Sanders: Anyone Who Works 40 Hours A Week Shouldn’t Live In Poverty
Bernie Sanders is staying on message, and it’s a good one.
Speaking at an AFL-CIO union event in North Conway, New Hampshire, Sanders, who describes himself as a “democratic-socialist,” criticized the federal government’s position on the current minimum wage.
“That’s a starvation wage,” Sanders said of the federal government’s current rate at $7.25 per hour.
“Anyone who works 40 hours a week in America should not be in poverty. That’s the simple reality,” he added.
The veteran politician also attacked wealthier Americans and corporations by insinuating that the tax rates in America are unjust to poor and middle class families.
“They stash their money in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other hidden tax havens around the world,” Sanders said of rich Americans and wealthy banks and businesses.
“It is time they rejoin the United States of America. It is time they start paying their fair share of taxes,” he continued.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
91 responses to Sanders: Anyone Who Works 40 Hours A Week Shouldn’t Live In Poverty
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Red Eye Robot May 4th, 2015 at 14:32
And due to Obamacare which Sanders voted for, Millions of Americans are unable to meet that 40 hour criterion
allison1050 May 4th, 2015 at 15:31
Source that.
arc99 May 4th, 2015 at 18:08
Now, RER is the definitive troll.
I daresay his source would be the anus of a male bovine. After all, that is where bullsh*t comes from.
allison1050 May 4th, 2015 at 19:46
lol! arc99 ;) RER has had 4 hours to respond maybe everyone should ask for sources from the trolls. Sometimes I invite them to visit Braitbart.
tracey marie May 4th, 2015 at 15:57
stupid
Obewon May 4th, 2015 at 16:42
How does Red Eye live on $150 net income per week, after tax withholding on $290 per week?
Obama Admin et al: “since the Affordable Care Act passed, 90 percent of job growth has been in full-time positions.”-Non partisan Pulitzer Prizewinner PolitiFact True The statistics show that 87% of the increase in jobs between March 2010 and July 2013 consisted of full-time jobs. (Via Alan Krueger, the chairman of White House Council of Economic Advisers, during an interview with Sara Eisen of Bloomberg television.) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/07/alan-krueger/alan-krueger-top-economist-obama-says-most-new-job/ Greedy Oil Party Dissemblers busted again, as always.
John Tarter May 4th, 2015 at 17:24
Minimum wage jobs were meant as career starting positions, not career positions. If you liberals wouldn’t let in all those unskilled illegals who work those jobs, there would be jobs available for our own American born young people who could then move up the economic ladder.
Dwendt44 May 4th, 2015 at 18:00
Typical right wing nut job nonsense. The majority of minimum wage earners are over 21 years old. President Obama has deported more ‘illegals’ than Bush and the boys did, and doubled the size of the border patrols.
Not that facts matter to your B.S..
StoneyCurtisll May 4th, 2015 at 19:43
Thats simply not true..
The average age of minimum wages workers in the US are 37 years old..
Not “teens’
Obewon May 4th, 2015 at 21:14
Your Mom and 2/3 of U.S. women deserve a raise! All U.S. wages = 9% of GDP. Doubling minimum wage to $15/Hr means no more corp wage TAX PAYER paid subsidies! Thereby drastically reducing food stamps SNAP & welfare (that Tarter always cries about:) An average U.S. Wage is a mere $40K. Tarter’s worried his Big Mac cost will rise by +50 pennies when Mc’D’s pays $15/Hr! Waaahhh… BTW> Who Are Minimum Wage Workers?
Women—especially women of color. Women are nearly 2/3 of minimum wage workers[1] and 2/3 of tipped workers.[2] Women of color are 23% of minimum wage workers,[3] compared to 16% of all workers.[4] Nearly 1/3 of working women—and nearly 40% of working women of color—would get a raise if the minimum wage increased to $12.00 per hour by 2020.[5]
Adults. Over half of women earning the minimum wage are 25 or older,[6] and most do not have a spouse’s income to rely on.[7] 66% of all workers who would get a raise under the Raise the Wage Act are at least 25 years old.[8]
Parents. Of the workers who would benefit from raising the minimum wage to $12.00 per hour, more than 25% have children. Nearly 30 percent of working mothers—and more than 40% of working single mothers—would get a raise under the Raise the Wage Act.[9] Low-wage working women (your Mom & sisters) deserve a raise! http://www.nwlc.org/resource/fair-pay-women-requires-fair-minimum-wage
Dwendt44 May 4th, 2015 at 17:58
Tater tot doesn’t have any use for facts. They just confuse him.
