Minimum Wage....Yeeeehaaaa!

Your Fox News, Bill O'Reilly parroting has easily made you the least interesting conservative/republican/libertarian poster to show your face on this board. Show some creativity in your arguments, address the topics on point rather than just repeating blanket conservative talking points, and think for yourself. These "arguments" you keep posting are so uninspired that it almost makes them a parody.
I don't want to lie about the facts for the sake of being creative like a liberal troll such as yourself. Is that really your counter to my argument? To be more creative? You just keep doing insults and attacks because you can't combat the facts.

Raising minimum wages increases the prices, you can dodge around all you want but that is just a fact.

But hey if you want to go the way of countries like Greece and others, keep lying to yourself in the name of being "creative". I will live on the side of the fence that has common sense and is still trying to salvage what is left of a broken country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your Fox News, Bill O'Reilly parroting has easily made you the least interesting conservative/republican/libertarian poster to show your face on this board. Show some creativity in your arguments, address the topics on point rather than just repeating blanket conservative talking points, and think for yourself. These "arguments" you keep posting are so uninspired that it almost makes them a parody.
So do you feel GAP raising min wage on 65,000 employees to $9/hr is a "winning" and worthy of parading around?

Maybe they should be criticized for paying 65,000 employees less then $9/hr to begin with

 
So do you feel GAP raising min wage on 65,000 employees to $9/hr is a "winning" and worthy of parading around?

Maybe they should be criticized for paying 65,000 employees less then $9/hr to begin with
I'm not sure if you even give a shit about those employees making less than $9 per hour to begin with and I hate to say it, but I agree. The marketing department got with the bean counters and figured out that this was a good move. Cynical, it may be, but progress is progress. Hell, the increased purchasing power will probably go back into GAP's coffers anyways...just like how Walmart is probably anticipating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure if you even give a shit about those employees making less than $9 per hour to begin with and I hate to say it, but I agree. The marketing department got with the bean counters and figured out that this was a good move. Cynical, it may be, but progress is progress. Hell, the increased purchasing power will probably go back into GAP's coffers anyways...just like how Walmart is probably anticipating.
You could care less and I can prove it. You will stop caring the minimum wage as soon as more money comes out of your pocket. You liberal hypocrites are all the same.
 
I find it hilarious how now the GOP is concerned that the minimum wage increase might hurt the poor and destroy jobs. Funny how Congressional inaction has already cost us so many, what's a few hundred thousand more? Since when has the GOP actually given a genuine crap about poverty anyway? They decide we don't even deserve to eat much less get our own bootstraps.
So... you're criticizing the government for not doing things that save/create jobs, then attack those who want the government to not do things that actively destroy jobs. Makes sense.
 
I find it hilarious how now the GOP is concerned that the minimum wage increase might hurt the poor and destroy jobs. Funny how Congressional inaction has already cost us so many, what's a few hundred thousand more? Since when has the GOP actually given a genuine crap about poverty anyway? They decide we don't even deserve to eat much less get our own bootstraps.
Do you like taxes?

 
So do you feel GAP raising min wage on 65,000 employees to $9/hr is a "winning" and worthy of parading around?

Maybe they should be criticized for paying 65,000 employees less then $9/hr to begin with
I think there is a cynical view to the announcement that they're trying to ride the wave of public opinion, on the other hand where's Walmart, Target, McDonalds, etc to follow them?

Companies like Costco start their employees at over $10 an hour, keep their prices competitive and are still managing to post impressive earnings reports. How do they do it? They don't pay their top executives a ridiculously overpriced salary and millions more in stock options. Unfortunately, within our system it's not really possible to legislate away greed. I like the raising of the minimum wage but the problem is at these companies will simply raise prices rather than decrease their own ridiculous salaries. We always hear about this and that (employee wages, cost of oil/fuel, theft/shoplifiting) being the cost of high prices but for some reason we rarely call out these CEOs and other top executives on their salaries (aside from the brief occupy Wall Street stint). Why don't we call them out? Because, in this country, like Gordon Gecko said "greed is good".
 
I'm not sure if you even give a shit about those employees making less than $9 per hour to begin with and I hate to say it, but I agree. The marketing department got with the bean counters and figured out that this was a good move. Cynical, it may be, but progress is progress. Hell, the increased purchasing power will probably go back into GAP's coffers anyways...just like how Walmart is probably anticipating.
Listen, I've worked retail, and at the worst of the worst (A&F) while I was in college. Thankfully it was a job I didn't need and I only put in a few shifts a month. Even though I worked there primarily for the social aspect I believe they paid fresh off the street employees $8.25/hr and this was 10 years ago. So excuse me if I am not jumping for joy at the announcement that GAP, a company that I can safely assume is better managed then A&F, has decided to pay its employees slightly more then what I was getting paid a decade ago.

I think there is a cynical view to the announcement that they're trying to ride the wave of public opinion, on the other hand where's Walmart, Target, McDonalds, etc to follow them?

Companies like Costco start their employees at over $10 an hour, keep their prices competitive and are still managing to post impressive earnings reports. How do they do it? They don't pay their top executives a ridiculously overpriced salary and millions more in stock options. Unfortunately, within our system it's not really possible to legislate away greed. I like the raising of the minimum wage but the problem is at these companies will simply raise prices rather than decrease their own ridiculous salaries. We always hear about this and that (employee wages, cost of oil/fuel, theft/shoplifiting) being the cost of high prices but for some reason we rarely call out these CEOs and other top executives on their salaries (aside from the brief occupy Wall Street stint). Why don't we call them out? Because, in this country, like Gordon Gecko said "greed is good".
I think the Walmart's and McDonald's of the world could certainly follow suit and increase the wages of "bottom of the barrel" employees buy $.50 - $1.75 like GAP did but remember these are companies that are known for selling items at razor thin margins (GAP isn't exactly selling Wrangler Jeans and Hanes T's). If it destroys their bottom line (God forbid an executive has to take a paycut) are they allowed to reverse the decision a year from now?

