Stand outside of party politics and explain what your party mission is for the mid-terms , for 2020, Given the myriad of resistance issues from day one Isn't it ONLY Trump hate that is your party platform ? Is leaving out Trump hate and telling us about platform impossible ?
Democrats want secure borders'; however, we want to see criminals being thrown in cages and deported not children. Many are shouting Abolish Ice and some people would have you believe that means Dems want Open Borders that allow anyone to come in without any vetting. That's not the case. On the contrary we want thorough vetting. A call to Abolish Ice means we want an overhaul of the way asylum seekers are treated. Throughout the vetting process, we want them to be treated as the human beings they are. We recognize that many of these people risked their lives and their children's lives to escape danger on a treacherous journey over here and we want them to be treated with compassion unless or until the vetting proves them to be unworthy. We don't want citizens to have to pay higher taxes. We want corporations to make a fair contribution to their workforce. On abortion, we want to allow women the choice to have an abortion while we work on taking away the reasons many women make that choice such as reducing poverty, fighting to raise minimum wage, providing better sex ed and birth control, building confidence and character in girls and women, providing more support systems for women who choose to have the babies, providing parenting classes for men and women, providing and advocating for adoption. That may seem like it would cost taxpayers more money; however, most women who have abortions live in poverty. Taxpayers would pay more for the government to raise that child from birth to 18 including housing which the government would make money off of from taxpayers. Our foster care system is already overwhelmed with over 400,00 children annually and many of the children face abuse and neglect before and during their stay in government facilities or private households; it can't take in hundreds of thousands of more children every year or our own citizens will end up living in tent cities eventually. We need to find good caring kind people to adopt all the children in foster care and we need more kind, caring people who want to adopt children.
So , IF the government fails at almost every social program it ever begins for the betterment of families , why does the left keep demanding that government create more or fix the loss of morality in all family values ?
It is ridiculous to expect government to fix personal values , individual accountability ,the need for birth control , for assuming the role of teaching our youth about family values.
The left was "all in " for the last ten years of unattended children crossing the border and anchor babies born on this side , now you're "butt hurt" because there are immigration camps created to account for Obama incited ,unhindered mass immigration ?
These major Hypocrisies on the left are beyond measure by all modern standards , you want Uncle Sam to raise your kids , teach them family values and become surrogate mothers to all of the ones illegally crossing borders . .......Let's see , ...............now planned parenthood for illegals ?
I will just say on the subject of immigration, President Obama increased the number of deportations. On the scale of Presidents allowing "open borders", he was an enforcer, not an enabler. You'd be better of blaming President Bush for open borders based on the data.
Deciding to start concentration camps and separating babies from their mothers is all on President Trump, as much as you'd like to think otherwise.
Obama increased the number of deportations...as long as the law breakers were caught at the border. Once they managed to get by border patrol they were given a "bye" on the law and allowed to remain forever.
This does not seem reasonable, either in that Obama decided not to follow the law or that illegals were not deported.
All sound desires, but too often without the reasoning to support them.
When a criminal is thrown in a cage, what should be done with their children? Is anyone under 18 (or pick your own number) automatically to be granted citizenship if they can get across the border, or should they be deported with their parents? With so many illegals being coached in asking for asylum or refugee status, even though they will never qualify, what do we do with them? They don't even understand what they're asking for, let alone what our requirements are, but they are taught to ask anyway - how do we handle tens of thousands of such people?
First of all, somebody who escapes danger and makes it here with their children should not be treated like or considered a criminal. They definitely should be detained until a thorough investigation is made into their background and then perhaps they should get ankle bracelets until it is decided whether or not they will get citizenship. Then it would be based on their work history and community involvement after they came here. Parents should never be deported without their children unless their child is a US citizen and the parent request the child stay with relatives. We have plenty of space for tens of thousands of immigrants and many of them would work hard to build their own communities.
Why does the United States own any foreigner anything? The notion of escaping danger is a farce - America is not the "goal line" of the world. No one "deserves" citizenship unless they immigrate legally. Most of these asylum seekers are unskilled and offer nothing but a drain on the US economy and a refusal to give up their past - they can't even be bothered to learn English.
I'm sure all your ancestors were born here. Escaping danger is not a farce. It's real. America is only one of many goal lines and foreigners escape to other countries as well. Most of the asylum seekers went to the border to seek legal entry and they were treated criminally without cause. It never hurts anyone to learn a second language. If you're bothered because you can't understand them, learn Spanish or Honduran, or whatever it is the ones you refer to speak.
RJ, your compassion is wonderful. I thought this was a Christian nation? What a farce. If that's what these immigrants are worth, we should just set up automated machine guns at the border and blow away anyone who tries to get near this country. The people are sub-human anyway.
You aren't making sense. We only "detain" criminals, which is why illegals are detained. They are criminals, violating the laws of the country.
We have space? Where will you settle them? In Yellowstone or some other national park? Give them national land - land that I, a lifelong citizen, cannot have? Whose job will they take? Will you give up your job out of sympathy for someone that will make no effort to fix their own broken country, and go homeless as a result?
This is my biggest problem with liberals on most issues - they want the country to act and do things because they have sympathy and care for others. Forgetting as they do so that the US does not have unlimited resources, that everything they give away has to be produced by an American somewhere that will now do without. Ignoring that we cannot follow the trail of tears indefinitely, trying to fix the problems of the world - that if we do we will inevitably become the same third world country where people live in subsistence levels only, if at all.
It is a dream world, a fantasy utopia that we cannot sustain.
What do you call it when people come to the border and legally seek asylum? My point was simply that they be held until we're sure not a danger but there is no reason to criminalize them for seeking refuge from danger. You seem to forget that many farmers rely on illegal immigrants to work for them. If we can't take in any more people then why is the right fighting so hard to ban abortions. According to you, we don't have room for any more people and we certainly don't have the resources for them. The third world country will come from the right not the left.
Wildnerness, I listened to a story on NPR yesterday about a Guatemalan family who attempted to cross the border. They left Guatemala because gangs were threatening their family and they feared for their life. When they got here and asked for asylum, their daughter was taken from them immediately. The daughter was sent to New York. The father and mother were processed and flown back to Guatemala. They've talked to their daughter once. The daughter is still in New York.
I'm not sure what the answer is here, but it's a sad story.
That is rather sad, and rather stupid as well. Why is a known illegal alien allowed to reside in our country at all, and doubly so when we have deported the parents?
I suppose it is possible that some relative in NYC has sponsored her for citizenship (don't really know how that works), but if so it is HER choice (and that of her parents if young) - if she wishes to live without her parents that is a choice she made. It is NOT a reason to bring her parents to the country and support them, too.
Wildnerness, I think the daughter was 6 years old. The shelter for children is in NYC. She's not residing here. She was moved to NYC while her parents deportation took place and our government hasn't reunited them yet.
So, I would hope anyone sees this story as sad. I realize a couple of things:
1. This story is put up to be representative, but one shouldn't necessarily take it as representative. There are obviously also stories of people who come here who commit crimes or whatever.
2. Border officials are now stopping families from even getting inside the U.S., preventing them from being illegal aliens in the first place. Seems like a better plan than splitting families up.