StoneyCurtisll May 4th, 2015 at 19:40
Bullshit.
robert May 4th, 2015 at 22:53
your right
i work more then 40 hrs a week and im still considered middle class
thanks to the GOP
illinoisboy1977 May 4th, 2015 at 15:35
I have mixed feelings, here. People who work 40 hours SHOULDN’T live in poverty. However, I also think an employer and an employee should be allowed to negotiate a fair wage, without the government interfering. Then, there are those employees who aren’t even worth the wage they currently get. They do the bare minimum and have no ambition or drive to progress on their own merit. They’d rather legislate a payraise and continue to do a lackluster job.
Of course, I’m also not blind to the business owners who can afford to pay a higher wage, but refuse to do so because it would cut into their own bottom line.
Like I said, mixed feelings.
Wee Mousie May 4th, 2015 at 16:31
With the current federal minimum wage at $7.25 per hour, they would need to increase it to nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power in the late 1960s.
http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm
And so you know what Senator Sanders means by “joining the United States of America, the rich throughout the 1950s — that forever green Shangri-La where everything was beautiful, and bigots could keep down inferiors without the approved skin pigmentation, proper sexual orientation, or possession of both an X and a Y chromosome — when all that infrastructure and civic improvement was going on, the tax rate for the top income bracket was 91%. Today it is 35%.*
The conservatives keep pining for the “good old days.” looks like Bernie thinks it’s time someone gave it to them.
* http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates
John Tarter May 4th, 2015 at 17:27
Let the liberals lead the way, because there should be no rich liberals. Bill, Hillary, George (Soros), Gwyenth, George (Clooney), Nancy (Pelosi), Harry (Reid) and all the other rich Democrats should give the bulk of their monies to the government. Surely they could all live nicely on 1 or 2 million dollars?
Wee Mousie May 4th, 2015 at 20:42
No one is saying that people shouldn’t be rich. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, after all. It is just that there is no opportunity for anyone else while the top 1% has more money and power than many small countries, yet pays little or no taxes to maintain the infrastructure and facilities of the nation from which they earned their wealth. Then, add to the problem by using their position and power to influence government to keep wages low, environmental and safety rules unenforced or lowered beyond usefulness.
Everyone should pay taxes according to their income, not according to their tax lawyer’s ability to hide income and their political influence’s ability to have special dispensation passed that only aids them and their ultra rich friends..
Dwendt44 May 5th, 2015 at 01:27
The Clintons are playing by the rules that the Republicans managed to get into the tax laws that favor the rich.
Remember, when the top tax rate was 90%, the rich still got richer; when the top tax rate was 70%, the rich still got richer; and when the top tax rate was 35% the rich still got richer, they just got richer faster.
Dwendt44 May 4th, 2015 at 17:57
Given the current job situation, I’m sure that there are few that drag along with minimum effort. They could easily be replaced, often with someone with higher education.
With the ‘war on unions’ (thanks Reagan), ‘negotiations’ for pay increased will often get you booted out the door. The Republican efforts to make this a second, if not third, world country, with a few elite wealthy and the rest largely low wage worker bees, is humming along nicely.
John Tarter May 4th, 2015 at 23:00
Remember, it was 1%er Billy Bob Clinton that signed the free trade bill. Hey, did you hear the latest from him? He said he had to make all those 100k to 500k speeches to “pay the bills”. Man, that family if living higher on the hog then I thought.
Dwendt44 May 5th, 2015 at 01:24
Ya I remember. It was a sham the Republicans forced on Clinton. Lied about it to him and it turned out far worse that anyone expected.
