Jump to content

RandomIdoit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    980
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RandomIdoit

  1. What I am referring to is SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, etc. Of course the people needing the help are going to advocate for it. But of the people that are going to be providing the funds via taxes, very few are actually in favor of these policies in my opinion.
  2. Out of all the advocates for democratic socialism, what percentage of them do you suppose are takers? I would guess the overwhelming majority are people who are on government assistance a.k.a "takers". Then you have the small percentage who are "givers" that are philanthropic like bad_teammate.
  3. I'm not comparing the circumstances. It doesn't matter why these two different people are moving for this comparison. I'm comparing the ability of 2 different people to move from one place to another. One has more resources than the other, yet is not able to move 20 miles when the worse off person can successfully move 1,000+? My point is, a person could move across town or to the next town over if they were already being given a housing voucher and a food voucher. The moving expenses would come from, wait for it...........a job.
  4. Once again, I'm asking if these extremely poor people from Central America can immigrate over a thousand miles, why can't someone better off move 20 miles?
  5. You are the one who is losing their shit over kids being taken away from shitty parents. No one said poor parents. FondrenRoad said parents who were taking vouchers intended for their children and selling them to buy blow. You are always on here crying about the poor people of Central America and how they need to be let in to the US. Where do they get the money to travel across multiple countries? Where do they move to? What guarantee is there of a job here? So these people who are so poor that minimum wage would be a blessing can find a way to move over a thousand miles but it's absurd for someone to move across town or one town over?
  6. Yes. If you cannot be a responsible parent and your child's welfare is in danger, they should be taken away. CPS should be more proactive and not reactive. You always hear news stories about some children who have been abused or treated awfully who have has CPS called out to their homes over 10 times yet they were still allowed to stay there. What we are discussing is a person being given money for food and money for shelter. If that money is not enough, move. It's not expensive to move. A uhaul is $40 plus mileage.
  7. What if he puts it all on black and doubles his money? Does that make him a good parent? No. If he has a voucher for housing and it's not enough for housing and lights, he needs a better job or he needs to move somewhere else where his voucher can cover these costs.
  8. How much money is it going to take for your ideas to be implemented and sustained? How much money are the "billionaire supervillains" going to provide with your tax plan?
  9. Personally, I would be in favor of welfare for people who are not mentally fit or able-bodied. Anyone else, could and should work and not need any safety net, especially if they are getting a UBI. I could see a one month safety net in cases where you lose your job, but that's it. These programs should be supplemental, not primary sources of income.
  10. Safety nets are not permanent solutions. People do and will continue to treat them as such. This is why a lot of people would like to eliminate them if you gave everyone a UBI.
  11. I think you underestimate their greed. Like I said earlier in this thread, I would love to see if this works the way you say it would, just not where I live unless my salary is going to increase too.
  12. They do, but not at the expense of the people at the top. It will be a race to see who can roll out the automation faster. Kiosks and apps to replace the workers and hiring only part time workers to avoid providing insurance for example.
  13. BurgershopA is raising their price to $7 so BurgershopB will raise theirs to $7 also because they need to make as much money as possible. What's more likely, the fat cats at the top reduce their money, or they charge everyone $1 more because their competitors are doing it also and they can keep raking in profits?
  14. Sweet. I will gladly take triple my salary also then. If you think companies will do this instead of passing it on to the consumer, you are in denial. In fact, they might even take a slight pay cut and invest that money into automation so that they will save themselves even more money in the long run.
  15. Can you tell me a when the last time the minimum wage doubled like people are proposing we do now? So they know how to reduce costs but they are not already doing that? They are saving these cost saving measures just in case the minimum wage goes up?
  16. That would be true if they were the only place that would have rising costs, but everyone would have to increase their employees wages.
  17. Explain to me how costs do not go up in this situation. Do the companies just take the losses and not pass them on to the consumers?
  18. I know, this would have never happened at Taco Villa.
  19. I can't wait for burger flippers and busboys make $15 an hour and then won't even be able to afford to eat at the places they work. Then people will still be crying that $15 per hour is not a living wage because everything is more expensive.
  20. Didn't you just say this: So when you add more people, there is more competition for these jobs and they can afford to pay them less. They pay them less and they make more money. Then the people that lose out on those jobs are even more poor. How does it not impact the wealth gap?
  21. They aren't? So everyone is prospering and no one is at or below the poverty level? If not, then we should get them squared away first before adding more.
×
×
  • Create New...