the whole). Poor parents are going to have kids who do not (again on the whole). Exceptions will exist, but parenting is MUCH more important than anyone ever recognizes.

I’m a consultant for area schools and blaming the problems on teachers or the teachers unions (and I’m not a big union guy) is about as lazy and stupid as it gets. I think most people who come up with that shit have no idea about the “product” that teachers get in poor performing schools. And they have probably spent 0 time in public education classrooms since they graduated and are getting their information from some biased news sources.

Teachers in 2014 are probably BETTER than at any other time in American history. They have far more tools at their disposal, far more resources and training, etc. If you’re blaming a teacher for the crap performance of a kid with parents who don’t give a fuck then you have no room to talk about public education. Couple that with comparing American public schools where we teach everyone compared to some countries best and brightest is not even close to apples to apples.

[/quote]

And THIS is a prime example of why some PWI posters annoy the shit out of me. You take ONE sentence. ONE FUCKING SENTENCE among paragraphs of other points and arguments and argue against that tiny little point. And THEN, other posters come along and call me lazy and stupid for blaming the teachers and the teachers unions. I believe the bulk of my position (the position I wrote paragraphs about) was that most AMERICANS (i.e. the PARENTS that YOU CLAIM to be the issue) are fucking lazy, ignorant and stupid. HENCE THEIR STUPID OFFSPRING who can’t perform in school!

And I know a thing or two about teachers. If you don’t think they are a part of the problem, you haven’t had much one on one experience. I have two kids, and I’ve been dealing with idiot teachers every grade for eleven years now. Private school and public school; in MD and in VA. There are bad teachers EVERYWHERE that are protected by an administration of incompetence completely lacking in common sense. Despite this, my eldest son is an honor role student - because I taught him how to play the stupid, liberal game: cater to their ego, make sure they “like” you, be seen helping other kids, don’t get caught doing dumb shit, etc… Once the teacher “likes” a student, they will do just about anything to make sure he succeeds. It’s about developing a rapport, making them feel superior and jumping through their stupid hoops, not getting an education.

My mother was a teacher. My brother IS a teacher. Both taught/teach relatively useless subjects (not math, science, history or english). I grew up with plenty of exposure to that stupid liberal mindset of what they feel they DESERVE (and the insecurity that kept them in a classroom instead of the real world). My brother went to school for 14 years and has a PhD. It EATS him and his wife alive that I earn in three months what he makes in a year. Don’t get me wrong - he’s happy for me. But he doesn’t think I “deserve” it…

[/quote]

I find it hard to take your arguments seriously when you blow up emotionally and cannot examine something without showing the bias of that “liberal” mindset you talk about over and over again.

It’s odd that you use your family which is such a small part of the world as your basis for creating this liberal mindset that apparently you feel is so prevalent.

When you’ve been to as many schools in Kansas as I have and have met as many teachers as I have you may realize that that liberal mindset that your biased sources tell you about over and over again just may not actually exist. Especially considering the VAST majority of teachers in the area I go to are conservative. These teachers are not protected by an administration that they don’t realize exists. If anything they are kept from certain classroom freedoms BY conservative leaders in the state. That doesn’t fit in with the narrative you so desperately seem to want to be true though so why bother?

Emotionally you seem like you cannot discuss this rationally and have a collection of things based on a small amount of anecdotes that you assume create this gigantic problem.

67

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think the issue is the definition of “poor”. Our “poor” people, as has been pointed out earlier, shit in water cleaner than most of the world drinks from. EVERYONE is not “entitled” to and iPhone. Or a car. or easy, convenient food. Or a nice house in the 'berbs. But that’s what the liberal MEDIA is selling. My point is this: ANYONE can attain a level of income to have all of those things. But EVERYONE simply will not make the choice to work hard enough to get the skills to get the job to EARN that income.

Why? Because people are stupid, lazy and ignorant. Because our public education system continues to lower the bar to cover up the piss poor performance of it’s teachers who only have a job because of misguided Unions.

[/quote]
Wrong. The govt will give people just enough to not go out and kill for it because it’s easier than actually trying to level the playing field. People in the inner cities, for example, who live off the govt are not all lazy but rather they have simply been pacified and duped into accepting whatever the govt gives them.

Teachers are not underperforming, that’s a myth. If you look at schools that are failing they are in communities that are failing. But rather than point the finger at families and communities the weakest link in the chain, teachers, carry the burden for the problems. Yes, bad teachers are the reason why teens get pregnant, kids do and sell drugs, join gangs and murder, and parents are not parenting.[/quote]

It’s quite simple, good parents are going to have kids who perform well in school (on the whole). Poor parents are going to have kids who do not (again on the whole). Exceptions will exist, but parenting is MUCH more important than anyone ever recognizes.