John Tarter May 4th, 2015 at 17:20
I’d be happy if I only had to work 40 hrs. a week. I’m on a 70 hr. week and away from home for at least 14 days. Now, if only the government would stop their exorbitant confiscation of my money via the tax system and giving it to others, I would be far better off. Will YOU be the one to get that done Bernie? If not, go away. Please!
Dwendt44 May 4th, 2015 at 17:52
I’m sure the missus appreciates your time away. I doubt that your tax rate is far from exorbitant. The top 1% often end up paying single digit tax rates when all the deductions, exemptions, set asides, deferrals, exclusions, etc… are taken off their ‘exorbitant’ incomes.
Over 25% of corporations don’t pay ANY income taxes. There are BILLIONaires that pay no taxes . as in zero, some years.
And you whine about your piddly little life.
John Tarter May 4th, 2015 at 22:05
So hey, why don’t we end this archaic tax system and go to either a flat tax or the “Fair Tax”. That way, EVERYONE participates in the system. Only a liberal would want to continue with the massive insane system that we have now.
Dwendt44 May 5th, 2015 at 01:23
The flat tax and the fair tax scams are just a way for backdoor tax cuts for the rich. Does nothing for the working class and really sticks it to retirees and the poor. A 30% sales tax? really? You must be on some kind of drugs tatter tot, ’cause neither of those scams are ever going to see the light of day.
arc99 May 4th, 2015 at 18:06
Never fear, a President Sanders would make every effort to stop giving away your tax dollars like this. So can he count on your vote?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/31/blackwater-gets-rich-afghanistan-drug-production
Former Blackwater gets rich as Afghan drug production hits record high
Opium poppy cultivation is up in Afghanistan despite the infamous mercenary firm formerly known as Blackwater being paid $569m by the Pentagon to stop it
Tim Coolio May 4th, 2015 at 19:15
They want a modern society but don’t want to pay anything to support it, also remember the GOP unfunded wars and tax cuts, they had no problem forcing you to subsidize those things.
StoneyCurtisll May 4th, 2015 at 19:36
You drive a truck for a living..(so do I)..
You have no one to blame but yourself..
You could do much better if you were a Teamster, (Local 541) like I am…
John Tarter May 4th, 2015 at 22:02
Like I said, I would be fine if only the government would back off. If we had a Federal Government that obeyed the constitution, it would be half the size it is now and we would all have more money. As for my job, I love it and I used to be a Teamster too. Local 460 (if I remember right) from NJ, the most corrupt local in the nation back in the 1980’s.
Obewon May 5th, 2015 at 01:47
“it would be half the size it is now”-How? P{OTUS GWB proclaimed ‘we will pay off the national (public) debt before I leave office.’ You voted Twice for GWB’s $6 T+ Halliburton faux oil war. You’re election choices cost us 4,400+ KIA and “We went from a $5.6 trillion (Continuing CBO forecast) surplus that George Bush inherited to over … $11-plus trillion debt when George Bush left office.”-True! Nonpartisan Pulitzer Prize winner Politifact. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/02/steny-hoyer/steny-hoyer-says-george-w-bush-inherited-56-trilli/
StoneyCurtisll May 4th, 2015 at 19:33
“Anyone Who Works 40 Hours A Week Shouldn’t Live In Poverty”…
Does it get anymore real than this?
Right On Bernie~!
frambley1 May 6th, 2015 at 00:59
A mic drop would have been appropriate.
rhzszm May 4th, 2015 at 21:31
In just one century, democrat party policies have eradicated the middle class to create a massive poor class and a tiny rich class, who subsists by taking from taxpayers and moving illegal foreign national invaders into subsidized housing in their neighborhoods.
arc99 May 4th, 2015 at 21:55
There is no such thing as the “democrat party”.
The rest of the words in your post are bullsh*t as well. Take your right wing ignorance elsewhere. The stench is overwhelming..
rhzszm May 4th, 2015 at 22:05
If you like being lorded over by government; if you like filling our schools and media with sexually immoral deviants; if you want taxpayer-funded social service programs to make possible infestations of criminal foreign national invaders and unemployed deadbeats in your neighborhood, vote democrat.