We also have to consider the "business" end of caretakers of illegal children , How much does the system pay fostering parents , how many kids do they have , are they allowed ? I've known people who take in Foster kids as an income ,Is it the same with illegals , like welfare but with a purpose ? I've also read about legal immigrants taking in these kids , How many of the "lost " children are back in Mexico with their new families ?
Too many loose ends to these systematically created families.
OMG, Horse! A subject we can agree on. The Democrats have absolutely no party platform other than the normal social issues (which is a pretty good platform). They have no vision, no direction, and you're right, are STUCK on trying to figure out ways to spend money the government doesn't have and trying to make everyone happy by buying them things. Particularly during days of a robust economy, they are just languishing, focusing on illegal immigration, which is a LOSING issue for them.
Anyone who predicts a "blue wave" in the upcoming election is out of his/her mind.
It doesn't make me happy, but until the Dems find some vision and direction, they're going nowhere and our country is going to continue to swing back and forth as voters punish politicians for doing nothing on both sides.
A platform based on being anti-Trump isn't going to resonate with voters and will rally Trump's base.
The Dems have a vision. All others can't think ahead to see how the Dems plans actually save the government money while also making life better for all Americans. People think Trump is some hero because they might get 200.00 extra dollars back in their tax return but they're not paying attention to all the additional taxes they will be paying on products and services that far exceed any increase we've ever seen before and will wipe out those tax returns quicker than a blink of the eye.
Well, if they have a vision, they're really bad at articulating it.
I think the Republicans aren't articulating any vision other than making the rich richer, the middle class poor, and the poor dead. Dems plan to help people rise out of poverty will bring crime down, result in less death, ensure people have access to affordable health care, and it will also cost taxpayers who earn less than 200,000 per year less money, people will have an equal chance at higher education which benefits everyone.
Dems plan on raising people out of poverty...by taking from one what they have worked to grow and giving it to someone else. By unlimited charity, with the end result (as we now see) that much (most?) of the country cannot or will not support themselves.
Charity is wonderful...for short term problems. When it is used simply to make life better without anything in return it is a failed program that can only lead to economic failure and a lower standard of living for the producers of the nation. It's called "socialism" and it has failed every time it has been tried.
Okay, so you think that children should just roam the streets and be zombies and cannibalists? You don't see how the government allowing corporations to underpay workers for their time and hard work since the beginning of time is why there are so many people living in poverty and that's why it is the government's responsibility to make changes to fix it. I personally never saw photos or heard stories of Obama or any other president treating immigrants and their children with such disregard for lives and well being. If I had, I would have been just as horrified as I am at what I see the Trump administration doing. You wanted to talk about me being butt hurt! You all that defend these actions have your heads so far up his arse and you're the ones getting butt hurt any time someone tells you what they see. Your response makes it obvious that you would kick those babies into a ditch just because you want to stand by your president or maybe because the government didn't teach you any family values. I can't figure it out. Planned Parenthood is much cheaper than raising children from birth to adulthood, plain and simple.
If the market value of the work performed is not the deciding factor in wages, what is? The needs of the worker (marxism, in other words)?
If the market value of work performed were actually based on work performed fast food workers would be millionaires! I know I worked in fast food before and it was much harder than any of my office jobs that I earned 3 times more money at.
Sorry. Fast food needs almost no training and that is a key part of the value of the work. Market value also depends on supply and demand - the supply of teenagers to work fast food is far more than the demand (in most periods, anyway). But hard work? Not hardly - like you I've worked fast food (cook) and it didn't compare with being outside in -20 degree snowstorms, packing a ton of material into a job site. Nor did it compare to the 4 years of training I needed to become an electrician, and it was certainly far safer than working with live 480 volt circuits.
And if it comes to the value of the product, 500 hamburgers do not have the value of even 100' of ditch with a wire laid at the bottom.
The majority of fast food workers are no longer teenagers and it does take some training to learn the cash register, how to take apart machinery and put it back together to clean it, how to deal with irate customers, in addition, fast food workers are often overworked with not enough help to tend to all the customers in short time spans, and 7.25 doesn't even cover their gas to get to work, they often get just shy of enough hours to qualify for the only benefits offered which are usually crappy. 15.00 an hour for a fast food worker is well deserved and not too much to ask...if they want to make 40.00 an hour they can save a little of that for school to become an electrician.
I have to disagree. First, few workers earn minimum wage - my grandaughter and grandson just got jobs in the area. Both are paid just under $10, both underwent less than 40 hours of training (how much does it take to push the "hamburger" button on a register and give back the change the machine says to?). The work is simply not worth $15 dollars per hour - not when the exact same labor can be found all day long for under $10.
You seem to be confusing market value with your personal assessment of value. Market value is what the product (labor in this case) can be bought for, while your personal assessment is what YOU think it is worth to YOU. The two are very different things. After all, would you pay $10 for a burger when the same burger sells for $5 next door?
That's why people need to demand higher wages so market value is actually equal to the labor put into a position. Fast food work is definitely worth 15.00 per hour. Just because You don't think it is doesn't mean it isn't. Nobody should make less than 15.00 per hour. Anything less is slavery!
LOL You don't change the market value by legislating a minimum wage much higher that what the value is. Nor does claiming that a freely entered into contract, value paid for value received, is "slavery" - that can be nothing but empty rhetoric. Massive exaggeration with zero truth in it.
But I have to wonder when you want to take your made up value above what people are willing to pay and designate it as "market value". Market value is defined as what people are willing to pay, and what people are willing to accept, for a product. Not what some legislator decides they should be willing to pay/accept.
Your comment about demanding higher wages is spot on - if people refuse to do the work for what is offered the company will either go out of business or pay higher wages. That's exactly how market value is set - to do it via legislation and pity for people that can't produce a higher value product does nothing but increase inflation.
And finally, you DO understand that doubling the minimum wage mostly means that all the other wages will go up appropriately? After all, why spend 4 years in training to get the same pay as a high school dropout that has no work ethic and often doesn't show up at all? The people that are making $15 will now demand $30 whereupon those at $30 will demand $60.
Wilderness, your argument begs the question: should we abolish the minimum wage and let the market decide?
In nearly all the country, that would be the smartest thing to do.
But there ARE companies, and localized areas, where sweatshops would arise and people paid nearly nothing. That must be avoided and the minimum wage does that.
But that does not mean that the lowest of labor should be paid for at double what it is actually worth, or that wages should depend on the needs of the worker. There are actually few jobs or areas where the minimum wage is the going rate - wages are higher almost everywhere - and that is the way it should be.
I'm completely torn on this issue. I generally support a $15 minimum wage, but understand it's an artificial construct that's going to be offset by inflation.
Where I work, we got hit by the $15 minimum wage and had to give a select group of employees more money because they were below that level. On a personal level, I can't say I liked what happened.
The specific employees weren't exactly cream of the crop and, in my opinion, didn't deserve more money. They didn't have the skills to go elsewhere and compete in the market for a better job. They just wanted more money. The issue then caused problems for us with people who were making more money because they were rewarded for it. Now they were making as much as somebody who was a mediocre employee.
Overall, I can't say I like the whole thing.
Just think if you had been the one making $15 and watched as everyone below you got a raise to your level. And if you don't like it now, wait until inflation raises your cost of living another 10-20%...but your salary, over $15, does not rise with it.
