Who REALLY Represents The Little Guy? (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

Democrats say they represent the little guy, but everything they support seems to screw the little guy over. Election results over the past eight years or so seem to indicate that the little guy has figured this out too.

1) Labor unions: Needlessly make American jobs unaffordable for companies to create, so they cut jobs or send them overseas.

2) Minimum wage increases: Pointlessly increase the cost of living for consumers by the same amount minimum wage was raised, every time.

3) Frivolous lawsuits: Drive jobs away from this country, cause huge medical crises, and send jobs overseas.

4) Over-taxing small business owners: Kills Jobs.

5) Unreasonable environmental regulation: Kills Jobs.

6) Tax hikes: Kill Jobs, slow economic growth on all fronts.


Democrats scream that the poor are left behind and the rich get richer, but only when DEMOCRATS are in power do things get done that make it necessary for things to go that way.


Is it just me, or do Democrats seem to be the ENEMY of the little guy?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

As a rule, politicians represent the highest bidder. The Little Guy usually doesn't even make it to the running of this contest.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

1) Labor unions: Needlessly make American jobs unaffordable for companies to create, so they cut jobs or send them overseas.

So you supposed having none, or curtailing them?

2) Minimum wage increases: Pointlessly increase the cost of living for consumers by the same amount minimum wage was raised, every time.

By how much compared to the benefit?

3) Frivolous lawsuits: Drive jobs away from this country, cause huge medical crises, and send jobs overseas.

This is an awefully loaded term. What do you consider "frivolous?"

5) Unreasonable environmental regulation: Kills Jobs.

More nonsensical loaded terminology. What do you consider "unreasonable?" Libertarians consider all of it "unreasonable."

6) Tax hikes: Kill Jobs, slow economic growth on all fronts.

ANd what level fo taxes does your expertise in economics recomend?

Democrats scream that the poor are left behind and the rich get richer, but only when DEMOCRATS are in power do things get done that make it necessary for things to go that way.

Hmmmmmmmm. Yea....

Is it just me, or do Democrats seem to be the ENEMY of the little guy?

I guess ifyou come at it from a jaded partisan perspective, yes.

 

[ngdawg]

1) Labor unions: Needlessly make American jobs unaffordable for companies to create, so they cut jobs or send them overseas.

Having been an involuntary union member, I would agree with this to a point.
None of my union jobs were the highest paying I've had, but they do make demands of the employers. Teachers unions are probably the worst of the lot. With tenure, at least here in this state, all medical coverage, including dental is paid by the school districts, pensions are as well, driving up the costs of property taxes. The NJEA almost across the board always supports the Democratic Party and sends flyers ad nauseum for their members to do the same.

2) Minimum wage increases: Pointlessly increase the cost of living for consumers by the same amount minimum wage was raised, every time.

This is not something I agree with. $5.15 give or take is hardly a cost of living wage, but it is a guarantee that workers would not be taken advantage of, at least by the more law-abiding employers. Do you want to work for $3.00 an hour?

3) Frivolous lawsuits: Drive jobs away from this country, cause huge medical crises, and send jobs overseas.

What drives the companies out of here is not lawsuits. It's cheap labor. Period. Why pay a living wage in the US when you can pay someone $2 an hour or less for the same work?

4) Over-taxing small business owners: Kills Jobs.

This is probably true. Regulations, taxes, requirements of even a one-person operation are killers. Did you know you are supposed to withhold 39% of the money you own if you are self-employed so that your federal obligations are met? So for every $10 you charge, you are only making $6.10.

5) Unreasonable environmental regulation: Kills Jobs.

Again, I don't agree with this, in fact, it seems the bigger your company, the more immune you are to stringent environmental regulation adherence. There are some huge manufacturers that moved out of this state and left behind unusable land because of the disastrous mishandling of waste product.

6) Tax hikes: Kill Jobs, slow economic growth on all fronts.

Yes, especially for small new business. New ideas in technology, even technology to enhance environmental concerns, get so bogged down with regulation and taxation that it never sees the light of day. Case in point: A state of the art incinerator built in southern New Jersey several years ago, much to the praise of environmentalists, is today, not in use.

