| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Good GAWD
On 10/25/14 8:49 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/25/2014 9:14 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 10/25/2014 7:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: We've had over 6 years of arrogant leadership. Do we need more? As time goes by I am convinced more and more that only those who are verifiable US citizens and who are 25 to 55 should be able to vote in any election in the USA. If you are under 25 you haven't really got a clue as to what is going on in the world and how it affects you and once you are over 55 all you want to do is make the rest of your life comfortable on someone else's back. As far as non-US citizens go I really don't care what they think, what they want or whether they are happy. I'd like to add to that, If you don't pay Federal income taxes, you should not be able to vote and say how the money is spent. FICA is a retirement and disability payment, it does NOT count. I will make some exceptions, military personnel, social security recipients, although not those that got it without paying into the system. Open to a few others. Mikek snerk The "moroncy" is strong in that one... -- This Halloween, I知 dressing up as a Republican to answer the doorbell. I値l give one rich white kid an entire bag of expensive imported chocolate and make the other 100 kids split a Tootsie Roll. |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good GAWD
|
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good GAWD
On 10/26/2014 9:51 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:51:03 -0500, amdx wrote: On 10/25/2014 8:54 PM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:49:18 -0500, amdx wrote: FICA is a retirement and disability payment, it does NOT count. Since 1968 FICA is just another income tax, intermingled with the other revenue in the budget. That may well be, but the fact is, it is a disability and retire fund. You pay into it and you get a check sent to you. It is not like an income tax where you pay in and people that don't pay in get a welfare check sent to them. Mikek I guess you never heard of SSI but the reality is that FICA has been "on budget" since 1968 and the government has spent the surplus for pretty much anything they wanted. Now it is a distinction without a difference since FICA does not even cover the checks they write. I understand that. It is the line that liberals use about taxes, when it is said that 47% don't pay income taxes, "Oh, but they pay payroll taxes" meaning FICA, that is for their disability and retirement program. It is not an income tax it is a disability and retirement program. Ok, nuff said, you look at it your way, I'll look at it my way. Mikek |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good GAWD
|
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good GAWD
On 10/25/14 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:25:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:34:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary in Boston on Friday: Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the minimum wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created. She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage bill was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to businesses by providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years. Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't* create jobs. Really? If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k 1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage. 2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as opponents of such raises like to claim. 3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of course, it doesn't. But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up.  I think the relevant point is it was a small incremental increase in the minimum wage, not the quantum leap folks like you advocate. That would cost minimum wage jobs. We already had the discussion in the fast food thread that it would not take much to cause fast food joints to cut their staff through automation. It may happen anyway, simply because of health care costs. That would ripple through the other jobs done by unskilled labor. If I was really worried about workers, I would be trying to figure out a way to create higher skill, higher paying jobs anyway, not simply trying to increase the cost of unskilled labor. Just what "quantum leap" in the minimum wage do you think I advocate? I had the impression you were a $10.75 guy At a minimum, and I wouldn't call that a quantum leap. -- This Halloween, I知 dressing up as a Republican to answer the doorbell. I値l give one rich white kid an entire bag of expensive imported chocolate and make the other 100 kids split a Tootsie Roll. |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good GAWD
On 10/25/14 5:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:34:58 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 12:19 PM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:25:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:34:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary in Boston on Friday: Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the minimum wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created. She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage bill was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to businesses by providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years. Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't* create jobs. Really? If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k 1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage. 2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as opponents of such raises like to claim. 3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of course, it doesn't. But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. I think the relevant point is it was a small incremental increase in the minimum wage, not the quantum leap folks like you advocate. That would cost minimum wage jobs. We already had the discussion in the fast food thread that it would not take much to cause fast food joints to cut their staff through automation. It may happen anyway, simply because of health care costs. That would ripple through the other jobs done by unskilled labor. If I was really worried about workers, I would be trying to figure out a way to create higher skill, higher paying jobs anyway, not simply trying to increase the cost of unskilled labor. Just what "quantum leap" in the minimum wage do you think I advocate? I had the impression you were a $10.75 guy At a minimum, and I wouldn't call that a quantum leap. 40% is not a leap? Considering how far behind the actual cost of living has climbed in the last few decades, no. Even at $10.75, it isn't a "living wage" in most urban areas. -- This Halloween, I知 dressing up as a Republican to answer the doorbell. I値l give one rich white kid an entire bag of expensive imported chocolate and make the other 100 kids split a Tootsie Roll. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good GAWD