Definitely a case of idealism crashing into reality.
Happens every day. Seattle raised their minimum...and businesses closed. They will have to do it again, shortly, to make up for the rise inflation.
Seattle also cried when people weren't paid enough. They have gotten a large influx of good paying jobs...whereupon they are crying that jobs are inflating the cost of housing and want to tax those employers paying good wages so the city can build cheap housing.
Reality is not the strong suit of today's liberalism or socialism.
I don't see reality being the foundation of right-wingers either - religion, disproportionate tax dollars going to red states, denial of facts around global warming, raising the national deficit to fund tax cuts...
If businesses have mediocre employees who aren't doing the work they could be fired; that doesn't make it okay to underpay the position and with the prices of things as they stand anything less than 15.00 per hour is an underpayment. Companies don't need to raise their prices and smaller companies should have incentives to keep prices as they are while paying their employees a living wage which is what anybody who goes into work and does their job should make; if they have jobs that required more schooling or training then they should be compensated for that.
Hi there crankalicious, Let me offer a perspective that might help you be less "torn" about the minimum wage issue, and, less concerned with what number it is.
Think of the minimum wage as a floor for wages paid, and not as a measure of value.
Forget the living wage arguments, and "big corporations can afford to pay more" arguments, and just consider the minimum wage number as a floor of protection against the unavoidable examples of abusive companies that human nature alone will provide.
Standing on that floor, it is the worker's responsibility to earn more, not the employer's responsibility to pay more.
That is how I view it.
Perhaps the people making 30.00 or 60.00 are overpaid and will not be able to double their earnings. Minimum wage has been grossly under what it should be since people including children worked as chimney sweepers and in factories The whole family had to work and they couldn't afford food or other life essentials. This isn't about people and what's fair in the value of work; to you this is all about your ego. You're afraid by giving proper compensation for their time and hard work, it will bring down the value of what you do so it doesn't matter to you that they are being grossly underpaid.
Oh lordy lordy HoneyBB. You have poked the hornet's nest, and no one has even said welcome to this forum.
Well, welcome. I hope you hang around, but...
I have followed your exchanges and their drawn responses, and I can only note that your points seem to be emotionally and ideologically driven. Divorced from the reality of what is and firmly lodged in the idealism of what should be.
Can you support any of your contentions with facts? Historical examples?
I see Wilderness has responded to most of your comments, but as yet I haven't seen you support any of your claims with more than just your opinion.
Obviously the poor have never been compensated properly for the work they do and that's a fact. How can we see how much better it would be if we don't fight for it and see it come to be? Valuing the underdog does not devalue the middleman so put your fears aside and watch them climb.
"Obviously the poor have never been compensated properly for the work they do and that's a fact."
No, HoneyBB, that is not a "fact." If it were, you could prove it. Do you think you can, with real facts, other than just your opinion?
But, I do agree with one point; "How can we see how much better it would be if we don't fight for it and see it come to be?
I completely agree with you. And I think we must hold to this perspective to continue to advance as a nation. But ... that is an ideological perspective. It is not fact, and it is not proof of validity. And most of all, to be secure in our justification of that pursuit, we must never try to validate it with our kumbaya opinions. Reality will shoot us down every time.
Just as your arguments for a living wage have been shot down as nothing more than an `it should be' opinion. Because a factual investigation proves it to be only an unprovable opinion.
That absolutely is a fact. Just go back to the 1800's when children and their parents worked side by side in factories and chimney sweeps to earn too little to buy groceries for a day. The proof is out there. All you have to do is look. The minimum wage has remained stagnant for several years in a row over and over again. Those facts are out there too. The fact that people earning minimum wage has always been below the poverty level is also a fact that is out there. It is not my opinion. It is fact. And there is nothing Alternative about my facts.
You are right concerning your 1800s example HoneyBB, but that also goes to my point about the minimum wage being a floor to protect wage earners from abuse. Plus the other aspects of that labor law legislation that protected against child labor and other nefarious employer actions.
Why not take your examples back another hundred years to the 1700s, when parents had to work their kids in the fields to hopefully ensure the family had enough to eat - not rise above a "poverty level.".
Yes, I do agree that our history has had its share of unscrupulous employers - that is what our federal legislation over the years has sought to protect workers from. But nothing in that logic supports your claim of "fact" for your statement.
The U.S. minimum wage laws were established in 1938, so we should look at psot-1938 examples that "... he poor have never been compensated properly for the work "..." to validate your point.
Of course folks earning minimum wage are below the federally established poverty level. What else would you expect? Minimum wage was never intended to be a "living wage," it has always been mandated as a protected wage floor. Just because you view it differently doesn't change the fact of its original - and continuing, purpose.
I have "looked." I have had multiple discussions about this topic. I am confident that what you claim as "fact" is just opinion, and that that opinion can be, (and has been), cracked with hard data, time and time again.
Here is a possible fact to consider. During the push to pass that 1938 labor law, here is an explanatory blurb from the Commissioner of Labor Statistics
"One advocate, Commissioner of Labor Statistics Isador Lubin, explained to the joint Senate-House committee that during depressions the ability to overwork employees, rather than efficiency, determined business success. The economy, he reported, had deteriorated to the chaotic stage where employers with high standards were forced by cut-throat competition to exploit labor in order to survive. "The outstanding feature of the proposed legislation," Lubin said, is that "it aims to establish by law a plane of competition far above that which could be maintained in the absence of government edict." *[my emphasis] Source: Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage
That sounds like a "floor," a "level playing field" to me. What does it sound like to you?
That's hilarious. I worked at McDonalds at one time. Later on I found myself getting fifteen an hour while crawling inside 140 degree attics to weld refrigerant pipes with a torch.
Now I was quite underpaid, I feel, at just 15 dollars an hour doing work that is actually dangerous and required brazing skills and a license from the Environmental Protection Agency.
As a liberal I agree that $15 minimum wage is too high. Paying people based on skillset and job demand is an important distinction.
I worked many a retail job and learning to operate the register and deal with mobs of customers can be stressful but it’s not really that difficult. It’s a skillset that’s usually easily replaceable if someone can’t figure it out. Just the reality of the situation.
Yes, you were definitely underpaid at both jobs. The danger of a job doesn't decide how much someone gets paid and besides working at McDonald's can have it's dangers too. Someone could hold up the place; (bet you didn't have to worry about that happening while in 140 degree temps) as well as, a number of accidents that could happen in the kitchen because fastfood workers are often understaffed and overworked. They rarely have a chance to sit down for a moment and many work through all or part of their breaks because the customers have to be served and not enough employees to do it. When you did that welding, you should have looked around a little harder cause those people really ripped you off.
This is a bit off-topic, but I've always wondered, if "market value" is the deciding factor, why is the current administration trying to get companies to return jobs to the US that can be done much cheaper elsewhere?
That's not letting the market value of labor be the deciding factor, it's letting social and political factors be the deciding factor.
Many people on the right, including those in Congress, seem to be OK with that. Yet when others suggest wages could be based on social factors and not just market values, those same people scream "socialism!"
Should businesses let the market decide when it comes to business decisions or not? At the moment it seems the answer is yes, unless it's politically convenient not to let the market decide, which seems hypocritical to me.