I think it's gross that those at the top of the corporate pyramid are making 100's of millions of dollars in salary and stock options too... but even if they donated their salaries back into the company, in a setting like McDonalds that wouldn't be able to fund the ridiculous hourly increases that people have called for in this thread ($15/hr +)

 
I think there is a cynical view to the announcement that they're trying to ride the wave of public opinion, on the other hand where's Walmart, Target, McDonalds, etc to follow them?

Companies like Costco start their employees at over $10 an hour, keep their prices competitive and are still managing to post impressive earnings reports. How do they do it? They don't pay their top executives a ridiculously overpriced salary and millions more in stock options. Unfortunately, within our system it's not really possible to legislate away greed. I like the raising of the minimum wage but the problem is at these companies will simply raise prices rather than decrease their own ridiculous salaries. We always hear about this and that (employee wages, cost of oil/fuel, theft/shoplifiting) being the cost of high prices but for some reason we rarely call out these CEOs and other top executives on their salaries (aside from the brief occupy Wall Street stint). Why don't we call them out? Because, in this country, like Gordon Gecko said "greed is good".
Legislate away greed? We are supposed to be free. Why should you have any say in what a private company pays someone? Legislate???? Don't shop there. If Americans truly wanted to send a message then they should do it through their purchases. If they are too stupid, lazy, or disinterested than so be it. Gov't is not here to make things right that people "feel" should be illegal due to a perceived personal "fairness" in income. Civil rights based on race, sex, etc. , sure, but income? You are a control freak. Call out CEO's? WTF? If they are doing illegal activities such as theft or fraud, sure, but making too much money??? Stop corporate welfare, I'm on board. Telling free tax paying citizens what they have to pay other free citizens is crap. How do you feel about the gov't setting accountability and regulations on welfare recipients?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employees-pay

The average Walmart "associate," Wake Up Walmart reports, makes $11.75 an hour.
Wake Up Walmart is one of the largest anti-Walmart groups. And they report that the average hourly Walmart employee makes more than the rate that Obama is wanting to raise minimum wage to. (as a side note, Walmart's health insurance offerings were 100% compliant with the ACA before it was implemented).

And yet, Walmart is constantly thrown out as some kind of horrible employer to work for. But those on the left praise Obama for wanting to raise minimum wage to such a low amount?

People can't get their opinions straight.
 
Listen, I've worked retail, and at the worst of the worst (A&F) while I was in college. Thankfully it was a job I didn't need and I only put in a few shifts a month. Even though I worked there primarily for the social aspect I believe they paid fresh off the street employees $8.25/hr and this was 10 years ago. So excuse me if I am not jumping for joy at the announcement that GAP, a company that I can safely assume is better managed then A&F, has decided to pay its employees slightly more then what I was getting paid a decade ago.
Great, so we agree that it's a cycnical move on GAP's part?

Since we're comparing retail anecdotes, I worked at a subsidiary of Circuit City called Isis for a holiday season and they paid $10.50 and hour. This was 10 years ago as well. On the otherhand, Circuit City was a terribly managed company as well. After I left, the manager was demoted and transferred so that the regional manager could put her friend's daughter in that position. The daughter's managerial experience? A character actor at Disney World. :rofl:

For those of you unfamiliar with that title, that's how Disney gets around certain worker's rights laws. In essence, she walked around with a huge costume on all day and waved at the kids/posed for pictures. They actually have terrible working conditions, but that's for another thread.

I think the Walmart's and McDonald's of the world could certainly follow suit and increase the wages of "bottom of the barrel" employees buy $.50 - $1.75 like GAP did but remember these are companies that are known for selling items at razor thin margins (GAP isn't exactly selling Wrangler Jeans and Hanes T's). If it destroys their bottom line (God forbid an executive has to take a paycut) are they allowed to reverse the decision a year from now?

I think it's gross that those at the top of the corporate pyramid are making 100's of millions of dollars in salary and stock options too... but even if they donated their salaries back into the company, in a setting like McDonalds that wouldn't be able to fund the ridiculous hourly increases that people have called for in this thread ($15/hr +)
Quick nitpick: a vast majority of McD's are franchises, so unless they have a clause in the franchise contract about wages, McD's, as a corporate entity, would probably have no problem covering the costs of an increased minimum wage, whereas franchises would be less flexible, but also be able to bear it. The owner making 150k instead of 300k doesn't really bother me when you need at least 1M to open one to begin with. The world could do with fewer McD's, I'm sure we can agree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Legislate away greed? We are supposed to be free. Why should you have any say in what a private company pays someone? Legislate???? Don't shop there. If Americans truly wanted to send a message then they should do it through their purchases. If they are too stupid, lazy, or disinterested than so be it. Gov't is not here to make things right that people "feel" should be illegal due to a perceived personal "fairness" in income. Civil rights based on race, sex, etc. , sure, but income? You are a control freak. Call out CEO's? WTF? If they are doing illegal activities such as theft or fraud, sure, but making too much money??? Stop corporate welfare, I'm on board. Telling free tax paying citizens what they have to pay other free citizens is crap. How do you feel about the gov't setting accountability and regulations on welfare recipients?
You either have a problem with reading comprehension or don't understand what an ideal to strive for. My post said nothing of seriously advocating to legislate away greed. It's an ideal I wish the country I live in could embrace, which is that money isn't everything and greed shouldn't be some type of honorable trait. Let me guess, you're one of the people who went and say Wolf of Wall Street only to walk away from it thinking "wow, I wish I could be as successful as Jordan Belfort some day. That guy really should be admired." The fact that there's actually people in this country (and a lot of them) that would actually take that message from the movie is everything my post is pointing out as what's wrong.