I’m a consultant for area schools and blaming the problems on teachers or the teachers unions (and I’m not a big union guy) is about as lazy and stupid as it gets. I think most people who come up with that shit have no idea about the “product” that teachers get in poor performing schools. And they have probably spent 0 time in public education classrooms since they graduated and are getting their information from some biased news sources.

Teachers in 2014 are probably BETTER than at any other time in American history. They have far more tools at their disposal, far more resources and training, etc. If you’re blaming a teacher for the crap performance of a kid with parents who don’t give a fuck then you have no room to talk about public education. Couple that with comparing American public schools where we teach everyone compared to some countries best and brightest is not even close to apples to apples.

[/quote]

And THIS is a prime example of why some PWI posters annoy the shit out of me. You take ONE sentence. ONE FUCKING SENTENCE among paragraphs of other points and arguments and argue against that tiny little point. And THEN, other posters come along and call me lazy and stupid for blaming the teachers and the teachers unions. I believe the bulk of my position (the position I wrote paragraphs about) was that most AMERICANS (i.e. the PARENTS that YOU CLAIM to be the issue) are fucking lazy, ignorant and stupid. HENCE THEIR STUPID OFFSPRING who can’t perform in school!

And I know a thing or two about teachers. If you don’t think they are a part of the problem, you haven’t had much one on one experience. I have two kids, and I’ve been dealing with idiot teachers every grade for eleven years now. Private school and public school; in MD and in VA. There are bad teachers EVERYWHERE that are protected by an administration of incompetence completely lacking in common sense. Despite this, my eldest son is an honor role student - because I taught him how to play the stupid, liberal game: cater to their ego, make sure they “like” you, be seen helping other kids, don’t get caught doing dumb shit, etc… Once the teacher “likes” a student, they will do just about anything to make sure he succeeds. It’s about developing a rapport, making them feel superior and jumping through their stupid hoops, not getting an education.

My mother was a teacher. My brother IS a teacher. Both taught/teach relatively useless subjects (not math, science, history or english). I grew up with plenty of exposure to that stupid liberal mindset of what they feel they DESERVE (and the insecurity that kept them in a classroom instead of the real world). My brother went to school for 14 years and has a PhD. It EATS him and his wife alive that I earn in three months what he makes in a year. Don’t get me wrong - he’s happy for me. But he doesn’t think I “deserve” it…

[/quote]

I find it hard to take your arguments seriously when you blow up emotionally and cannot examine something without showing the bias of that “liberal” mindset you talk about over and over again.

It’s odd that you use your family which is such a small part of the world as your basis for creating this liberal mindset that apparently you feel is so prevalent.

When you’ve been to as many schools in Kansas as I have and have met as many teachers as I have you may realize that that liberal mindset that your biased sources tell you about over and over again just may not actually exist. Especially considering the VAST majority of teachers in the area I go to are conservative. These teachers are not protected by an administration that they don’t realize exists. If anything they are kept from certain classroom freedoms BY conservative leaders in the state. That doesn’t fit in with the narrative you so desperately seem to want to be true though so why bother?

Emotionally you seem like you cannot discuss this rationally and have a collection of things based on a small amount of anecdotes that you assume create this gigantic problem. [/quote]
He can’t escape his criminal reasoning. I mean, teaching your kid to not get caught rather than not doing something wrong in the first place is ghetto. And why is it that those who complain the most about teachers are the ones who have/had behavioral issues and do poorly in school? They have the whole victim mentality that makes them blame everyone else for their failures. If only I had better teachers. If only I had better parents. If only I lived in a better community. The irony is that when others do the same they are lazy and have a sense of entitlement.

BTW, for those who think it’s a liberal vs conservative issue here you have Rupert Murdoch, who no one would call a liberal, working with Obama. Pre-K testing? Really?:

Enter Amplify, the $540 million education arm of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Because Obama’s Common Core has standardized the federal curriculum across 45 states, companies can now foist one-size-fits-all products on taxpayers without worrying about each state’s standards. And as Apple’s $30 million contract to put iPads into Los Angeles schools shows, there’s a lot of money in selling the hardware, too.

But if Kress can help Amplify update his snake oil to the next generation, then Murdoch can cash in on $1.7 billion a year that states spend on standardized testing every year. That’s why Amplify offers early childhood assessment software called C-PALLS for kids who still use safety scissors.