Greetings, Ms. HoneyBB, there's are plenty of conservatives writing obituaries regarding Democrats and progressively minded people. But, reports of our demise are premature, at best.
We will win, moving away from the faction of our party that represent just a water down version of Republican attitudes, I stand with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren as champions of working class people and civility relative to the "other party".
Greater excitement and motivationbased on the problems with the current occupants will be reflected in exceptional participation at the polls that will result from education of the electorate as to what the "other side" truly represents. We will, in fact, have the finally victory over the forces of darkness!
There are so many immigration experts here it's almost amazing , college grads who know more about ICE than ICE itself , know more about asylum seekers than government lawyers , they who emote reasons and rhymes for allowing kids across the border .
You can't liberal -emote the way through an immigration crisis , it takes know how ,constantly growing needs for ever increasing resources and an UNCHANGING policy no matter the administration , AND YET "Abandon ICENow" screams from the left ?
Leftist Brilliance Rules , want to know who to blame - How about Obama for "standing down" !
Everything I've read says , "Fine , yea I'll pay the fifteen an hour and lay off three of the seven people working for me "..........
That isn't raising peoples standard of living , That is legislating the cost of a cheeseburger to thirty dollars , the service to getting served a cheeseburger to an hour and a half and increasing welfare roles by twenty percent .
That's why renting an apartment in Boston costs $2600 a month , a condo in Denver is $600.000 , and a college education is $200 grand ? Yeaaaa, socialism !
Same question then: should we abolish the minimum wage, since it's an artificial standard, and let the market decide?
Corporations like McDonald's make mega bucks and can afford to pay their employees properly without going out of business or raising the prices. Companies that have a gross profit of (let's say, $200,000 or less) could get a tax break or credit for the each employee to make up for the difference in what they pay now and what is fair like 15.00 per hour. Why are the large corporations getting the tax breaks? Makes no sense. They should be paying proper wages smaller corporations would be able to if they had the tax breaks.
So you're suggesting a government guaranteed income , Who exactly pays for that ? That's just a typical push to socialism , its been tried in Greece , Italy , in countries that back up the guaranteed "higher"wages with higher than average international debts ,
No. there are plenty of jobs in America , there are in fact right now as many unfilled jobs as there are on the unemployment roles in America . What skilled employees have to do is be willing to move to the better job market , take jobs unrelated to ,say their graphic arts degree , or their outdoor recreation degree , On another hand right now one of the the major corporate issues about employees is finding employees who actually WANT to work . Show up regularly , not demand outrageous raises and benefits .
Well let's see....stop giving the large corporations tax breaks and make them keep their prices from rising ridiculously or penalize them instead of penalizing the people who work for them. Companies would find many more quality employees who want to work if the employees were paid a living wage. In addition, most crimes are committed by people living in poverty therefore, paying employees better will bring down crime and people should have healthcare without breaking the bank so either the company needs to provide the means for it or the government.
It is utterly ridiculous , no surprise , that you associate lower income with crime , first . Second there is no one in the world more favored with tax breaks than Small Bus. employers and lower wage families today in America , Earned income credits mean families get more in return than they pay in to the government .
Got to take a hard look at the way people spend too , to be fair , how many particularly younger workers I see with new cars , six hundred dollar smart phones ,
vaping or smoking habits , fast food diets , big screen TV s , college loans for work they don't do and two or three kids by twenty two years old...............
So when you said you were "becoming a Democrat" … that was a LIE. LOL. I agree to disagree.
Is there not a correlation between poverty/very low income and crime? The tax breaks go overwhelmingly to the fat cats, if they made to pay at all. But, again are not you conservatives against Earned Income Credits and Minimum Wage on principle?
They, being young, are foolish by employing plastic and borrowing to make up the difference from relatively lower incomes compared to the past verses meeting their needs and wants as consumers and you can bet that this reality is true for those not so young, as well.
"But, again are not you conservatives against Earned Income Credits and Minimum Wage on principle?
Hi there Cred. How do you justify the Earned Income Tax Credit? Isn't it just the government giving someone some money because they didn't earn much themselves, and, generally, have qualifying kids?
... and yes, as a sort-of Conservative, I am against the minimum wage - in principle, but the reality of human nature demands that I accept a minimum wage number as a floor for wages paid, not as a measure of value of labor.
When people are not compensated with a living wage it is the government's responsibility to compensate them or adjust the guidelines so they are paid a living wage. The value of labor should at the very least cover a living wage and go up from there according to training and experience.
"When people are not compensated with a living wage it is the government's responsibility to compensate them or adjust the guidelines so they are paid a living wage."
We are poles apart HoneyBB. My world doesn't consider it the government's job to ensure folks have what they need to live a comfortable life.
Do you understand that when you say "government" you are actually saying the nation's citizens? The government doesn't have any money of its own. It only has what it takes from its citizens.
So, to be honest, what you should have said was: "When people are not compensated with a living wage it is my responsibility to compensate them or adjust the guidelines so they are paid a living wage.
Is that a statement you can endorse?
Who sets the minimum wage? The government, NO? Thereby making it the responsibility of the government to ensure the people are compensated fairly either by raising the minimum wage so employers pay their workers fairly or by compensating them through tax credits. Yes, the tax credits come from the people but I'm saying the tax to cover the fair distribution of earnings should be taken from the business owners. If employees are paid appropriately to begin with we won't have so many people in poverty and the taxes we pay can go toward infrastructure. Instead the government gives our money to major corporations who add to the poverty in this country by underpaying people.
Hi again HoneyBB,
"... responsibility of the government to ensure the people are compensated fairly..."
"...fair distribution of earnings should be taken from the business owners."
As I said, we are poles apart in our philosophies. Whereas you say "compensated fairly," I say protect against abuse. Where you consider it only right for the government to ensure "fair distribution of earnings," I say that is an individual responsibility - it is not a responsibility I want the government to assume. Because when they do, it amounts to no more than theft - taking what one earns, to give it to someone that didn't earn it.
Also, it seems you think low wages are the only reason for poverty. I think you should look into the reality that poor life choices are also a factor in whether one is "poor" or not.
Do you place any value on personal responsibility?
As a side note, States are not constricted by the federal minimum wage. They are free to mandate a higher minimum wage for their societies. Have you looked into states that have higher, (than the federal), minimum wage standards? If you wanted to consider that data, here is a graphic link that will give you the details: Minimum Wage Laws in the States
The only way to protect against abuse is to compensate people fairly for the work they do. Surely people live in poverty because of personal choices, I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that when a person chooses to work 40 hours per week their income should afford them the essentials they need to survive and allow them a little comfort for their sacrifice. It definitely is the responsibility of the employer and I realize that different states have different levels of minimum wage...In states where the minimum wage is higher so is the cost of living which still leaves people in those states left in poverty when working full time.
You are really making me work HoneyBB. I think I can understand where your heart is, but each of your responses to me have included sentiments that I feel validate my perspective that we view the realities of life differently and are just talking past one another.
" ...when a person chooses to work 40 hours per week their income should afford them the essentials they need to survive and allow them a little comfort for their sacrifice."
What sacrifice? The bearing of a responsibility for self and family? The responsibility to work to achieve a desired lifestyle vs, the shirking of that responsibility and lounging at home. Is it the sacrifice of that "lounging" time you speak of?