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 5:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:34:58 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 12:19 PM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:25:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:34:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary in Boston on Friday: Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the minimum wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created. She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage bill was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to businesses by providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years. Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't* create jobs. Really? If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k 1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage. 2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as opponents of such raises like to claim. 3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of course, it doesn't. But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. I think the relevant point is it was a small incremental increase in the minimum wage, not the quantum leap folks like you advocate. That would cost minimum wage jobs. We already had the discussion in the fast food thread that it would not take much to cause fast food joints to cut their staff through automation. It may happen anyway, simply because of health care costs. That would ripple through the other jobs done by unskilled labor. If I was really worried about workers, I would be trying to figure out a way to create higher skill, higher paying jobs anyway, not simply trying to increase the cost of unskilled labor. Just what "quantum leap" in the minimum wage do you think I advocate? I had the impression you were a $10.75 guy At a minimum, and I wouldn't call that a quantum leap. 40% is not a leap? Considering how far behind the actual cost of living has climbed in the last few decades, no. Even at $10.75, it isn't a "living wage" in most urban areas. Who says minimum wage should be a living wage? |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good GAWD
On 10/25/2014 6:53 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 17:35:42 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:34:58 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 12:19 PM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:25:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:34:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary in Boston on Friday: Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the minimum wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created. She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage bill was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to businesses by providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years. Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't* create jobs. Really? If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k 1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage. 2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as opponents of such raises like to claim. 3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of course, it doesn't. But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. I think the relevant point is it was a small incremental increase in the minimum wage, not the quantum leap folks like you advocate. That would cost minimum wage jobs. We already had the discussion in the fast food thread that it would not take much to cause fast food joints to cut their staff through automation. It may happen anyway, simply because of health care costs. That would ripple through the other jobs done by unskilled labor. If I was really worried about workers, I would be trying to figure out a way to create higher skill, higher paying jobs anyway, not simply trying to increase the cost of unskilled labor. Just what "quantum leap" in the minimum wage do you think I advocate? I had the impression you were a $10.75 guy At a minimum, and I wouldn't call that a quantum leap. 40% is not a leap? Considering how far behind the actual cost of living has climbed in the last few decades, no. Even at $10.75, it isn't a "living wage" in most urban areas. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is pretty much exactly where it was during the Kennedy administration. Who ever said an entry level job (or less) was even supposed to be a living wage. I said it before and I will say it again, the problem is we do not have enough jobs that are productive enough to justify a living wage. The idea that we will elevate the most menial labor to career status simply by paying more for it is ludicrous. All you will do is eliminate those jobs or push them under the table. Harry's followup will be that the United States is the only developed country in the world that does not guaranty everyone a living wage. That's why immigration to the USA is at an all time high. |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good GAWD
On 10/25/2014 5:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:34:58 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 12:19 PM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:25:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:34:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary in Boston on Friday: Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the minimum wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created. She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage bill was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to businesses by providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years. Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't* create jobs. Really? If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k 1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage. 2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as opponents of such raises like to claim. 3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of course, it doesn't. But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. I think the relevant point is it was a small incremental increase in the minimum wage, not the quantum leap folks like you advocate. That would cost minimum wage jobs. We already had the discussion in the fast food thread that it would not take much to cause fast food joints to cut their staff through automation. It may happen anyway, simply because of health care costs. That would ripple through the other jobs done by unskilled labor. If I was really worried about workers, I would be trying to figure out a way to create higher skill, higher paying jobs anyway, not simply trying to increase the cost of unskilled labor. Just what "quantum leap" in the minimum wage do you think I advocate? I had the impression you were a $10.75 guy At a minimum, and I wouldn't call that a quantum leap. 40% is not a leap? That's a lot of new tax breaks for businesses and corporations. :-) |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Fer the Luv of Gawd!!!.... | ASA | |||
| gawd, pools walk towards short monoliths, unless they're good | ASA | |||
| gawd, it dines a pool too good with her humble stable | ASA | |||
| gawd, wrinkles clean below empty stations, unless they're good | ASA | |||
Hybrid Mode
