Smokey The Bear

Largest government budget in history, and this is during good times. Imagine what it would be if we actually had to invest in our economy to get things moving again. If you are against an increase in minimum wage you are also for bigger government. We are subsidizing every business in America through welfare for the working poor. On average every Walmart store is subsidized $750,000 in the form of payments to their workers who don't make enough money to eat. Your meme is fine, just realize what big government is and who is causing it.

By spending more and more on government programs you rack up the debt, increase the size of government, and many other things. Fast food jobs are low-paying because they require little skill, so by increasing the wage you encourage little skill and that isn't good things. And why would you be worried about a big government if you support one?

Welfare to the working poor, is a government program and is racking up debt. Are you reading what I wrote and arguing for what I said? It looks like you're arguing against me yet agree with what I said?

Fast food jobs are low-paying because a group of politicians thought they would do a good deed and started giving these people enough money to eat. That in turn, keeps wages down. It doesn't matter how low skilled a job is, if it doesn't pay enough to survive, it does not support the free market economy and requires a government handout and greater government. The government could wash it's hands of the whole mess by forcing businesses to pay a living wage, reduce government and return to a free market economy.

The right talks out of both sides of its mouth. There is no free market economy if half of minimum wage jobs are held by working family members and they cannot support themselves on what they make and require gov. assistance. Somehow to many on the right, forcing companies to pay people what they require to survive is worse than increasing the size of government through welfare for these working poor.

I'm arguing over your ideas of big government. "Fast food jobs are low-paying because a group of politicians thought they would do a good deed and started giving them enough money to eat. That in turn, keeps wages down" It's a good deed to the companies that were willing to hire workers in the first place. "It doesn't matter how low skilled a job is, if it doesn't pay enough to survive, it does not support the free market economy and requires a government handout and greater government." With all the money being made from each worker it could easily keep a free market business going. "The right talks out of both sides of its mouth. There is no free market economy if half of minimum wage jobs are held by working family members and they cannot support themselves on what they make and require gov. assistance." That depends on what you mean by the free market because Adam Smith's original idea of never came into play, yet he still had most of his ideas put into the modern US economy.

So..... you think a business is in business to do good deeds and give people low paying jobs? That's not what they are in business for. They will pay as little as possible to help the bottom line and hire as few employees as possible. How is your response, a response or rebuttal?

"With all the money being made from each worker it could easily keep a free market business going." What the hell is that supposed to mean in terms of, government assistance to the working poor?

Free market? Hey, it's the rights term and they are the ones who are so entrenched in the "Free Market Economy", like it's the savior of capitalism. I'm all for it but to think forcing wages higher so that wages better reflect the true cost of living for the individual who works that job, is somehow not forcing the free market to WORK, is a fallacy. This is the simplest and most true form of returning things back to the way they should be and keeping the gov out of it.

"So..... you think a business is in business to do good deeds and give people low paying jobs?" When did I hint at that? "What the hell is that supposed to mean in terms of, government assistance to the working poor?" The free market is set up in such a way that the government shouldn't interfere with it. "I'm all for it but to think forcing wages higher so that wages better reflect the true cost of living for the individual who works that job, is somehow not forcing the free market to WORK, is a fallacy." If for example you work at Mcdonalds you won't make much because it doesn't take much skill, but if you worked at a place like Microsoft you would get paid more because it takes skill to work at the place.

If somehow I lost my way to earn what I do, I would sit home on my ass before I'd work for $7.25 an hour. That won't pay for my car, my gas, my car insurance, my clothes, NOTHING.

How does $7.25hr relate to someone at Microsoft, making 200k? 500k? No shit they should make more but obviously, people need more than $7.25 an hour to survive.

Because most people who make $7.25 an hour manage to sustain themselves.

Bullshit!!!!!
88% are over age 20. 1/3 of all minimum wage workers are older than 40.
If you're 40, have one child, single, and make minimum wage, you qualify for gov assistance and would need it to survive.

And that's why welfare exist only to be used as a last resort.

You're talking in circles and not making any sense.