Democrats scream that the poor are left behind and the rich get richer, but only when DEMOCRATS are in power do things get done that make it necessary for things to go that way.


Is it just me, or do Democrats seem to be the ENEMY of the little guy?

As stated, there are no FRIENDS of the 'little guy'. Why? Because as daily workers living paycheck to paycheck, we can't give political parties the big $$$$ to be heard. Their promises, regardless of what 'side' they claim to be on, are sellable and only to the highest bidders....ain't us...

 

[Old and wise]

Nobody represents the little guy. The only way to get ahead in life is to represent yourself and fight like hell for what you believe in. The little guy can get ahead in life and get to be a big guy if he has the ambitition and brains to do it.

 

[Kandahar]

This is not something I agree with. $5.15 give or take is hardly a cost of living wage, but it is a guarantee that workers would not be taken advantage of, at least by the more law-abiding employers. Do you want to work for $3.00 an hour?

Do you want to NOT work for $0.00 an hour? That's a lot worse than working for what you consider to be a low wage. Minimum wage hikes drive up unemployment, because it prevents people whose labor isn't worth the minimum wage from finding a job at all.

It isn't an issue of whether you WANT to work for $3.00 an hour. The question is WILL you work for $3.00 an hour. If enough people will not, then the market wage is obviously higher than that and employers will have to pay employees more than that.

 

[purplezen]

Do you want to NOT work for $0.00 an hour? That's a lot worse than working for what you consider to be a low wage. Minimum wage hikes drive up unemployment, because it prevents people whose labor isn't worth the minimum wage from finding a job at all.

It isn't an issue of whether you WANT to work for $3.00 an hour. The question is WILL you work for $3.00 an hour. If enough people will not, then the market wage is obviously higher than that and employers will have to pay employees more than that.

Your two statement contradict eachother.

You say not working for nothing is worse than working for anything, but then you say if people turn down $3.00 the market wage is higher.

If not working for nothing is so bad, then why would anyone reject $3.00 dollars?

People can be desperate, desperate enough to take whatever they are offered because, INDEED, not working for nothing is worse.

Secondly, how do you justify companies that frequently pay minimum wage only to have government step in with "hand outs" to these employees who are not making enough to cover their costs of living?

 

[ngdawg]

Do you want to NOT work for $0.00 an hour? That's a lot worse than working for what you consider to be a low wage. Minimum wage hikes drive up unemployment, because it prevents people whose labor isn't worth the minimum wage from finding a job at all.

Actually, right now I'm unemployed right now, so I guess that means I am earning $0 an hour-sucks big time.

It isn't an issue of whether you WANT to work for $3.00 an hour. The question is WILL you work for $3.00 an hour. If enough people will not, then the market wage is obviously higher than that and employers will have to pay employees more than that.

Let's turn that around, contradictory as it is. Will you accept a $3.00 an hour wage and be able to live off it as you do now? Of course not, no one can. Hence, guidelines with a minimum in place to insure everyone gets at the very least, a fair starting chance.

 

[aquapub]

"1) Labor unions: Needlessly make American jobs unaffordable for companies to create, so they cut jobs or send them overseas." Aquapub


"So you supposed having none, or curtailing them?" Techno


On a TIGHT leash, but not eliminated.






"2) Minimum wage increases: Pointlessly increase the cost of living for consumers by the same amount minimum wage was raised, every time." Aquapub


"By how much compared to the benefit?" Techno

You move it up a dollar, Walmart increases its prices by the same amount required to make back the money. The little guy gets screwed.





"Frivolous lawsuits: Drive jobs away from this country, cause huge medical crises, and send jobs overseas. " Aquapub


"This is an awefully loaded term. What do you consider "frivolous?"' Techno

It's a generally well-understood term. Vaccine-makers don't make vaccines anymore because even when people sign waivers, if anything goes wrong, they still sue, and the government lets them win. Or, there is the popular, "burglar suing the victim because he cut himself on their knives" scenario. Suing fast food companies for lack of parenting and self-control. It goes on and on. You can't tell me you really need all this spelled out for you.