When I look at top executives making hundreds of millions of dollars while there's employees in their company struggling to make ends meet I don't see that as them being some type of ideal successful American, I see them as a greedy disgusting person. Money isn't everything. I'm not saying we can or should pass laws to stop those executives from making those ridiculous salaries, that doesn't mean I can't look upon them with disgust though. I do because there's no reason why we should have the concentration of wealth in this country that we do, it's gross and I hate seeing it.

Finally, it's rich you calling my a control freak in light of how bent out of shape you got in the thread about someone's anatomy dictating what restroom they can use. How often you checking someone's pants to make sure they go in the restroom? GTFO with your judgments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You either have a problem with reading comprehension or don't understand what an ideal to strive for. My post said nothing of seriously advocating to legislate away greed. It's an ideal I wish the country I live in could embrace, which is that money isn't everything and greed shouldn't be some type of honorable trait. Let me guess, you're one of the people who went and say Wolf of Wall Street only to walk away from it thinking "wow, I wish I could be as successful as Jordan Belfort some day. That guy really should be admired." The fact that there's actually people in this country (and a lot of them) that would actually take that message from the movie is everything my post is pointing out as what's wrong.

When I look at top executives making hundreds of millions of dollars while there's employees in their company struggling to make ends meet I don't see that as them being some type of ideal successful American, I see them as a greedy disgusting person. Money isn't everything. I'm not saying we can or should pass laws to stop those executives from making those ridiculous salaries, that doesn't mean I can't look upon them with disgust though. I do because there's no reason why we should have the concentration of wealth in this country that we do, it's gross and I hate seeing it.

Finally, it's rich you calling my a control freak in light of how bent out of shape you got in the thread about someone's anatomy dictating what restroom they can use. How often you checking someone's pants to make sure they go in the restroom? GTFO with your judgments.
If a top executive is bringing in millions into the company, does he not deserve that type of compensation? If a person on the bottom is struggling, either due to lack of education or lack of skill, should the company therefore be forced to raise the compensation?

 
You either have a problem with reading comprehension or don't understand what an ideal to strive for. My post said nothing of seriously advocating to legislate away greed. It's an ideal I wish the country I live in could embrace, which is that money isn't everything and greed shouldn't be some type of honorable trait. Let me guess, you're one of the people who went and say Wolf of Wall Street only to walk away from it thinking "wow, I wish I could be as successful as Jordan Belfort some day. That guy really should be admired." The fact that there's actually people in this country (and a lot of them) that would actually take that message from the movie is everything my post is pointing out as what's wrong.

When I look at top executives making hundreds of millions of dollars while there's employees in their company struggling to make ends meet I don't see that as them being some type of ideal successful American, I see them as a greedy disgusting person. Money isn't everything. I'm not saying we can or should pass laws to stop those executives from making those ridiculous salaries, that doesn't mean I can't look upon them with disgust though. I do because there's no reason why we should have the concentration of wealth in this country that we do, it's gross and I hate seeing it.

Finally, it's rich you calling my a control freak in light of how bent out of shape you got in the thread about someone's anatomy dictating what restroom they can use. How often you checking someone's pants to make sure they go in the restroom? GTFO with your judgments.
Let's see...gender specific bathrooms are an established law. Someone using the wrong bathroom is illegal. Its a quantifiable call if someone has a penis or not. Greedy CEO's who get rich via legal means are disgusting in YOUR personal opinion. So who is a bit more justified in getting bent? ;)

I haven't seen the "Wolf" yet, but from what I understand, he broke the law, was caught, and served prison time. I don't aspire to break the law, but thanks for projecting thoughts on me as if they were my own. I can't remember if it was Msutt or Myke who did that to me recently. All you liberals look the same to me. ;)

Do you find welfare recipients who procreate while living off of tax money as disgusting as CEO's?

 
Do you find welfare recipients who procreate while living off of tax money as disgusting as CEO's?
Nope, because they're by and large just struggling to get by and their procreation isn't always intentional. CEOs who who exploit their workers through low wages and minimal benefits leaving them at, or below the poverty level, just so they can have a "summer home" are still much more disgusting to me.

Define welfare.
:lol:, let's see if he answers according to his honest feelings...
 
Why should I define welfare for you, Msutt? You constantly refuse to answer direct questions.

Red, CEO's provide a chance of making money to employees. If they choose, they can work else where or start their own business. The children caught in generational poverty have no such chance. They are truly slaves of the system. I've seen really evil, disgusting people who mistreat their kids and only have em as a meal ticket. I could show you a concentrated area filled with these cases. Now tell me again who is more disgusting?

I couldn't tell from your response if you hold zero disgust for welfare/kid abusers or just less disgust than greedy CEO's.... O:)

 
You constantly refuse to answer direct questions.
I refuse to answer stupid questions that are barely tangentially related.

You refuse to make actual arguments instead you just turn everything in to a rant about the supposed sub-humans you supposedly run into.

 
I refuse to answer stupid questions that are barely tangentially related.

You refuse to make actual arguments instead you just turn everything in to a rant about the supposed sub-humans you supposedly run into.
Indeed, and that reminds me, have we exactly pegged down how ego seems to automatically know every single person's welfare status?