There is no way to get out of that poverty hole.

"you're talking in circles and not making any sense:" Give an example.

22vkx7.gif (click to show)
imgflip.com/gif/22vkx7

23fb81.jpg (click to show)
imgflip.com/i/23fb81

And liberals just want to waste money on any program that sounds nice. smh

You're not making any sense. You've been arguing with me that you think we need bigger government to support the working poor so that businesses don't have to pay them enough to eat.

I'm arguing against big government and constant government spending is an example of big government, so that's why I'm arguing against it.

And conservatives are doing what with the largest budget in history? As far as I can tell, they're causing trade wars with China, who in turn refuse to buy our soy beans, and then we have to borrow money from the Chinese in order to subsidize those farmers Trump screwed with his trade war bullshit.

Yeah, really fiscally responsible governance you got there.

And that's because they want to keep things in the US first. Now lets talk about free healthcare, free college, free everything, yet that is all to much and liberals want that.

Who said anything about free things?

I don't know anyone who thinks any of those things would be free.

I've paid healthcare premiums for over 30yrs and have been nearly healthcare free. I've done nothing but pay for others healthcare through my premiums. I have no problem with that. You don't think you're already paying for other peoples healthcare? You think anyone is turned away from the emergency room? People get free healthcare now, with our current system. A single payer system would better allow ALL members of society to help pay for it, not just those with premiums.

A good amount of DNC members want and believe in all those things. Now the problem with a single payer healthcare system is that it ignores the doctors right to make money.

I know a lot of DNC members and am one myself. I know of none who think those things are free.

How does it ignore the right of a doctor to make money? You do know doctors are not making a ton of money now don't you? It's the rest of the system that is bleeding America dry, not doctors. They are at the bottom of the system.

Moving to a single payer system would be the greatest boom to our economy of any change we could currently make. Half the people employed today would quit their jobs tomorrow and do one of two things. 1. They would find a job they care about or 2. they would start their own businesses. Americans are held hostage to companies for the healthcare packages. Without it, companies would need to drastically increase wages to keep people in jobs that suck. A single payer system would spur creativity in the American worker like nothing in the last 40yrs.

I said how they thought those things should be free. Doctors are the providers of the work and making it single payer would just encourage the doctors to leave the country in search of countries willing to pay them. Now it depends on what the doctors field is in because some doctors makes lots of money.

What the hell are you talking about?

What country are they going to go to? There isn't another 1st world nation on the planet without a single payer system!

Then doctors would just go out of work because they wouldn't be worth anything and instead the majority would go out and find a new similar field.

Why would they not be worth anything? How are they worth anything in virtually EVERY OTHER first world country on the planet that has a single payer system?

It is our current system that is completely unfair to our doctors. They make low 6 figures, spend mid 6 figures for their education, pay 6 figures in insurance costs, there is hardly any benefits to going into the field with our current system.

"Why would they not be worth anything? How are they worth anything in virtually EVERY OTHER first world country on the planet that has a single payer system?" The government would reduce their own self's to nothing more than a provider of free stuff. "It is our current system that is completely unfair to our doctors. They make low 6 figures, spend mid 6 figures for their education, pay 6 figures in insurance costs, there is hardly any benefits to going into the field with our current system." Yet it would still be more beneficial to the doctor.

You are impossible to understand. No need to quote what I said, just answer the freaking question already.

"The government would reduce their own self's to nothing more than a provider of free stuff". What the f**k is that supposed to mean?

"You are impossible to understand. No need to quote what I said, just answer the freaking question already.

"The government would reduce their own self's to nothing more than a provider of free stuff". What the f**k is that supposed to mean?" By making the government pay for healthcare you destroy the reason the payer existed in the first place.

Yup, still not making sense. You suffer from some kind of medical condition? So, the payer, would be.......... the person who needs healthcare?

"You suffer from some kind of medical condition? So, the payer, would be.......... the person who needs healthcare?" The payer is always the one who pays in a non-single payer society.

It speaks in code. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. (Yoda)