"5) Unreasonable environmental regulation: Kills Jobs." Aquapub


"More nonsensical loaded terminology. What do you consider "unreasonable?" Libertarians consider all of it "unreasonable."' Techno

Perfect example: Polychlorinated Biphenyls. The government has known for over a decade that they are harmless, but thanks to laws passed under liberal, Jimmy Carter, companies have to pay millions of dollars every year to "properly" dispose of them.





"Democrats scream that the poor are left behind and the rich get richer, but only when DEMOCRATS are in power do things get done that make it necessary for things to go that way." Aquapub


"Hmmmmmmmm. Yea...." Techno


Ding Ding Ding, we have a liberal. When presented with numerous undeniable examples of how Democrats actually screw over the little guy, only a liberal could disregard all the evidence and baselessly scoff at the common sense conclusion.

 

[purplezen]

Aqua,

Ding ding ding, we have liberal?

Don't you think there are better things to do than pidgeonholing people and then making up stupid crap about their political leanings as you perceive them?

 

[Kandahar]

Your two statement contradict eachother.

You say not working for nothing is worse than working for anything, but then you say if people turn down $3.00 the market wage is higher.

Not working at all isn't ALWAYS worse, but it tends to be for most people. If I come across a job paying $3 per hour and I think my labor is worth $7 per hour, I'll keep looking for a better job. If I can't find one at that wage, I'll have to either look harder or downgrade my standards.

If not working for nothing is so bad, then why would anyone reject $3.00 dollars?

Because they feel they can get a better job. For example, the minimum wage doesn't directly affect doctors in this country...but in its absence, how many hospitals offer doctors a wage of $5.15 per hour? They'd quickly find themselves unstaffed and out of business.

People can be desperate, desperate enough to take whatever they are offered because, INDEED, not working for nothing is worse.

Right. So why raise the number of people not working and earning nothing by instituting a minimum wage?

Secondly, how do you justify companies that frequently pay minimum wage only to have government step in with "hand outs" to these employees who are not making enough to cover their costs of living?

The companies are paying the employees the market wage (actually, MORE than the market wage since the government sets their wage artificially high). It would be bad business for them to pay employees significantly more than that, and they are under no obligation to do so. If both the employer and employee are in agreement on the terms of their contract, why should the government have the power to step in and declare it null and void?

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

"Frivolous lawsuits: Drive jobs away from this country, cause huge medical crises, and send jobs overseas. " Aquapub


"This is an awefully loaded term. What do you consider "frivolous?"' Techno

It's a generally well-understood term. Vaccine-makers don't make vaccines anymore because even when people sign waivers, if anything goes wrong, they still sue, and the government lets them win. Or, there is the popular, "burglar suing the victim because he cut himself on their knives" scenario. Suing fast food companies for lack of parenting and self-control. It goes on and on. You can't tell me you really need all this spelled out for you.

1. Foremost, vaccines aren't made? Then who makes them? THe vaccine faeire? We still get vaccines in this country. If something goes wrong, and it was due to negligence, the company ought to pay.

Futhermore, please show an example of a burglar suing someone and winning for falling on a knife. In fact, I have heard nothing of that sort. I have heard cases in which negligence was the factor that caudrf victory on behalf of the criminal. For example, if someone were to rob your home and trip in your driveway and land on a pile of rusty nails, you could, and should, be sued for negligence, since anyone could have come and fallen on that, regardless of whether or not someone was robbing you. The means by which someone gets injured due to your negligence does not detract from the negligence.

Furthermore, companies should not be selling food that makes people ill, lying to them, and then making off like a bandit. Do you really need negligence and consumer safety law spelled out to you?

"More nonsensical loaded terminology. What do you consider "unreasonable?" Libertarians consider all of it "unreasonable."' Techno

Perfect example: Polychlorinated Biphenyls. The government has known for over a decade that they are harmless, but thanks to laws passed under liberal, Jimmy Carter, companies have to pay millions of dollars every year to "properly" dispose of them.

Your a lying, mother-fukin' cockgoblin-retard. Where did you get your facts from? A cracker-jack box? Children these days.

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a mixture of individual chemicals which are no longer produced in the United States, but are still found in the environment. Health effects that have been associated with exposure to PCBs include acne-like skin conditions in adults and neurobehavioral and immunological changes in children. PCBs are known to cause cancer in animals.