“The earlier, the better,” reads the website. “Better prepare children for kindergarten and beyond by combining C-PALLS pre-K assessments with grouping, reporting and targeted activities that help monitor ongoing social, emotional, early literacy, science and math development.” We could have teachers do that, but Wall Street hasn’t figured out how to make money from teachers yet.

http://teachersletterstobillgates.com/2014/02/18/what-sober-person-gives-standardized-tests-to-a-kindergartner-ever-meet-a-5-year-old-part-2/

68

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Beans wants you to think there is no class war , it is real and it was started from above
[/quote]

I don’t want anyone to think it, I want people to see the truth of the matter. And the truth of the matter is one is not poor because someone else is rich. That is a fact in a “free” society.

Those people would still be poor, would still have miserable lives, and would likely still be “homeless” if everyone had wage caps and assigned housing by the government.

The vast majority of homeless have substance abuse problems and mental illness from what I understand. No amount of money handed to them, housing, or anything is going to suddenly solve their problems.

You see poor people, and then see rich people. Poor people have a harder time of it, and rich people seem to have significantly less taxing problems, so you conclude that the rich must be better off, so therefore it is “good” to be rich and “bad” to be poor.

Where you lose reality is the jump you make to the thought process of “these people wouldn’t be so poor, if those rich people weren’t so rich.” This isn’t the case, in the slightest, and comes from a place of complete and total lack of understanding of basic economics.

Resources are limited, yes. But wealth and ease of life isn’t measured purely on how much of those resources you have. Never has, never will be. Value, and wealth is what you DO with those resources. If someone owns all the wheat, then they own all the bread. They are wealthy right? Sort of, and if so, only for a finite time period. Because the rest of the world adapts and changes, new technologies emerge and suddenly corn bread is significantly more popular and at a higher value that wheat…

Markets happen, in every society big or small, that mankind has ever known. And they happen out of mutual benefit. Markets are a natural process begotten from society’s formation. Technological advances create more wealth, they grow the pie. And nothing gives man an incentive to make an advance like the prospect of being wealthy.

69

Z: I think life is easier when you can just blame one side for all the problems in the universe. Ironically this is EXACTLY what Democrats and Republicans want people to do. “Villianize” the other side constantly and gain and maintain power based off those mis-characterizations.

70

Back on topic: effect of minimum wage hike.

CBO estimate: It will cost at least 500,000 jobs and perhaps up to 1,000,000.

Given this is the CBO and they always underestimate the bad effects of legislation (e.g., Obamacare), I bet the correct number is about 1,200,000 jobs lost.

71

What is the goal $/hr that’s being pushed? I haven’t seen a number. Maryland is pushing for $10.10.

72

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What is the goal $/hr that’s being pushed? I haven’t seen a number. Maryland is pushing for $10.10.[/quote]
That person will still be on foodstamps.

73

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What is the goal $/hr that’s being pushed? I haven’t seen a number. Maryland is pushing for $10.10.[/quote]
That person will still be on foodstamps. [/quote]

You’ve clearly bought the lie that most people working for minimum wage are the chief breadwinner for themselves or a family.

This is false.

Most minimum wage people are kids or the second worker in a family, and work to either get experience and move up or for extra money in the home, with some other person(s) being the primary breadwinners.

The desire to raise the minimum wage will prevent 500,000-1,000,000 (at least) of such people from getting that extra money or getting an entry-level job and thus move up in the world.

It’s simple economics.

74

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

It’s simple economics.[/quote]

As a businessman and someone who helps people make these types of choices on the regular, I’m just at a loss for words at time when this topic comes up.

Are they still on food stamps? GOOD! Then they can have some fucking incentive to do something more productive and leave these low paying jobs for our teens and other underskilled people that need them to learn a damn skill, or put gas in their tank to get to high school.

Shit.

If I had to pay people 10+ dollars an hour to pour coffee, I would fire fuckers after the FIRST cup they delivered wrong. No joke. One single cup leaves your hand wrong and you are fired. It isn’t hard to pour a cup of coffee, and it isn’t worth $10 an hour.

After a short period of time my entire shop would be older people supplementing their already decent income who came in with resumes. I’m not paying a teenager that much to come in stoned and fuck up a black coffee.

75

Off topic, just for Pittttt:

lol. Republicans don’t even touch the top 15, yet they are evil and only work for “rich people”.

hahahahah

And I dont’ want to hear any complaining about “corporations are people” until you condemn ActBlue…

76

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As a businessman and someone who helps people make these types of choices on the regular, I’m just at a loss for words at time when this topic comes up. [/quote]

To be blunt, the Democrats are merely pawns of the Big Unions. The Big Union salaries are generally based on some formula tied to the minimum wage (including federal unions, which is why Obama made his change there).