I wonder if he knows whether any of us are on some type of public assistance?
 
Haaahahahahahha...what a demented fairy tale world you guys live in where all CEO's are heartless, greedy bastards while all welfare recipients are heart of gold heroes who have been held down by the system, not their own choices or lack of a work ethic. People are people. Some are rich and jerks, some are poor and good and vice versa. I don't want the gov't to impinge on eithers rights as long as they are held accountable for their actions. Welfare is our money, we should be allowed to have expectations on how it is spent. You, like I, probably want less military spending and a ton more accountability in contractor pay. Why not expect that from all of our expenditures? Especially ones that aren't effective.

Msutt, thanks for your answer. From now on assume that I think that all of your questions are stupid and refuse to answer on those grounds. Tolerant and open minded my ass...... :roll:

 
ego,

I honestly believe you are making up 95% some odd percent of your anecdotes. Either that or you are taking one or two experiences and recycle them. 

In the unlikely event you aren't a serial fabricator. They are still just anecdotal evidence and you refuse to even dabble in data or define your terms.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Haaahahahahahha...what a demented fairy tale world you guys live in where all CEO's are heartless, greedy bastards while all welfare recipients are heart of gold heroes who have been held down by the system, not their own choices or lack of a work ethic. People are people. Some are rich and jerks, some are poor and good and vice versa. I don't want the gov't to impinge on eithers rights as long as they are held accountable for their actions. Welfare is our money, we should be allowed to have expectations on how it is spent. You, like I, probably want less military spending and a ton more accountability in contractor pay. Why not expect that from all of our expenditures? Especially ones that aren't effective.

Msutt, thanks for your answer. From now on assume that I think that all of your questions are stupid and refuse to answer on those grounds. Tolerant and open minded my ass...... :roll:
How about we play a game of the ol' VS. forum favorite "show me where"? Today's challenge is show me where I said "every" single CEO is a heartless, greedy bastard.

You'll lose, be ause I never said it. I never said it because I don't think that way. Do I think the number of greedy, heartless CEOs sadly outnumbers the number of CEOs who actually give a damn about their fellow man (particularly the ones who have helped make them as successful as they are)? Absolutely. Do I think the percentage of CEOs who intentionally set out to exploit their workers is higher than the percentage of people on welfare just being lazy and taking of the system? Yep, definitely. There's a lot of CEOs who do a fantastic job of taking care of their workers and paying them a decent wage, not because they're forced to, but because they have some god damn empathy.

See, the difference between you and me is that while I look down on those CEOs who exploit their workers and wish they didn't exist, I accept that they exist and there's not much I, or we as a society, can do about it. I've come to terms with it and just understand that's the way things are, people will exploit. You, on the other hand, feel that because some people exploit a system of welfare we should eliminate it for everyone. Someone falls between the cracks and falls behind? fuck 'em, that's their own fault because we have some small percentage of people who take advantage of the welfare system.

Since you didn't want to play the previous game of "whose on public assistance?" I'll go ahead and volunteer that I'm on public assistance now. Not because I'm lazy, not because I haven't been trying to find full time employment for the last year, but because the company I've worked for for the last 7 years decides that I'm not worthy of healthcare benefits because I don't have enough average hours per week. I left full time employment at Target because it became increasingly clear to me that they'd rather have their full management positions filled by fresh out of college grads than the people who actually worked their way up and learned the business. Why do they do that, you ask? So they can get away with paying both the supervisors and managers less wages.

After spending my first year of law school not working, as per American Bar Association rules, I started back at Target part time. Part time because I was already in class 15-20 hours a week, another 20 hours a week in various internships, and 20 hours a week at Target (not to mention the reading and studying hours to fit in there). Yep, I'm a real lazy guy like that, only putting in 60+ hours a week while I was in school. Now that I've graduated I'm stuck without health insurance because I can't get enough hours at work to qualify for benefits (a task which became even more difficult at Target after they got rid of part time benefits). I've submitted hundreds of applications for work as an attorney at this point and I'm still not employed because I had the unfortunate position of my dream job being one of the toughest job markets around. As a fun aside, after 7 years with Target, holding many different positions including being an effective manager of security for a store (in responsibilities if not title and compensation), I make exactly $.30 more per hour than when I started. There were times I made more, but never more than $14 an hour.

So yeah, I'm on Medicare now because I have no other option for healthcare and I made the stupid decision to get appendicitis a few months ago. I know, stupid me, right? By the way, I also had student loans to pay for school, so thanks for letting me mooch off of society on that one too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You, on the other hand, feel that because some people exploit a system of welfare we should eliminate it for everyone.
How about we play a game of the ol' VS. forum favorite "show me where"? Today's challenge is show us where ego said that he wanted to eliminate all welfare for everyone?
 
Despite being on my ignore list, your garbage posts unfortunately still show up on the quickview you mealy-mouthed troll. At any rate, if he wants to actually refute that he's never advocated complete elimination of welfare it would be the thinnest of semantics, as for posts that support my contention that he wants to completely eliminate welfare...

Marion Barry got re-elected after getting caught with hookers and blow. Stupid people get to vote just like everybody else. I would like politicians to get elected based on serving their constituency versus harboring dependency. If we didn't have so many bloated programs fostering an ever weakening work ethic in our country, then we wouldn't have any fraud.No program=no fraud. That's my point that you are missing. Total dependency on the gov't while reproducing is not measured by the fraud statistics. It is perfectly legal, and even supported. More moochers equal more votes for whatever party is gonna keep handing out the cash and services. Is there an end point to this plan? We have removed the stigma of living off other people's money and killed the incentive to start small and work your way up.