How about this hypothetical;
Joe Blow flips burgers at minimum wage. he is reliable and steady, but he has no ambition beyond ever flipping burgers. He gets by on minimum wage as a single guy because he lives in his parent's basement, and eats his meals at home. Plus, because of those freebies, his 40-hours does give him a little extra "comfort" in the form of some low-budget "club-hopping."
He is reliable for showing up at work, competent at flipping burgers, and gets his 40-hours, but he has no other value to his employer than as a burger flipper.
So, Joe gets a girl pregnant, has the kid, and gets married. Now he can't survive and support his family on that burger-flipping minimum wage. He is still reliable, and comes to work as scheduled, but he is still just a burger-flipper, his work ethic, skill level, and value to his employer hasn't changed a bit.
By your logic, he now deserves more, because he can no longer just work 40 hours per week, afford the essentials his family needs to survive, and, also allow them a little extra comfort, (like a babysitter and a pizza and movie night).
So nothing changed for the employer except that now he is expected to pay Joe a higher wage for the same work.
Did I misinterpret your view?
And then to top it off, you admit to seeing the the fallacy of your argument, yet refuse to accept it:
"In states where the minimum wage is higher so is the cost of living which still leaves people in those states left in poverty when working full time."
Where does it end for you? You said raising the minimum wage didn't fix the problem, so what do you think will fix it, short of government mandated price and wage controls -- on everything needed to "survive" life?
Okay, so a full time minimum wage job should afford one person enough money to put a roof over their own head, feed themselves, and buy other necessities with a little for comfort. If Joe wants to have more or a wife or a child then he will have to save his comfort money until he is able to afford school or training or gas to get to a better position. Maybe what needs to happen is everybody who believes minimum wage is too low stop buying things they don't need to survive as a strike against unfair wages. So here's a scenario for you...let's say Joe and millions of others like him make 45000 per year, getting along great but they're all up to their eyeballs in credit card debt, trade wars make prices soar, they can no longer afford to pay their bills and buy groceries, it's not their fault; not really, somewhat seeing that they chose to use credit to pay for their items, but they never expected prices to increase so much, they claim bankruptcy, Nice, now all their items they got for free (handouts, you might say), most of these items add up to more than many poor people get in financial assistance in a lifetime but who ends up paying for these bankruptcies? The consumers, the tax payers, even poor people and other people who didn't claim bankruptcy but are still obliged to contribute to higher prices on products, services, insurance, etc. etc. etc. Poor people aren't the only people who need a help up when their legs have been knocked out from under them.
"... so a full time minimum wage job should afford one person enough money to put a roof over their own head, feed themselves, and buy other necessities with a little for comfort. "
That is what you think a minimum wage job should do HoneyBB. That is not what I think it should do, and I do not think the legislators that passed the bill thought that was its purpose either.
And your expansion of the "Joe" hypothetical is not valid to the point. $45,000 is not a minimum wage earning, credit card debt is a personal choice, and yes, a minimum wage earner should not be buying things they don't need.
And then; "...it's not their fault ...," "... they never expected prices to increase...," well, yes, it is their fault. All your instances are just the realities of life. Perhaps their inability to cope with life's harsh demands is why they are minimum wage earners.
Remember, the government's money really comes from your pocket ... and mine. So you subsidize Joe, I don't want to.
My Joe scenario was not intended to reflect a minimum wage earner. It was to reflect a middle income earner and I should have expanded it to include people of higher incomes who also claim bankruptcy. Yes, of course, it's their fault for getting credit in the first place. My thing was to show that many people who think poor people shouldn't get help when they're in a bind have no problem with middle income or higher income people being bailed out when they get themselves in a bind because of unforeseen circumstances which happens in both cases. It doesn't matter if you want to help Joe you have to just as we all end up helping everyone else who are not poor.
That makes sense HoneyBB. But, you changed direction on me, and, you switched tracks too. Contrary to my disagreement with just about everything you have said about the minimum wage, I am not against helping people - poor or otherwise, when they need and deserve it. And in most circumstances, I would offer that help as more than just a one-time lift.
However, I view my responsibility as a helping hand up, not as a crutch for the duration. Or, as a shield from consequences.
You don't help people by supporting them, you help them by providing support to avenues of access to the opportunity to do it on their own.
Thank you, GA
You know what? I don't know that I am for the Earned Income Tax credit as it is the most blatant example of wealth redistribution and give conservatives something to gripe about. But, whether we like it or not there already is a certain amount of socialism that is a part of the economy. Who is going to deny Medicare, social security or federal pensions to military and civilian retirees, VA benefits, etc. Can one can show me a populous society without some of it as a necessity? But, I have heard that India is becoming a dog eat dog economic environment.
OK, as a "sort of conservative" can you tell me why when virtually every nation, developed or developing, has a provision for minimum wage for its citizens? Why do conservatives believe that we can operate without one? What is it that the rest of the world has discovered that they miss, or claim to know. Is "human nature" in America different then that found in Zimbabwe?
"Who is going to deny Medicare, social security or federal pensions to military and civilian retirees, VA benefits, etc. "
You mean the things that we have purchased over time, now available at the designated period in our lives? Those things?
Perhaps, but Listening to you sometimes I think that you would prefer the barbaric period of early 20th century when capitalism had no leash at all and when none of these programs were available.
Well, I will say that had I been allowed to invest my and my employers contributions to FICA I would be a multimillionaire now instead of a near pauper by simply putting it into a mutual fund emulating the S&P. I would also have many times what I'm allowed to draw from SS and medicare after congress abdicated their fiduciary duties to protect my fund.
But I DO agree that forced retirement savings, even with congress raiding the funds, is necessary. It does not seem that the average American is smart enough to do it without being forced.
Meanwhile, Canada just gave their retirees a 1700 dollar a year raise...
So, you are THATgood, huh. You could have anticipated all the pitfalls within the last 40 years got in and out of markets with perfect timing and all that when the experts got caught with their pants down? Isn't that what they all say in hindsight?
I don't think that the average person in reality could save enough to survive over ever increasing life spans. With the entire finance industry being corrupt, the average family would require someone with an MBA to sort through it all or better yet a crystal ball.
If you were that good you would have figured out how to be at the golf course every day rather than just being able to subsist on SS. So why couldn't you have set yourself up, if you are THAT good?
You are right Cred, there are many aspects of socialism in our U.S. society. And I do view many of them as beneficial, and, necessary, (due to that 'human nature' thing that is undeniable), but, Medicare is the only thing on your list that I would agree is a socialist concept. We pay into, or earn the others you mentioned.
I would say, from my view, as a sort-of Conservative, the determinant is the degree of socialism that is acceptable to what I view as the American ideal. Your comment about the Earned Income Tax Credit indicates you view it the same way. We just differ on degrees.
Regarding your minimum wage and developing nations thought; without investigating, (but assuming the point you might be intending to make), I would say that they have it for the same reason we do - as a floor of protection against the vanities of human nature -- that is not a U.S. monopoly -- but their choice of numbers is an indicator of their perspective regarding socialistic policies.
Would you want to consider our culture vs. Albania or Croatia as comparisons of minimum wage perspectives?
gA, I understand the principle of the floor but when Wilderness and I discussed this before, he seemed to indicate thaT NO minimum wage should be in effect ,and let the "market" rule everything. Is that what the REDs want or are your taking a more modified view because you are purple?