Not only do they cause cancer in many animals, immuno-deficiency, as well as liver damage, they also are candidates for carcinogens in humans. THey also cause severe rashes and behavioral dysorders in young children. Keept your ill-educated trap shut before you speak.

Further, PCBs are taken up by small organisms and fish in water. They are also taken up by other animals that eat these aquatic animals as food. PCBs accumulate in fish and marine mammals, reaching levels that may be many thousands of times higher than in water. Animals that ate smaller amounts of PCBs in food over several weeks or months developed various kinds of health effects, including anemia; acne-like skin conditions; and liver, stomach, and thyroid gland injuries. Other effects of PCBs in animals include changes in the immune system, behavioral alterations, and impaired reproduction.

Further: The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has concluded that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens.

Women who were exposed to relatively high levels of PCBs in the workplace or ate large amounts of fish contaminated with PCBs had babies that weighed slightly less than babies from women who did not have these exposures. Babies born to women who ate PCB-contaminated fish also showed abnormal responses in tests of infant behavior. Some of these behaviors, such as problems with motor skills and a decrease in short-term memory, lasted for several years. Other studies suggest that the immune system was affected in children born to and nursed by mothers exposed to increased levels of PCBs.

Of course, reality has nothing to do with your moronic agenda, dumb-ass.

Source:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology
1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-32
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 1-888-42-ATSDR (1-888-422-8737)
FAX: (770)-488-4178
Email: ATSDRIC@cdc.gov





In fact, PCB's are quite pollutant. PCBs do not readily break down in the environment and thus may remain there for very long periods of time. PCBs can travel long distances in the air and be deposited in areas far away from where they were released. In water, a small amount of PCBs may remain dissolved, but most stick to organic particles and bottom sediments. PCBs also bind strongly to soil.

Show sources that say they're harmless. YOu made the point, now prove it. I am not going to take your word for it. What health department stated this?

"Hmmmmmmmm. Yea...." Techno


Ding Ding Ding, we have a liberal. When presented with numerous undeniable examples of how Democrats actually screw over the little guy, only a liberal could disregard all the evidence and baselessly scoff at the common sense conclusion.

Ding ding ding ad Hominem....your a moron. Common sense is also not logic. Learn the difference.

Not all Democrats are welfare recipients, criminals, and sleazy trial lawyers, but all welfare recipients, criminals and sleazy trial lawyers are Democrats.

There is a reason people start out liberal and grow up to be conservatives

Yes. As you age, you lose brain cells due to the biological process. Loss of braincells causes decreased mental capacity. No wonder most old people are "conservatives." =D Nice irrelevant ad hominem though.

Revoke the citizenship of the treason lobby and we will be a nation of Republicans.

Wank wank wank wank. Need a tissue for that jizz?

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Edit: Walmart actually wants to increase minimum wage. FYI

 

[George_Washington]

First off, this kind of language is totally uncalled for: "Your a lying, mother-fukin' cockgoblin-retard." I don't know if he's lying or not but we're not supposed to personally attack each other on here.

Increasing the national minimum wage isn't the answer because it wouldn't help workers very much and doesn't do a lot to actually help the workers. Several countries in the European Union, including the Scandinavian countries-do not have a statutory national minimum wage. They use collective agreements to regulate low pay and so far it has worked out pretty well as the Scandinavian countries have some of the highest standards of living for workers in the world. Even some of the European nations that do have a national minimum wage, the law is only applied to the private sector.
This is a good study which not only discusses the minimum wage laws of Europe but also talks about many European studies which have suggested that a national minimum wage doesn't do much for the workers and the economy:

http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2005/07/study/tn0507101s.html

"The national evidence seems to confirm that current minimum wages are not regarded as a major obstacle to employment in most of the countries analysed here. However, it is often argued - for example by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) - that, while available cross-country evidence suggests that statutory minimum wages, at the levels at which they are currently set in OECD countries, do not have major perverse effects on aggregate employment, a high statutory minimum wage undermines the employment prospects of disadvantaged groups: 'For these groups, the most effective solution in terms of employability would therefore be to lower the minimum wage."

