And Zhawke, I also have a problem with your comment about employers...that they should be responsible for providing a "living wage" no matter what the job is. What is your definition of a "living wage"... isn't that subjective? Doesn't a man with a family of four require a much higher wage than a teen living with his parents or any single person for that matter? If you've ever been an employer with low skilled jobs, I'll bet your tune would be a bit different. This is really a topic for it's own thread but when I hear thins kind of utopian nonsense, I have to say something.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
ZHawke wrote: Ah yes, the old corporate welfare argument. It's not welfare, not even close but it sounds good when you are running for office and need a boogy man. A simple tax code would eliminate all that but then Dems would find other ways to attack anything BIG, except for government of course.
Ah, yes, the old Republican support for large corporations and the 1%. See how that can work? It doesn't matter what anyone, Republican or Democrat, calls it. It's still a giveaway that arguably is not needed in the form of tax cuts and subsidies. If a simple tax code would suffice, why haven't the Republicans brought one forward? Why have they gone, instead, after those on the lower rung of the ladder who are most in need. And, yes, we are talking about those entitlement programs so many on the right are so eager to eliminate.
As a former colleague of mine used to say, "Call it a frog. It doesn't matter. Still tastes like chicken."
Rick wrote: And Zhawke, I also have a problem with your comment about employers...that they should be responsible for providing a "living wage" no matter what the job is. What is your definition of a "living wage"... isn't that subjective? Doesn't a man with a family of four require a much higher wage than a teen living with his parents or any single person for that matter? If you've ever been an employer with low skilled jobs, I'll bet your tune would be a bit different. This is really a topic for it's own thread but when I hear thins kind of utopian nonsense, I have to say something.
If you look back at what I actually said a little more closely,
Also, when a low wage paying employer counsels their employees on how to apply for, and receive, public assistance instead of they, themselves, paying a viable living wage (and, no, I don't care whether it's flipping burgers or working at Walmart - it simply does not matter to me), they can also be included in the categorization of being "welfare queens" of a sort. But that's just me.
I do not believe I said "responsible for paying a living wage". I merely pointed out the verifiable fact that some low wage employers have counseled their employees on securing public assistance for themselves at your, and my, taxpayer expense. That, to me, isn't even close to what you allege. That being said, yes, a "living wage" is subjective. However, it's not insurmountable what with all the economic indicators and statistical data available to at least come close to what a living wage actually is. It probably even varies according to specific location.
Utopian nonsense? With all due respect, try to tell that to individuals who work two, sometimes three jobs just to make ends meet and even then cannot sometimes do so. And, please don't misinterpret what I'm trying to say. The vast majority of those on minimum wage jobs have been shown to be wanting, and willing, to work their way up the ladder provided. It's when the larger corporations do the kinds of things they do to take advantage of both their workers and you and me to increase their bottom lines that I have a problem.