So why do true conservatives think we can do without a minimum wage when the rest of the planet say otherwise?
Are the American conservatives that much smarter than every nation and their experience over the entire world?
BTW, the American ideal can be a pretty relative and subjective yardstick, it depends on what your idea of the ideal is.
Ha! Now how the hell can I answer that? I am certain what we view as a "true conservative" is different.
To me it is sort-of me. But my thoughts are that what you would call a true conservative - I would call a Right-winger. A member of a fringe.
I think what you really mean is not the label, but the interpretation of purpose. I don't think my "purple" has anything to do with it. You mentioned Wilderness, who I think you view as the reddest of Reds, yet even he admits the necessity of a minimum wage. But like myself, he disagrees with your, (that's a specific and generic "you"), perception of its purpose.
However, I do agree with you that the "American Ideal" is a very subjective yardstick.
HoneyyBB: Isn't it astonishing that so called conservative republicans like Sean Hammity go absolutely insane when a person who may be in poverty, or in a very difficult financial situation has the audacity to collect unemployment or financial assistance while on the other hand, they have no problem passing a corporate welfare tax cut scheme as they recently did, that gives walmart and apple computer who are already hoarding billions of our wealth in foreign lands, even MORE of our money to pack up and ship out of the country:UNREAL:
Are you ignoring the number of people that must share in that cost? Mega corporations have mega owners...owners that all want a reasonable return for their investment. Reduce that return to a few pennies per $100 invested and all investment will dry up very quickly.
Reasonable? If they weren't taking an unreasonable return on their investment they would have no problem paying their employees a reasonable income.
What makes you say that? Have you thoroughly investigated the earnings, and distribution of those earnings, of any major corporation? Or have you examined the ROI in the Wall Street Journal for buying various company stocks?
I assure you - those earnings are not nearly what you think they are, not per share of stock. Example - when the cries went out for WalMart to double their wages I DID look into it. Their entire profit margin couldn't do it - every penny they earned could not come even close to doubling wages for WalMart employees. It's easy to look at the huge numbers and completely forget that there are also huge numbers of employees and huge numbers of owners involved.
And of course that doesn't begin to address what a "reasonable" wage is.
I agree to disagree. This conversation is hopeless.
ABSOLUTELY Hopeless HoneyBB: If you continue this conversation, you might wanna show wilderness and anyone else who's interested in the frighteningly corrupt facts the following link: The republican's despicable version of 'capitalism'
I guess walmart and all other criminally greedy Wall Street Corporations can't seem to find the money to pay their workers a livable wage and benefits, nor can we provide all Americans with adequate healthcare, but they can sure cough up trillions in hard cold cash to ship over seas for foreign benefit:
Walmart alone is stashing roughly 100 BILLION in foreign countries and guess what? Mr. Trump and his republican accomplices just gave them even MORE of our money to stash over seas by enacting their corporate welfare tax cut scheme: UNREAL :
viva the republican version of capitalism !!
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017 … s-profits/
Has it occurred to you that if you and those like you wouldn't tax those earnings far beyond anything reasonable that it might be in the country already? Only a fool thinks he can take what others have earned and never have any consequences for doing so. The tax code is killing the golden goose, and the eggs are going with it.
Isn't that what corporations are doing "taking what others have earned"? Just because people aren't paid properly, doesn't mean they haven't earned it. Perhaps corporations should have to pay backpay to all the people they have been underpaying throughout time.
Following the dictates of a freely entered into contract is not "taking what others have earned". People earn what their contract with an employer agrees to pay - not some other figure they or you would like them to have.
This is a really simple concept - how it ever became "corporations own more than the worker agreed to accept" I do not understand. Greed is obvious, of course, but that certainly does not translate into owing what was never agreed to, either morally or legally, goes beyond simple greed.
Thousands of contracts all over the country on a daily basis are rendered INVALID and or void by our courts: Just because a contract is signed by a worker who may be in desperate need of monetary resources, doesn't necessarily mean the agreement is fair and equitable: Millions of hard working Americans will do whatever it takes to keep their families out of poverty or worse and many greedy Wall Street companies are more than willing to take advantage of said individuals dire financial situation by underpaying them:
Meanwhile, while millions of Americans are underpaid and over worked, greedy companies like walmart and apple stash billions of our wealth offshore for the benefit of foreign lands: DISGRACEFUL and Illegal: $15.00 minimum wage is a good start and that would still be selling a worker short regardless of the type of job:
Orange Bozo Trump continues his assault on American Workers: This yellow draft dodger wouldn't know what a real job was if it smacked him: But don't worry, his last remaining fans seem to love his perverted incessant abuse even though it destroys their own families:
"Largest federal employees union sues Trump over ‘official time’ rollback"
"The largest union representing federal workers took the Trump administration to court Thursday to block a new executive order that severely restricts the time employees may spend on union activity, claiming the president’s action violates the First Amendment and oversteps his constitutional authority.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District by the American Federation of Government Employees ratchets up labor-management tensions that have simmered at federal agencies since President Trump took office.
“This president seems to think he is above the law, and we are not going to stand by while he tries to shred workers’ rights,” J. David Cox Sr., national president of the AFGE, said in a statement announcing the lawsuit"
*shrug* If you don't like the wages being offered, don't sell your labor to them. It's really that simple. That you think you have the right to dictate what a company pays, for anything at all, doesn't make it so.
Yep, Trump is being sued. Again. Want to bet that that union does not have the right to do whatever they're complaining about?
Problem is , Joe Burger Flipper isn't going to happy with $28 per hour for flipping $24.00 dollar burgers at Burger Bing , Joe wants to raise alpacas on a five thousand acre ranch in Wyoming. Yet Joe doesn't have a five thousand acre ranch anywhere , so guess what , Why can't joe make $65.00 an hour ?
Ir's absolute unAmerican , it's absolutely anti-capitalism AND capitalism pays the way for the failures of socialism all over the world today , why do you think everyone has their tentacles deep into the US economic system to begin with , why do you think people are breaking through our borders to attain the American dream ? Its the only successful and free economics in the world ,
I am not surprised people can justify $50 per hour in their heads , it fits right in with growing up never having been told NO by mommy and daddy for anything , from your toy box of unused toys in the corner , to the bicycle you never used , your first new car at sixteen ,the free college degree you never used , free health care for botox treatments ......................We are surrounded by the Gimme Generation .
Instead of trying to turn the working man and woman into villains like fox fake channel and Bozo Trump do almost every day, why don't you do the patriotic American thing and demand filthy rich greedy companies like these bring our money home? Perhaps a boycott might do the trick:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017 … s-profits/
Unlike too many today I was born of the very poor working class , I ate poverty for breakfast , swallowed working class for lunch , shared government surplus canned beef and instant potatoes for dinner once or twice a month , the rest of the month we had clean plates and empty bowls , puffed government rice cereal in two flavors ,baking powder biscuits and milk gravy for many a meal--------
We never once begged the rest of society for free anything , if we didn't eat it out of our own garden we went without . if we didn't actually share our poverty with our friends or neighbors without asking anything in return , it would be the only time we were looked down upon . When my parents lost their jobs they looked for other jobs and didn't ask how much an hour they would make or demand a "minimum guaranteed income ", they were just happy to be working again .