In short, the Democrats have declared war on the most vulnerable and marginal in the work force in order to cowtow to Big Unions. They don’t care few will be helped and 1,000,000 will be out of work. They need that Big Union money to get elected.

That money is the beginning and end of this calculation.

The cover their really unforgiveable acts with a lie that they are compassionate. It’s useless schmaltz. A Big Lie.

Of course, their idiot voters will fall for it, just like abused women go back into the arms of abusive men.

77

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

How is an equal opportunity for EVERY AMERICAN class warfare? We have countless examples of people from very modest beginnings rising to very high levels in society. In case you haven’t noticed, we live in a consumer driven economy. When MORE people have money to spend, companies make more profits. Who exactly benefits from this “class warfare” you are speaking of?

The ONLY possible benefactor is the Democratic party. If they keep people poor and down (i.e. sucking on the government teat), then they can offer to take shit from people who actually produce something and give it to them for free - essentially buying votes.

Who does that serve long term? The recipients of welfare who will be coddled into never realizing their full potential? I think not. You rail against “greedy corporations” and “the top one percent who don’t pay their share”, how about digging a little deeper into this “class warfare” you are speaking of and go to it’s roots? I think LBJ had a quote about that…

[/quote]

I will start off by saying there is no equal opportunity and it has been waning since Reagan

I am not sure where you live but where I live more people DON"T have more money . It is just the opposite in every area I know .

Another area of DISPARITY is Mitt’s Dollar is worth $.86

____________________________ Pitt’s Dollar is worth $.72

I personally believe both parties are benefiting from the poor being poor and keeping them that way
It does not matter how great an employee becomes if there are 15 people looking for 10 jobs there will be 5 unemployed people , no matter how coddled or uncoddled they are

78

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Off topic, just for Pittttt:

lol. Republicans don’t even touch the top 15, yet they are evil and only work for “rich people”.

hahahahah

And I dont’ want to hear any complaining about “corporations are people” until you condemn ActBlue…

[/quote]

I have posted this many times I condemn both parties

79

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

How is an equal opportunity for EVERY AMERICAN class warfare? We have countless examples of people from very modest beginnings rising to very high levels in society. In case you haven’t noticed, we live in a consumer driven economy. When MORE people have money to spend, companies make more profits. Who exactly benefits from this “class warfare” you are speaking of?

The ONLY possible benefactor is the Democratic party. If they keep people poor and down (i.e. sucking on the government teat), then they can offer to take shit from people who actually produce something and give it to them for free - essentially buying votes.

Who does that serve long term? The recipients of welfare who will be coddled into never realizing their full potential? I think not. You rail against “greedy corporations” and “the top one percent who don’t pay their share”, how about digging a little deeper into this “class warfare” you are speaking of and go to it’s roots? I think LBJ had a quote about that…

[/quote]

I will start off by saying there is no equal opportunity and it has been waning since Reagan

I am not sure where you live but where I live more people DON"T have more money . It is just the opposite in every area I know .

Another area of DISPARITY is Mitt’s Dollar is worth $.86

____________________________ Pitt’s Dollar is worth $.72

I personally believe both parties are benefiting from the poor being poor and keeping them that way
It does not matter how great an employee becomes if there are 15 people looking for 10 jobs there will be 5 unemployed people , no matter how coddled or uncoddled they are
[/quote]

Please explain to me how a government can “KEEP someone poor”. Every individual can achieve middle class status with relatively little effort compared to ANY where else in the world. That’s why poor immigrants come here and ten years later own businesses and have a net worth beyond most naturally born citizens. The only reason you are poor in America is if you are both STUPID and LAZY. You can get rich if you are smart and lazy. You can get rich if you are stupid and work hard. But stupid and lazy? Sorry, but I have no sympathy for ya.

And the government is a reflection of the people, pitt. The fact that more Americans can name all of the members of the Kardashian family but don’t even know their own Senator is why these fucking idiots keep getting elected. I will always come back down to stupid people who are allowed to vote.

Personally, I think you should have to pass a test to vote. IMAGINE THAT.

80

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I will start off by saying there is no equal opportunity [/quote]

lmao.

Total bullshit.

Outside of government regulated inequality, you know like AA etc, there certainly is.

And still with that tired, and disproven many times now, bullshit about “da Mitt Romenyz Tax Moniez.” How many times are you going to look at the charts I posted before you actually understand what they say?