I think this is true. So I think instead of having a national minimum wage, we should instead just have collective agreements between unions and management like they have in Sweden and Denmark. That website also says that two influential studies have been conducted in the Netherlands which suggest that there is really no benefit to raising the minimum wage.

Being a Republican, I tend to be more for the right of individuals over labor unions. But I don't oppose all unions; I just think we need less government unfluence and that we should leave collective bargaining between unions and the company.

As far as frivolous lawsuits go, YES, we definitely need to lower the number of lawsuits in this country. We are the most sue happy country in the world.

So to address the original topic of this thread: Yes, I feel the Democrats end up hurting the poor a lot rather than helping them. Not with all of their ideas but with a lot of them. Which is why I'm a Republican.

 

[cnredd]

Your a lying, mother-fukin' cockgoblin-retard. Where did you get your facts from? A cracker-jack box? Children these days.

Keept your ill-educated trap shut before you speak.

Of course, reality has nothing to do with your moronic agenda, dumb-ass.

Wank wank wank wank. Need a tissue for that jizz?

[Moderator mode]
:smash:

Technocratic_Utilitarian,

This is an official warning...

This line of of personal attacks will NOT be tolerated by the Moderator Team...

Cease & desist immediately or action will be taken...

[/Moderator mode]

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

[Moderator mode]
:smash:

Technocratic_Utilitarian,

This is an official warning...

This line of of personal attacks will NOT be tolerated by the Moderator Team...

Cease & desist immediately or action will be taken...

[/Moderator mode]

Namecalling is bad, yet outright lying is tolerated? That's an interesting style over substance. Where is the outrage against debate dishonestly and brickwalling? Don't lecture me when he's lying and making comments such as:

Not all Democrats are welfare recipients, criminals, and sleazy trial lawyers, but all welfare recipients, criminals and sleazy trial lawyers are Democrats.

There is a reason people start out liberal and grow up to be conservatives

and

Revoke the citizenship of the treason lobby and we will be a nation of Republicans.

Such moronic comments deserve the response I gave.

 

[George_Washington]

True, but I'm yet to hear a conservative solution to the problem about people who can't make a living wage. As misled as they are, at least the liberals are adressing the problem, instead of just pointing out flaws in the solutions.

Dude, I just gave a solution above. What do you think of just eliminating the minimum wage and relying on agreements between unions and management to set wages like they do in Denmark and Sweden?

 

[Comrade Brian]

Edit: Walmart actually wants to increase minimum wage. FYI

That's because most people have a NEGATIVE view of Wal-mart.

This is a part of some plan to improve their image.

They aren't doing it out of benevolence, but from necessity. As most other chains such as Target, K-mart, etc. have better public images.

 

[George_Washington]

That sounds good to me
But what about fields with no union representation, or companies that refuse to deal with unions, such as Walmart?

I don't know but from what I understand from that website, the Scandinavian countries seem to be doing fine without a minimum wage.

 

[Herophant]

Yeah, Scandanavian economics has always seemed really interesting to me, they tend to be more socialist and more capitalist than the rest of Europe, as odd as that might sound.
I think that's a good idea. I've been working on a theory about labor unions, but it's really incomplete so far, considering that I know about the equivilent of **** about economics in terms of things.

I’m no economist but I think you will find that labour unions have a much stronger tradition in Scandinavia. Therefore they have a lot more political power than their American counterparts. Fun think is they are also working against taxes sometimes. Like unions for truck drivers trying to limit gasoline tax.

Still keep in mind that Scandinavian countries have a totally different social system than the USA. The poverty indicators are based on average income. Not the minimum amount of cash needed to survive. Therefore the social benefits drive the prices for labour up. The minimum amount of benefits you can get – for a person who hasn’t worked for x amount of years and doesn’t suffer from illnesses – acts as a de facto minimum wage. Of course the lack of poverty increases the demand for goods.

 

[Canuck]

Democrats say they represent the little guy, but everything they support seems to screw the little guy over. Election results over the past eight years or so seem to indicate that the little guy has figured this out too.

1) Labor unions: Needlessly make American jobs unaffordable for companies to create, so they cut jobs or send them overseas.