The problem with you and many many here today is that you DIDN'T once learn the lesson of real poverty , you didn't ever go to bed hungry for nights on end , or go without a job involuntarily for so long that simply HAVING a job was like heaven itself . You belong to a couple of generations so spoiled and entitled that to you hunger is a midnight without strawberries and ice cream with fresh berries because you're collectively to lazy to go find it .
".......Turning the working man into villains ........" Is the job of pseudo- socialist's like our spoiled democrats HERE today who wouldn't know an entire days work from a freight train standing in their back yards .
Want to know what's REALLY wrong with America today ? Start by going out and getting a job , contribute to the betterment of people around you , join a church group , stop demanding entitlements from those AROUND you and see what you can do FOR someone else , I know that's a tough thing to do and when you fail the first time , try it again and when that fails ..........Keep trying , Just stop the incessant whining like babies looking for a pacifier or socialist offspring looking for a free meal.
Pseudo socialists as shown here today ,make "working class people" want to vomit .
Are you done??? Or, have you rushed off to file your 4th bankruptcy like your president?
What has fully attained true bankruptcy : Is all of the false moral meaning behind the causes of the left ; The lessons learned living true poverty are never forgotten , unlike the appeasement of your parties spread to multi-entitlements , you too quickly forget the lessons of each one on your mass migrations to the next !
Did you ever think that liberals aren’t just people “looking for handouts”? I have a job, my husband has a job, I work AT LEAST 40 hours a week and we never, ever get any handouts from the government or anyone else. But I don’t see anything wrong with helping people who need it. I’m not interested in sitting here and berating them for laziness or entitlement when I don’t know that’s the case - and honestly, I doubt it is for most people.
My mom grew up in the way you’re talking about, and she too is a liberal. So don’t pretend like you’re privy to some special circumstance that liberals never experience. Claim your own shit and stop trying to spread it all over everyone else.
It is the party of the left that grows up entitled and demands more than any others around them , the point is your party demands more than can ever be afforded , Period .
"Claim you own ......."Really ? Answer ; Buy You're own and stop begging from those who earned it .
Mhmm, all these left voters/left leaners whose household income is over $150,000 are definitely entitled and begging for handouts from people who actually earned their money. Because I’m sure they all just accidentally fell into their money and don’t work hard for it at all. Couldn’t possibly be that people are liberal for any other reason than demanding free stuff that they didn’t work for!
So, someone like Trump really understands your pain?
People work hard or they don't. It doesn't matter whether they are Dems, Liberals, Republicans, Conservatives, or anything else. Some Republicans like to lump the lazy people who want handouts in with Dems and Liberals when those people don't even associate with any party. Just because Dems and Liberals work to help people doesn't mean they don't work hard. Most of the ones I know work harder than anyone I know. My father, a Democrat literally never took a day off work until he was so sick he had to be hospitalized and he died not long after. He would never dream of accepting free stuff. I'm sick of people insulting him..
It sure isn't young conservatives demanding free higher education , free minimum income , costless health care , pre-pre school day care , child-care facilities at work , open borders that cost our taxpayers for all of the above beginning with welfare and ending in incredible costs to law enforcement , housing , child-birthing , ............
It's those seeking Bernie's dreamscape socialism . The alt left that stole your party , that drives democratic party platforms for the last ten years .
You're so worried about poor people getting free stuff. Why don't you look at your own Republican Conservative president who has filed bankruptcy atleast four times. Think of all the free stuff he got that tax payers/consumers are paying for. I'm sure it could have paid for most of the welfare you fight against.
Oh stop it , The left today is SO FAR from being the poor who demand free stuff it isn't even funny ! Mommy and daddy never said no so why should the government ?
I notice you didn’t say anything about the fact that people from higher income brackets are just as likely to lean left as they do right. What’s your theory?
There are several kinds of the affluent Aime , entrepreneurial rich and systematic rich , old money or academia rich ,...............Why do you suppose that as people age and mature they become more conservative ?
Because intellectual curiosity decreases with age, probably.
Wisdom , maturity , experience , all-knowing ..........don't fight it Aime ,no matter how much they tell you to , your party worries , they own you for such a short time .
Just as there are several kinds of affluent, there are several kinds of conservatives and several kinds of old people. You don’t just get to assume everyone you disagree with possesses negative attributes and everyone you agree with possesses positive ones. That isn’t how the world works. Someone with your wisdom, maturity, experience, etc. should know that...
So my leftist party friends , If the voice of the left involves such great amounts of moderation , such resolve then where is this middle left voice speaking to political moderation ? Where is the call to stop the rhetoric , the riots , the violence ? If there is a middle , reasonable , non-violent left where is it's voice ?
Simply put , You allow the incredible amount of politically inspired and violent activism then you each own a part of it , In public right now anarchy has been sliding into action for two years because of a red hat , because someone "spots " a member of an administration , a political sign on a lawn , or this ;
I am reminded of another time in history where a piece of clothing inspired such social / cultural violence ;
Who are the real fascists ?
Have you ever seen the violence that Trump inspires his own supporters to erect? Check out his rallies on youtube. And, he's the president instigating the violence.
This is what a mentally unstable, violent serial liar looks like when he opens his mouth: Is anyone really surprised that this same 72 year old is inhumanely caging innocent children by the thousands right here in what was once the USA? Destroying their lives permanently and with impunity and no, abusing children doesn't make him strong and tough it actually makes him weak, small and cowardly just like the draft dodger he is and of course it makes him a criminal who needs to go straight to prison:
And so what about Bill Clinton , Janet Reno , who began this , Obama who continued it , What about your party's collective silence THEN ?
By the way ,You Selective Moral Outrage Slip is showing !
Boring, redundant false comparisons as usual but I guess that's all you can do in desperation: Mr. Trump is an evil, mentally unstable weird old man doing everything within his powers to destroy our economy, American jobs and the USA and that's a documented fact and his practice of caging innocent children just because their parents are fleeing dangerous situations and are coming here in an attempt to ENHANCE our economy is reminiscent of Nazi Germany, just one of many reasons why the overwhelming majority of Americans hate him while white nationalists like weirdo Steve Bannon and David Duke adore him:
Jake , There's not an ounce of desperation at this point on this side of the aisle , you're dreaming again .
You or your entire group wouldn't know anything about Nazi germany if it bit you in the ashes , If detaining kids away from their illegal traffickers is what America always does , that's fine with us .
If undocumented 'traffickers' are trafficking something illegal across the border, such as drugs etc, then detaining them until the crime can be defined and punished is fine with us progressives as well, most use aircraft and ships to deliver illegal substances now anyway, but it's a fact children typically do NOT accompany this type of criminal, the children are coming with parents who wish to pick your fruit and vegetables, wash your cars, mow your lawns and clean your hotel rooms to keep inflation in check, they perform all the jobs Mr. Trump's lazy Anti-American white nationalist pals refuse to do and these children are being captured and abused by the cowardly moron in the white house and that's a crime against humanity for which he will soon be judged and severely penalized for:
Here's what's happening in secret meetings all over the country: It's Despicable and WW2 veterans are outraged:
It’s in pretty poor taste to use that comparison to fuel your hysterics but I’m not at all surprised.