As far as gov' inefficiency, I think the fraud numbers you posted prove my point quite well. Private companies eventually catch on when they are being fleeced. ;)

I am also very against corporate welfare, Medicare fraud, and foreign aid. I didn't start this thread, but I think welfare is a more popular topic because it is in most people's faces everyday. We see the welfare queen at the grocery store, not the crooked investment banker.
Of course, later in the same thread this exchange took place..

You tell me, you're the one advocating for complete revocation of government assistance because there are a few who are abusing it.
I proposed keeping the system but putting in place a way of preventing reproduction while on it.
Which spurred a conversation of how realistic it would even be to "prevent reproduction" but no further pressing about what would happen. He may "propose keeping the system" but when you place unrealistic limitations on a program, you're really just advocating for it's removal. But hey, maybe his proposed requirements aren't quite as unrealistic as I'm thinking...

Die off? Everybody dies, bro. We could simply pick a date, allow any existing person to be eligible (including currently pregnant mothers and their babies), then require sterilization (reversible if possible) from that point out to get welfare for over 6 months. People who currently get a check will still get one until they NATURALLY die, yet they will not reproduce. Get a job, get off welfare, and consistently pay federal income tax for a few years to get your breeding rights back. Voila! End of generational welfare. Everybody still gets fed and has AC in their gov't subsidized houses, yet we reduce the number of kids who have to suffer in poverty.
As if reproduction and family isn't a fundamental human right... Like I said though, the guy's clearly against welfare, he puts unrealistic expectations purely as a smokescreen to avoid the truly tough question of what do you do for people who fall through the cracks or are down on their luck, but really, posts like this show exactly what he thinks of the welfare system.

Your poor punctuation and grammar hinder the delivery of your statements. I am against any program that provides taxpayer money to people or corporations that don't contribute back into the system in a meaningful way. Many govt handouts are unlimited in timeframe. Snap, subsidized housing, etc. I'll give you two examples of abuse that I have experienced in just my two past work shifts. A 21 year old woman living in govt housing who is unemployed and unwed reminded my partner and I of how nice we were to her four months ago when responding to her miscarriage. She told us this as we were transporting her uninsured butt back to the ER because she is now three months pregnant.

We transported a 28 year old woman and her 14 year old pregnant daughter to the hospital. Do the math on that one. I just want some regulations to prevent procreation by idiots living off of tax money. Eventually a lot of lazy, irresponsible people would pass away without leaving a continuing legacy of ever increasing moochers.
By the way, I'm sure you'll report this post for calling you a troll so if I end up banned because of you again I'm ok with that because I stand by my statement. You're a troll, plain an simple. You sit back and post your little quips but don't really offer anything of value to the discussion. I might be vehemently disagreeing with egofed here but he's at least offering up something other than just "hey guys I Iistened to talk radio today and here's what they told me to say".

There's really two types of conservative posters on this board. Ones who stand by their laurels and have an original thought such as GBAstar and ego. Then there's posters like you, mrsilkunderwear, and RPGNinja who simply alternate between parroting conservative talking points from talk radio and trollbait quips that add nothing to the conversation. We've all had our quips here and there but the number of one sentence posts you 3 make far outweighs anything of substance you've ever brought to the VS forum. So, report away and try to get me banned again if you'd like but the mod who took care of you last time isn't a mod anymore.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow.

Where's that post about the tears tasting so good?

RvB - you went quite awhile without posting much on vs. It was nice. We had several posts going without the incessant name calling and bickering. Yet you and the other two come back and start posting more and whatta know, it's all coming back. Good job. Once again, your complete and total self-absorbed anger at how unhappy you are with your life comes out and all you can do is post attacks against people who disagree with you.

You keep bringing up how "I got you banned". Correct me if I'm wrong, but you posted shit accusing me of molesting children and an independent third party read the post and gave you a temp ban based upon that. That's not me getting you banned. That's you unable to communicate in a mature, adult manner, resorting to disgusting tactics, then getting upset because you're not hoisted on everyone's shoulders and treated like a hero for doing it.
 
Like I said, don't address any issues...  You made a claim, I refuted it with evidence, and now you're gonna make a personal attack about how I'm self-absorbed and unhappy with life.  I made the post, yep, but you're the child who ran to daddy by reporting the post because the mean kids on the playground were picking on you.

My feelings on welfare and public assistance have nothing to do with my current situation of being unemployed.  My realization that the Republican party stood for nothing other than rich people and the bootlickers who think they might be rich some day pre-dated my temporarily unemployed situation by years.  But your damn right I'm unhappy being unemployed right now, you're wrong about who is unhappy with life though.

See, I've done something with my life, worked my ass off through school and accomplished something, I'm in a temporary situation of being unemployed but you, your situation of being employed at Walmart is permanent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah this is obviously turning out how I thought it would... RedvsBlue getting put in place because he is so misguided.
 
Hey look at that, more proof of my point from earlier. Now just one more person's "opinion" and we've got ourselves a rodeo.
 
Like I said, don't address any issues... You made a claim, I refuted it with evidence, and now you're gonna make a personal attack about how I'm self-absorbed and unhappy with life. I made the post, yep, but you're the child who ran to daddy by reporting the post because the mean kids on the playground were picking on you.

My feelings on welfare and public assistance have nothing to do with my current situation of being unemployed. My realization that the Republican party stood for nothing other than rich people and the bootlickers who think they might be rich some day pre-dated my temporarily unemployed situation by years. But your damn right I'm unhappy being unemployed right now, you're wrong about who is unhappy with life though.

