Bill Maher on minimum wage

[DEAD7]

You imply that people on welfare are lazy and dependent and won't work to get off it. When faced with the fact that 50% of people on welfare are kids, disabled and elderly (you know people who can't work), "I'm not talking about that."
[/quote]
First no one thinks everyone on welfare is taking advantage, and everyone knows most people on it are white... the facts are clear.

Your making the typical jump most liberals make. "Oh you dont want government doing ________, so you dont want _______ done at all derp derp" Its really too silly to take seriously.


Answer this do you think welfare has made blacks better off?

Oh I see, its about the "cost"... the one you can't seem to articulate.


"60 percent of SNAP entrants remain on the program for a year or less." And welfare recipency has risen 3% over the last 15 years, With the bulk of that increase directly correlating with the recession that started in 2009. And this is your response?LOL in other words. "I'm not interested in facts. I just want to demonize the poor by continuing to spout my false assumptions.

BTW
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/teen-birth-rate-hits-historic-low-officials-say-8C11086339[/quote]

I take it you are not a believer in hidden cost Fair enough, i'll leave that alone then. The "it doesnt exist if i cant see it" mind set is far to troublesome. You win.

No ones demonizing the poor... if anything its the rich being demonized... I'm demonizing the govt. taking from chris to pay paul.

 

[DEAD7]

OIC so because there are some people NOT making minimum wage then there should be no minimum wage?

You know what? At this point fuk it. Cancel minimum wage and welfare, social security (if so i want my money back) & medicaid, let's roll the dice and see what happens.

What do you think will happen?

The same thing that always happens, we make do.

The south thought it would die without slave labor, and they were as adamant as you are...

I will concede that you cant just stop welfare. Its has to be done slowly, and the economy needs to be repaired before thats even begun.

 

[DEAD7]

The general sentiment i'm getting from the thread(towards wal-mart) is you guys would rather "the poor" have to pay more at a mom and pop store, than less at wal-mart.

Is this about right?

 

[Brown_Pride]

The same thing that always happens, we make do.

The south thought it would die without slave labor, and they were as adamant as you are...

I will concede that you cant just stop welfare. Its has to be done slowly, and the economy needs to be repaired before thats even begun.

yet you can't "make do" with welfare?

At the end of the day you're stance is basically "Let them eat cake"

last time someone said that it didn't fair to well for them. As with the government shut down i'm for it so maybe it'll wake some people up. Just watch out, history has shown time and again that when things go POP, the 1% is typically the first to go.

So at the end of the day here's what I gather:
You: "Do away with welfare, we'll make do"
Me: "Keep welfare, we'll make do"

 

[Brown_Pride]

The general sentiment i'm getting from the thread(towards wal-mart) is you guys would rather "the poor" have to pay more at a mom and pop store, than less at wal-mart.

Is this about right?

no the general sentiment is that walmart should stop slowly moving into the role of "the company store" and pay their employees a wage reflective of the overall prosperity of the company. . . . That's generally what I think at least.

 

[ghostwriterx]

First no one thinks everyone on welfare is taking advantage, and everyone knows most people on it are white... the facts are clear.

Your making the typical jump most liberals make. "Oh you dont want government doing ________, so you dont want _______ done at all derp derp" Its really to silly to take seriously.

Quote me where I said that.

You've been very clear in this thread that you believe a huge problem with welfare is that it breeds dependency and those who are on it are not "ambitious" enough to get off of it. This is simply not borne out by the facts. That's what I've been responding too.

Answer this do you think welfare has made blacks better off?

I have no idea where this is coming from? Welfare in this country was designed to be a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times and its done a credible job of that. The economic and social conditions which contribute to many minorities needing assistance have not improved, but that is not a failing of welfare. Welfare is a symptom of larger systemic issues, its not the cause of the condition its how we try and treat it.

You think reducing welfare for those who need it would leave blacks better off?

I take it you are not a believer in hidden cost Fair enough, i'll leave that alone then. The "it doesnt exist if i cant see it" mind set is far to troublesome. You win.

No ones demonizing the poor... if anything its the rich being demonized... I'm demonizing the govt. taking from chris to pay paul.

I'm honestly trying to understand what you believe these hidden costs are as I don't think you've been very clear, other than the talking points you've pushed which are not supported by the facts.

 

[DEAD7]

So at the end of the day here's what I gather:
You: "Do away with welfare, we'll make do"
Me: "Keep welfare, we'll make do"

Sounds about right.

 

[DEAD7]

no the general sentiment is that walmart should stop slowly moving into the role of "the company store" and pay their employees a wage reflective of the overall prosperity of the company. . . . That's generally what I think at least.

You realize its the consumers who decide this, yes? Not wal-mart...

 

[Brown_Pride]

Sounds about right.