Do you think that you’re helping the division in your country by obsessively discounting and disparaging liberals? You can’t demand accountability from everyone else but not yourself.
If America and ICE ALWAYS takes kids away from the illegal trafficking of rapists , drug pushers ,the most violent gangs known to mankind and parents who abuse ALL these kids ; Then more power to ICE !
Sorry ahorseback, but in reality that's not what iCE has been unlawfully ordered to do: They are detaining, separating and caging innocent children taken from parents who are coming here to work, work very hard by the way: Many within ICE will be held accountable:
Drug dealers, gang members and every other type of criminal can afford to take a private plane or boat to the USA, the criminals typically don't lay down a blanket or two accompanied by a few kids next to a border office waiting to be accepted for asylum consideration, they're dumb but I don't think they're that dumb: Criminals are not climbing a fence to get here either, that's just another of Mr. Trump's plethora of lies:
Ah...here is Jake, the guy who refuses to use words correctly. Tell us oh Hippy poobah, what is UNLAWFULLY being done by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement?
Oh never mind. We both know you don't have any clue at all what you are saying. You just say things. It matters not to you whether a word is used correctly, or if anything at all you say is true.
Well Wesman, I guess when the facts are against you, desperately resort to personal attacks right?
If you actually believe major drug lords and gang members are dumb enough to simply stroll across the border and cross miles of desert or camp out at a border patrol office with a few children seeking asylum I've got some fake Trump University diplomas to sell ya:
Yes, I'm sure a few are dumb enough but the vast majority either fly into the USA or sail here circumventing the border so I hope dopey Trump extends his useless pile of concrete out to the Pacific Ocean a few thousand miles to stop them:
News Flash: Mr. Trump is a mentally disturbed, angry little serial liar with total disregard for the truth and his bogus claim that most border crossings from Mexico are criminals is retarded and he knows it, but when will his last remaining fans realize he's conning them again?
You didn't show any law ICE has broken. We know why. It's because you talk out of your backside quite often here.
If you believe someone pointing out your continuous nonsense is a personal attack, then you are willing to live your own lies. It isn't a surprise on this end.
Sorry Wesman, I know the truth can be frustrating, but seriously, more personal attacks? Weakling Mr. Trump and his accomplices are committing nothing less than another crime against humanity by destroying the mental well being of innocent children and parents, and that's a fact: This despicable action doesn't make him strong and tough it actually makes him weak and cowardly like the draft dodger he is:
I have confidence that Bozo Trump and his cowardly accomplices will be judged harshly and immediately dispatched to the pit of hell by the forces of GOOD when the time comes
"A Federal Judge Orders the Trump Administration to Reunite Migrant Children and Parents"
"Late Tuesday night, a federal judge ordered the federal government to reunite migrant parents with the children they’ve been separated from in recent months. The injunction, delivered in a blistering 24-page order, holds within it a small glimmer of justice for the thousands of children who remain separated from their parents as public outcry over the Trump administration’s treatment of migrant families continues."
https://www.thenation.com/article/feder … n-parents/
Then Trump and his little fans whine, cry and complain when Peter Fonda calls him out on his atrocities? Seriously?
Isn't it also a personal attack to say ".......Bozo Trump ........, draft dodger..... , .....coward "? Kind of hypocritical there Jake .
I'm referring to an impostor president, not another member of HP: I think there's a distinct difference: But it's obvious I struck the truth, hence Wesman's personal attacks on me:
Try some truth for once , it will boost your popularity .
Jake speaks the truth. As for everything you have said I can't help but think of something my Dad would say when someone or something wasn't right … "Horseshit!"
Jake speaks lots of things , but truth ? Sorry ,no .
But keep reading his bias , you're learning , someday you'll make a great follower.
Jake pukes all over these forums with his blissfully stupid and never factual crap. He is an embarrassment to everyone who has been here for years, and values decent conversation.
Who voted you as spokesman for "everyone", Wesman? I don't remember getting a ballot with your name on it. Or did you simply self-appoint yourself? I'd wager it was the latter, am I correct?
What size clown shoes are you wearing, Spanky Godwin?
I didn't think you would answer the question, Toddy. Typical Spanky reaction when you don't want to answer the query. Are you still speaking for "everyone" ?
No doubt my clown shoes are smaller than yours.... See, this is how to answer a question!
Thanks for the good word HoneyBB & Randy: As always, I encourage anyone who visits these forums to go back and read my posts and they will discover fact based comments with harsh commentary directed at Mr. Trump who deserves nothing less:
I guess Wesman doesn't like the fact that I published an article which states a judge has rendered Mr. Trump's crimes against humanity at our border unlawful and has ordered him to re-unite ALL the children with their respected families forthwith within 30 days, and the clock is ticking on this deadline which he'll never meet:
Perhaps the truth is extremely hard to swallow for some, especially when they've become acclimated to nonsensical, dangerously absurd pathological lies spewing from their false idol's mouth, the old orange dude camped out in our oval office:
Got to hand it to ya ' Jake , you sure can speak out of both sides of your mouth , naked blasphemy out of one side and holy socialism out of the other , but hey it takes all kinds.
No problem, Jake. I feel sorry for those who are soon to be so disappointed in their idol. They base their "facts" on Hannity and Limbaugh, if you can imagine that.
You think I would actually read your articles? LOL. You're flattering yourself.
So you are saying a judge somewhere disagrees with the law Democrats passed in the Clinton Administration - but because you are vomitshine, you somehow wish for this to be something against the greatest POTUS of our lives?
Peter Fonda is trash. So is Jane. Complete trash.
You've still not managed to state what law you claim an actual law enforcement agency has broken. We both know this is because you are not intelligent enough to back up the vomit you type.
BY the way ; Have we heard ANYTHING about the party platform of the left , from the left here ??????
That's not only false but sickeningly typical of you Jake , While everyone knows full well your party's adoption of of Nazism as a rule to measure all by , the evidence; is In our streets .
by Susan Reid 6 years ago
Some really progressive, inclusive, rational ideas. Take a look!http://www.vice.com/read/the-silliest-m … -platform/
by phion 6 years ago
Taxpayers pay for $49,000 of the $89,000 dollars it cost to build a Chevy Volt. Sound like a good deal to you? That President Obama really wasn't joking when he said energy costs will have to sky-rocket was he? What a joke. See what happens when we rely on government?
by The General Conservative 2 years ago
Liberals: What more would Hillary have to do to lose your vote?
by Susan Reid 8 years ago
Set aside any preconceived notions or prejudices and read this platform for the ideas it contains.Does it make sense?What elements do you agree with? What elements do you disagree with? http://www.rpusa.info/platform.htm
by janesix 5 years ago
Due to Obamacare, I am now on Medicaid, along with thousands of other newly eligible adults in my state. For the last three or four years, the large pharmaceutical company that makes my medication had a program where they provide my meds for free (for people with very low income like I have). My...
by John Wilson 23 months ago
Clinton supporters - what would it take for you to NOT vote for the Hillary? To accept Trump?All the accusations about Trump that are now coming out, just weeks before the election. Not a coincidence. Even the mass media admits a bias against Trump and a love for Hillary. Doesn't it bother you ,...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|