See, I've done something with my life, worked my ass off through school and accomplished something, I'm in a temporary situation of being unemployed but you, your situation of being employed at Walmart is permanent.
Just out of curiosity, do you think corporations are continuing to get filthy rich under the democrat's rule? Also Pillsbury mentioned that you used to be conservative, so did you just changed based on the realization mentioned above?

 
Like I said, don't address any issues... You made a claim, I refuted it with evidence,
This is rich. You backed up your claim that "ego wants to get rid of all welfare" with posts from ego saying things like "I proposed keeping the system but putting in place a way of preventing reproduction while on it." Good job. You deserve a gold star.

and now you're gonna make a personal attack
Dude... Your first sentence in your post directed at me...

Despite being on my ignore list, your garbage posts unfortunately still show up on the quickview you mealy-mouthed troll.
Two different personal attacks, right off the bat. And you want to get mad at me for giving you some back?

See, I've done something with my life, worked my ass off through school and accomplished something, I'm in a temporary situation of being unemployed but you, your situation of being employed at Walmart is permanent.
Funny. I enjoy my job. And my wife. And just about everything in my entire life. Sure, things could be better... but they could be worse. I could have to put up with you more.

By the way, how'd you like Target moving so many people off their insurance since the ACA allowed it to all happen? Props to those who wrote the ACA there. Smooth moves and all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just out of curiosity, do you think corporations are continuing to get filthy rich under the democrat's rule? Also Pillsbury mentioned that you used to be conservative, so did you just changed based on the realization mentioned above?
I love the little passive aggressive name-calling...especially after your second week here, you said that you wouldn't resort to such tactics.

It's really...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNvbS0XUZWU&list=RDDu0VCFOLOoI

Haha, yes I did, and I used to get into quite the kerfuffles with Myke back then too.
Haha...I remember! It's funny because I started in Vs. on the ass end of that, so when you reappeared after a break, I had actually forgotten that you were a conservative because you were posting some centrist stuff and either Clak or camoor were busting your balls for being a troll! Good times... :rofl:
 
I love the little passive aggressive name-calling...especially after your second week here, you said that you wouldn't resort to such tactics.

It's really...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNvbS0XUZWU&list=RDDu0VCFOLOoI

Haha...I remember! It's funny because I started in Vs. on the ass end of that, so when you reappeared after a break, I had actually forgotten that you were a conservative because you were posting some centrist stuff and either Clak or camoor were busting your balls for being a troll! Good times... :rofl:
Do you also remember the time you called me a racist but couldn't remember why?

 
Do you also remember the time you called me a racist but couldn't remember why?
Ding...

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/topic/319112-both-george-bushs-did-not-show-up-to-the-lincoln-memorial-mlk-50th-aniv-speech/

Dong...

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/topic/317506-this-country-is-so-fcked-up-its-not-even-funny/

Do...

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/topic/317880-bonuses-wtf-irs/

And as a bonus, here's where you admit to enjoying listening to known racist, Jack Hunter

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/topic/316492-nc-commissioner-no-white-males-need-apply/

Could I have linked to posts? Sure, but reading entire threads add context, which I like.

inb4: "Nothing overtly racist was said and using loaded language doesn't count"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ding...

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/topic/319112-both-george-bushs-did-not-show-up-to-the-lincoln-memorial-mlk-50th-aniv-speech/

Dong...

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/topic/317506-this-country-is-so-fcked-up-its-not-even-funny/

Do...

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/topic/317880-bonuses-wtf-irs/

And as a bonus, here's where you admit to enjoying listening to known racist, Jack Hunter

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/topic/316492-nc-commissioner-no-white-males-need-apply/

Could I have linked to posts? Sure, but reading entire threads add context, which I like.

inb4: "Nothing overtly racist was said and using loaded language doesn't count"
Oh please go ahead and link to the actual posts. Linking to a thread with 22 pages makes it a bit difficult.

 
So, now that the usual folks have, once again, managed to completely derail the thread into their own personal feces throwing kiddie pool...

CBO says 500,000 jobs will be lost and 900,000 people will benefit by raising minimum wage to $10.10. Is it worth it?
 
Indeed, and that reminds me, have we exactly pegged down how ego seems to automatically know every single person's welfare status?

I wonder if he knows whether any of us are on some type of public assistance?
The area I service has a huge gov't subsidized housing project. I also talk with my patients and am required to gather insurance/occupation info if possible. So I do know if people are getting a cut of tax payer money. I like how Msutt deems that I consider them subhuman. Red, do you intend to have a child while being on gov't assistance? It sounds like you intend to tenaciously pursue your goal and will eventually succeed and end up paying quite a bit into our tax system. I applaud that. If you read my posts concerning my ex homeless friend, Mary, then you would see that I am fully in favor of giving a hand up to people who are willing to help themselves. You speak about reproduction as being a human right, so you support people who can not support themselves bringing another living being into this world? If that is the case, then I will simply bid you good day and concede that we have greatly differing views on logic, common sense, and decision making.

I do think it was a pretty low brow move in attacking Bob's job at Walmart. He provides a service for a great number of people, provides for his family, and even pays for the gov't services that you currently are making use of. Quite a few people would consider that quite a bit more noble of a profession than an attorney. No personal attack intended.

