aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
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?
Having been an involuntary union member, I would agree with this to a point.aquapub said:1) Labor unions: Needlessly make American jobs unaffordable for companies to create, so they cut jobs or send them overseas.
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?aquapub said:2) Minimum wage increases: Pointlessly increase the cost of living for consumers by the same amount minimum wage was raised, every time.
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?aquapub said:3) Frivolous lawsuits: Drive jobs away from this country, cause huge medical crises, and send jobs overseas.
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.aquapub said:4) Over-taxing small business owners: 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.aquapub said:5) Unreasonable environmental regulation: Kills Jobs.
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.aquapub said:6) Tax hikes: Kill Jobs, slow economic growth on all fronts.
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...aquapub said: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?
ngdawg said: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?
Kandahar said: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.
Actually, right now I'm unemployed right now, so I guess that means I am earning $0 an hour-sucks big time.Kandahar said: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.
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.Kandahar said: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 said: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.
purplezen said:If not working for nothing is so bad, then why would anyone reject $3.00 dollars?
purplezen said:People can be desperate, desperate enough to take whatever they are offered because, INDEED, not working for nothing is worse.
purplezen said: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?
"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.
"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.
"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.
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
Revoke the citizenship of the treason lobby and we will be a nation of Republicans.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said: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?
cnredd said:[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]
galenrox said: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.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:Edit: Walmart actually wants to increase minimum wage. FYI
galenrox said:That sounds good to me
But what about fields with no union representation, or companies that refuse to deal with unions, such as Walmart?
galenrox said: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.
aquapub said: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?
Who REALLY Represents The Little Guy?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?