My version has shown that america will prosper AND no one starves.
Why then are you so salty?

You realize its the consumers who decide this, yes? Not wal-mart...

I shop at Walmart and i'm pretty sure I didn't get a say in this, rest assured the CEO of walmart would not be making quite so much and there'd be less "part time" employees.

I'll also say, you realize it's the country who decided we should have welfare.

 

[DEAD7]

Quote me where I said that.

You've been very clear in this thread that you believe a huge problem with welfare is that it breeds dependency and those who are on it are not "ambitious" enough to get off of it. This is simply not borne out by the facts. That's what I've been responding too
I'm honestly trying to understand what you believe these hidden costs are as I don't think you've been very clear, other than the talking points you've pushed which are not supported by the facts.

No one is dumb enough(no one here at least) to just say it. Its implied.

and your thinking of dependency the wrong way(in this instance). let me try saying it a different way.
More people are willingly to jump if there's a net.

Remove the net less people jump.
You cant possibly need a graph to show you that...

"You think reducing welfare for those who need it would leave blacks better off?" Short term, no. Long term, yes.

 

[DEAD7]

I shop at Walmart and i'm pretty sure I didn't get a say in this, rest assured the CEO of walmart would not be making quite so much and there'd be less "part time" employees.

I'll also say, you realize it's the country who decided we should have welfare.

I'm sure you did.

Let me stop you here, dont go down this path. Cause youre wrong, and your gonna sound crazy.



My version has shown that america will prosper AND no one starves.
Why then are you so salty?
Some one always starves...
and people are salty over the redistribution of something that was never distributed in the first place... go figure that.

 

[ghostwriterx]

No one is dumb enough(no one here at least) to just say it. Its implied.

and your thinking of dependency the wrong way(in this instance). let me try saying it a different way.
More people are willingly to jump if there's a net.

Remove the net less people jump.
You cant possibly need a graph to show you that...

"You think reducing welfare for those who need it would leave blacks better off?" Short term, no. Long term, yes.

You seem to be implying that people on welfare are there mostly through fault of their own. I don't think anyone makes irresponsible life decisions that lead to poverty because they're thinking, "What the hell I can just get welfare if it doesn't work out."

You also seem to think that we are all starting from a level playing field. For example, having a "black sounding" name can prevent you from getting an interview in this country.

 

[DEAD7]

You seem to be implying that people on welfare are there mostly through fault of their own. I don't think anyone makes irresponsible life decisions that lead to poverty because they're thinking, "What the hell I can just get welfare if it doesn't work out."

You also seem to think that we are all starting from a level playing field. For example, having a "black sounding" name can prevent you from getting an interview in this country.

I think nothing of the sort, I think policies to compensate end up having a negative effect.

As far as welfare, there is no absolute. some are there cause they want to be some are not, some people are handicapped, some are elderly. That isnt my point or even the issue.
More people will take a leap if there is a net... period. The bigger and softer the net, the more willing people will be to take the leap.

Do i think recipients like the thieves that took advantage of a glitch and went on shopping sprees at wal-mart represent the majority of recipients? no. Cause the majority of recipients are the elderly,handicapped, and children, as you pointed out.
I do think they represent the recipients im talking about though, that you seem to think dont exist, or are insignificant.

 

[baltimore]

great coli thread..

 

[ghostwriterx]

I think nothing of the sort, I think policies to compensate end up having a negative effect.

As far as welfare, there is no absolute. some are there cause they want to be some are not, some people are handicapped, some are elderly. That isnt my point or even the issue.
More people will take a leap if there is a net... period. The bigger and softer the net, the more willing people will be to take the leap.

Do i think recipients like the thieves that took advantage of a glitch and went on shopping sprees at wal-mart represent the majority of recipients? no. Cause the majority of recipients are the elderly,handicapped, and children, as you pointed out.
I do think they represent the recipients im talking about though, that you seem to think dont exist, or are insignificant.

LOL make assumptions breh. I wholeheartedly agree that there are people who take advantage of government assistance like welfare and unemployment benefits. I also support tweaking the system to address this. But I am also against throwing the baby out with the bathwater to do so. Why get rid of or drastically reduce welfare, because a minority of recipients are abusing it? Surely there's some middle ground. Welfare was designed to help provide for those who fall through the cracks and its been effective in doing so. It was designed to combat existing poverty, now you sound like you're blaming welfare for it? Look up poverty rates pre and post welfare and tell me if it backs up this statement "The bigger and softer the net, the more willing people will be to take the leap."

It seems that a lot of conservatives employ an overkill approach to attacking symptoms rather than causes. It's the same way with abortion. I think most people, left and right, conservative and liberal can agree that's its good to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Liberals prefer to address this through prevention (sex ed, birth control etc.) Conservatives just want to outlaw abortion.