 
After spending my first year of law school not working, as per American Bar Association rules, I started back at Target part time. Part time because I was already in class 15-20 hours a week, another 20 hours a week in various internships, and 20 hours a week at Target (not to mention the reading and studying hours to fit in there). Yep, I'm a real lazy guy like that, only putting in 60+ hours a week while I was in school. Now that I've graduated I'm stuck without health insurance because I can't get enough hours at work to qualify for benefits (a task which became even more difficult at Target after they got rid of part time benefits). I've submitted hundreds of applications for work as an attorney at this point and I'm still not employed because I had the unfortunate position of my dream job being one of the toughest job markets around. As a fun aside, after 7 years with Target, holding many different positions including being an effective manager of security for a store (in responsibilities if not title and compensation), I make exactly $.30 more per hour than when I started. There were times I made more, but never more than $14 an hour.

So yeah, I'm on Medicare now because I have no other option for healthcare and I made the stupid decision to get appendicitis a few months ago. I know, stupid me, right? By the way, I also had student loans to pay for school, so thanks for letting me mooch off of society on that one too.
Lol that doesn't surprise me at all. Target has ranked on a lot of top 10 list for companies that pay Americans the least.

 
Ego,
How much (as a percentage of total expenditure) do you think the US spends on non healthcare, non social security social programs?
 
The area I service has a huge gov't subsidized housing project. I also talk with my patients and am required to gather insurance/occupation info if possible. So I do know if people are getting a cut of tax payer money. I like how Msutt deems that I consider them subhuman. Red, do you intend to have a child while being on gov't assistance? It sounds like you intend to tenaciously pursue your goal and will eventually succeed and end up paying quite a bit into our tax system. I applaud that. If you read my posts concerning my ex homeless friend, Mary, then you would see that I am fully in favor of giving a hand up to people who are willing to help themselves. You speak about reproduction as being a human right, so you support people who can not support themselves bringing another living being into this world? If that is the case, then I will simply bid you good day and concede that we have greatly differing views on logic, common sense, and decision making.

I do think it was a pretty low brow move in attacking Bob's job at Walmart. He provides a service for a great number of people, provides for his family, and even pays for the gov't services that you currently are making use of. Quite a few people would consider that quite a bit more noble of a profession than an attorney. No personal attack intended.
First of all, my fiancée and I don't plan on having any children until after we get married this summer, at which point I'll be moving on to her insurance anyway. That having been said there's still the possibility of an "oops" in the next few months, which is exactly my point. Not everyone who has children intentionally sets out to have them at that particular moment. Much in the same way people don't intend to fall between the cracks and get laid off.

As for the lawyer isn't a noble pursuit thing, it's tired. I'm so bored with hearing it and the judgments at this point. What people don't seem to want to understand is that an attorney's job is essentially the only forum to protect and fight the government in taking the most sacred of things from people (life, liberty, property). Conservatives should really be supporting attorneys more in that respect because they fight on the only battleground open to our citizens in fighting against the government. But still, people sit back and treat attorneys as the scum of the earth. It's really similar to the public's view of police in that they always want to criticize and not respect them until they're in a situation that requires their help then they do a 180 and act like they're the best people in the world.

And finally, as for ol' bobby. I have no regret about what I said. When he tries to attack me and insult me by saying I'm unhappy with life and self absorbed, I'm not gonna sit back and say nothing. He takes the easiest way out, in life and in his posts.

Those government services I'm using? I paid into, and am still paying into them, for the last 16 years because even for the last 3 years while I've been making less than 10k a year and no income tax, that Medicare tax still comes out of every check.
 
[...]I'm unhappy with life and self absorbed[...]
Callin' it as I see it. If I had to choose between being happy, having a good job, and having a good life vs. being unhappy, self-absorbed, and unemployed, then yeah, I'll choose the first one. Look, man, you got a fiancée - so things can't be all that bad. Maybe spend more time with her instead of wallowing in self-pity on video game message boards?
 
*and*... as for taking the easy way out... remind me again who it was that, when they disagreed with someone on a message board, resorted to accusing them of sexually assulting children, got banned for it, then came back and cried about it and put all of the blame on everyone but himself and only bothers replying to bring up how wronged he was when he got banned... Your posts them where nothing of substance and your posts now are nothing of substance. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Let's talk about raising the minimum wage. I've shown numbers showing that, historically, raising the minimum wage does not lower the poverty level (and, often, it rises). We've discussed how raising it to $10.10 doesn't raise it high enough to keep a family of four with a single bread winner out of poverty. I *just* posted the CBO's numbers. What say we talk about raising the minimum wage?
 
First of all, my fiancée and I don't plan on having any children until after we get married this summer, at which point I'll be moving on to her insurance anyway. That having been said there's still the possibility of an "oops" in the next few months, which is exactly my point. Not everyone who has children intentionally sets out to have them at that particular moment. Much in the same way people don't intend to fall between the cracks and get laid off.

As for the lawyer isn't a noble pursuit thing, it's tired. I'm so bored with hearing it and the judgments at this point. What people don't seem to want to understand is that an attorney's job is essentially the only forum to protect and fight the government in taking the most sacred of things from people (life, liberty, property). Conservatives should really be supporting attorneys more in that respect because they fight on the only battleground open to our citizens in fighting against the government. But still, people sit back and treat attorneys as the scum of the earth. It's really similar to the public's view of police in that they always want to criticize and not respect them until they're in a situation that requires their help then they do a 180 and act like they're the best people in the world.

And finally, as for ol' bobby. I have no regret about what I said. When he tries to attack me and insult me by saying I'm unhappy with life and self absorbed, I'm not gonna sit back and say nothing. He takes the easiest way out, in life and in his posts.