2) Minimum wage increases: Pointlessly increase the cost of living for consumers by the same amount minimum wage was raised, every time.

3) Frivolous lawsuits: Drive jobs away from this country, cause huge medical crises, and send jobs overseas.

4) Over-taxing small business owners: Kills Jobs.

5) Unreasonable environmental regulation: Kills Jobs.

6) Tax hikes: Kill Jobs, slow economic growth on all fronts.


Democrats scream that the poor are left behind and the rich get richer, but only when DEMOCRATS are in power do things get done that make it necessary for things to go that way.


Is it just me, or do Democrats seem to be the ENEMY of the little guy?

Your bewildered because you are under the illusion that the Democrats and the republicans are different
both are run by America's Elite

If you want someone that will represent the little guy you need to vote
for a new party and a new system .Currently the system in place is biased towards the wealthy
you have to get the Elite backers to pay for the election or you are relegated as a nobody
like Ralph Nader is
He does not seek the elite backing so he hasn't got the money to mount an efective campaign
any party in order to mount an effective campaign needs litterally 100's of millions of dollars
it is out of whack with all sense of reality
Canada quickly put laws in place a system in order not to allow ballooning elections costs so that the common man can still have a chance
In America it is 1 billion $ to have an Election
and it has gotten so bad that you now employ electronic voting boxes that have no papper trail
it is a vile deception to think you have free and open elections in America
GAO says you are not running democratic elections
BUSH cheated his way into office Democrats stood by both times
2000 and 2004
because they are both from the same camp the elite pulls the strings of them both
Americans duped can only fumble in the dark and stagger from one
emergency alert to the next
you are fools that boast your freedom yet of the western world you are the least free
watch and learn what is coming
watch how you lose your remaining freedoms one by one

 

[Liberal Because I Care]

Who REALLY Represents The Little Guy?

Answer:

The Death of Compassionate Conservatism
by Jim Wallis of Sojourners www.sojo.net

Last week, I spoke with other religious leaders at a press conference in the U.S. Capitol, urging the House of Representatives to oppose cuts in social services in their budget bill. When it was over, we walked to the rotunda to offer a prayer for our nation and its leaders, that they would do the right thing for people in poverty. Suddenly, we were face to face with Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and took the opportunity to deliver our message directly to him. He listened politely, but offered little response.

The House is scheduled to begin debate tomorrow on its budget bill, which includes $54 billion in cuts. On the table are cuts of $9.5 billion in Medicaid - by requiring co-pays for pregnant women and children for the first time; $8 billion in foster care, child support enforcement, and aid to the disabled; and $844 million in the Food Stamps Program, which would prevent 300,000 people from receiving food stamps. Forty thousand children would be cut from reduced-price school lunches. Lawmakers intend to follow these with a further cut of $70 billion in taxes that will primarily benefit the top 3% of taxpayers. The message from Congress is that in response to Hurricane Katrina, we're going to cut services for the poor, cut taxes for the rich, and increase deficits for our children and grandchildren.

These plans for deep cuts to social supports, paid for by tax cuts for the wealthiest, are contrary to the national priorities we need to protect our most vulnerable citizens. We need strong moral leadership in Congress, especially during this time of war, record deficits, rising poverty and hunger, and natural disasters. Cutting food stamps and health care that meet the basic needs of poor families is an outrage. Cutting social services to pay for further tax cuts for the rich is a moral travesty that violates biblical priorities. The House leadership seems to be saying they literally want to take food from the mouths of children to make rich people richer. If this ideology and politics of rich over poor prevails and our leaders fail to govern from a set of moral values, then the religious community must conclude that compassionate conservatism is dead.

As this battle for the budget unfolds, I am calling on members of Congress, some of whom make much out of their faith, to start Bible studies before they cast votes to cut services that will further harm the weakest in our nation. They should focus on the gospel imperative - what Jesus tells us about our obligations to the "least of these." Some of them have heard the slogan "What would Jesus do?" Now they should ask, "What would Jesus cut?" Budgets are moral documents, and they reflect our national priorities and values. In the name of social conscience, fiscal responsibility, equal opportunity, protecting our communities, and the very idea of a common good, the upcoming budget votes will be closely watched by people of faith.