Those government services I'm using? I paid into, and am still paying into them, for the last 16 years because even for the last 3 years while I've been making less than 10k a year and no income tax, that Medicare tax still comes out of every check.
You seem to support many of my points.:

1. The "oops" factor. I am telling you that our system currently rewards intentional "oops", and the people that are taking advantage of this are the ones that I want better accountability on. Do you really feel that it is impossible that we can influence or out right change such behavior?

2.Lawyer....What people don't seem to want to understand is that a CEO's job is essentially to grow, protect, and nurture their company so that the employees can get paid, customers are satisfied with their products, the gov't receives tax revenue, and the whole US economy benefits. But still, people sit back and treat CEO's as the scum of the earth. It's really similar to the public's view of police in that they always want to criticize and not respect them until they're in a situation that requires their help then they do a 180 and act like they're the best people in the world. Hehehehhehh.. I had a little fun with you here.

3.As far as Bob, I guess you guys have some history, but I have found him to be much more respectful and less insulting of people expressing different views on here than most. Plus, most insults on here attack a person's intelligence directly, attacking one's profession shows a total belief in stereotyping certain institutions and professions. My job as a firefighter has been attacked several times, with false and ignorant info even, and when I gave the true data, the attackers refused to apologize or even admit they were wrong. How can you respect someone like that, let alone have a civil conversation? We all get pulled into the cesspool that is internet anonymity eventually...

4.As far as paying into gov't services.....EXACTLY my point! You paid into them! We have able bodied people being cared for from the cradle to the grave who never do! That is the flaw in our, and every welfare state. How do you maintain promoting an incentive to work while providing all the necessities and then some? If raising minimum wage would actually make work more lucrative, without causing job losses and the base price of all items to rise, then I might get onboard, despite my complaints about it usurping freedom. But I think it would just cause us to raise the minimum average yearly salary to be in poverty as inflation takes its toll. Sooooo then we gotta spend more on our entitlement programs because a dollar doesn't go as far anymore.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What people don't seem to want to understand is that a CEO's job is essentially to grow, protect, and nurture their company so that the employees can get paid, customers are satisfied with their products, the gov't receives tax revenue, and the whole US economy benefits.
Give a CEO tools and materials. Give a laborer the same tools and materials. See which one turns out a product first.

Your concept of a CEO borders on idolatry. CEOs are accountable to their board and shareholders. If laborers are upset with their pay, and shareholders clamoring for higher margins, the latter will get fucked 100% of the time unless you're Costco.

 
Give a CEO tools and materials. Give a laborer the same tools and materials. See which one turns out a product first.
The opposite holds true as well. Give a laborer the CEO's job and more likely than not he or she will fail at it. CEOs posses a specific skill set that sets them apart from the rest of the workforce. Furthermore, their skill set is fairly unique in the workforce (fewer members of the workforce posses it) so they are presumably more valuable. Ultimately, what their value is to the corporation is determined by the market or more specifically the board.

That said, once you work your way up the corporate ladder, at the upper management level the difference in skills is less significant than one might think, if at all. So maybe a CEO should get paid closer to what some of the VPs make but I don't fault them for "taking" as much money as the market gives them.

 
Well, yes, I grasp that much about the laborer doing the CEO's job.

One is more necessary than the other. Would you rather start a business with a product or not?

It's funny, that last sentence of yours. I'm smirking enormously reading it over and over again, given the subject of this thread, and much of the anti-poor rhetoric we see in here. Thanks for that, even if it was unintentional. ;)

 
Well, yes, I grasp that much about the laborer doing the CEO's job.

One is more necessary than the other. Would you rather start a business with a product or not?

It's funny, that last sentence of yours. I'm smirking enormously reading it over and over again, given the subject of this thread, and much of the anti-poor rhetoric we see in here. Thanks for that, even if it was unintentional. ;)
It was intentional. See my previous posts in this thread. I figured a preemptive response was better than the usual drivel that would follow from certain posters.

EDIT: All businesses start off with a CEO (boss). The individual who starts up a business is considered a boss/CEO but in order for any business to expand it has to rely on the backs of others...employees.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You seem to support many of my points.:

1. The "oops" factor. I am telling you that our system currently rewards intentional "oops", and the people that are taking advantage of this are the ones that I want better accountability on. Do you really feel that it is impossible that we can influence or out right change such behavior?
By the means you propose, yes. Sterilizing people receiving government benefits isn't a reasonable solution. We all want to get rid of crime, correct? Well, if we really wanted to effectively rid ourselves of crime all we'd have to do is make every crime carry the death penalty. Anything from vandalism to petty theft or drunk driving, execute them and crime will disappear pretty quickly. Of course, that's not exactly a reasonable response to solve the problem, now is it.

2.Lawyer....What people don't seem to want to understand is that a CEO's job is essentially to grow, protect, and nurture their company so that the employees can get paid, customers are satisfied with their products, the gov't receives tax revenue, and the whole US economy benefits. But still, people sit back and treat CEO's as the scum of the earth. It's really similar to the public's view of police in that they always want to criticize and not respect them until they're in a situation that requires their help then they do a 180 and act like they're the best people in the world. Hehehehhehh.. I had a little fun with you here.
Cute, but as I have said before I'm not generalizing all CEOs as corrupt, greedy exploiters of their workers. I have said before, and I will say again, there are many CEOs who are decent people who realize that nurturing their company and taking care of those who work for them with a decent wages and benefits aren't mutually exclusive. The CEOs who pay substandard wages or whom condone/encourage situations such as Enron or the subprime loan crisis are the CEOs I'm speaking of. CEOs who ship jobs to china or India, who pollute the environment because it's cheaper manufacturing aren't doing anything to help their employees or the US economy, they're lining their pockets and those of their board through exploitation.
 
bread's done
Back
Top