Democrats are the party that BUYS VOTES with YOUR MONEY, at the expense of YOUR HARD WORK, and YOUR FAMILY’S SAFETY. They’ve been doing so for a century.
A government that lives off of society’s moral and economic decay is a sign of the end of a civilization.
arc99 May 4th, 2015 at 22:36
Since we do not have a government living off society’s moral and economic decay, you have nothing to worry about.
In any event, someone who cannot even refer to the party correctly (it is Democratic party, not “Democrat party”) is unlikely to have any opinions worth considering seriously.
rhzszm May 4th, 2015 at 22:43
Go back to bed those sounds were just new democRAT party tax laws going into effect.
Dwendt44 May 5th, 2015 at 01:19
Get back on your meds clown.
OldLefty May 17th, 2015 at 07:20
Go back to bed those sounds were just new democRAT party tax laws going into effect.
________
You mean the lowest tax rates since Eisenhower?
By the way the top marginal rate under Eisenhower was 91%.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets
Oh, but those were the days when we were prosperous and building a middle class that was the envy of the world.
” new democRAT party”???
That’s a sure sign of someone who is insecure in their argument.
I know, because that’s what we did when we were 7 years old.
And by the way again… while I don’t know about the “new democRAT party”, today’s Democrat Party is to the right of the Republican Party of 1956.
Just at the Republican Party Platform 1956
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25838
robert May 4th, 2015 at 22:46
are you suggesting these people moved to the usa after obama took office ?
and the last time i checked CPAC are the ones who buys votes and OWN candidates
OldLefty May 5th, 2015 at 20:13
If you like being lorded over by government; if you like filling our schools and media with sexually immoral deviants;
____
Big government like Bush’s unitary executive?
Or big government in the bedroom and in the womb?
Sexually immoral deviants;Like David Vitter and Randy Boehning and Bill O’Reilly?
if you want taxpayer-funded social service programs that built the middle class?
Then yes, vote for the Democratic Party. (I don’t know what the democrat party is)
But if you want if you want taxpayer-funded redistribution of wealth to the very top, vote Republican party
Actually REPUBLICANS are the party that BUYS VOTES with YOUR MONEY, at the expense of YOUR HARD WORK, and YOUR FAMILY’S SAFETY. They’ve been doing so for a century, and REALLY revved it up with Reagan and got it codified into law through their super legislators in black robes.
“A government that lives off of society’s moral and economic decay is a sign of the end of a civilization.”
______
EXACTLY.
That is EXACTLY why we have to get rid of Citizen’s United and 90% of the Republican Party along with 40% of the conservative Democrats, and the rest of the beck and call girls for Big Business.
Dwendt44 May 5th, 2015 at 01:18
It was Republican practices and underhanded tactics that did it to the middle class. Exporting jobs to sweatshop countries, the anti-union tactics of the last 30 or so years, lied to us about how great the trade deals would be, gave China ‘most favored nation’ status while their tariffs are 10 times what ours are. the list is long.
OldLefty May 5th, 2015 at 20:02
That’s EXACTLY what we have been saying about republic party policies over the last 35 years.
Difference is, WE have the numbers to back it up.
rhzszm May 6th, 2015 at 18:35
How much has the deficit increased since Obama? How much did the deficit increase when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker?
A century of Democrat party rule = moral depravity and economic terrorism.
OldLefty May 6th, 2015 at 19:21
Y2009 federal deficit was running at a rate of $1.2 trillion on the day he took office in the midst of a financial crisis.
The debt is now growing less rapidly than during Obama’s first years, which saw a string of trillion-dollar-plus annual deficits. CBO projects this year’s deficit will be
$506 billion, so the deficit has fallen by more than half since he took office.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45653
U.S. Deficit Shrinking At Fastest Pace Since WWII, Before Fiscal Cliff
http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm
Meanwhile;
Bush’s contribution to the debt at $5.07 trillion, and Obama’s (including projections through 2017) at $1.44 trillion.
Estimates of the stimulus’ contribution run between $711 billion (the NYT) and $830 billion (CBO). While not a small number, it’s a fraction of the debt problem, and about half of what the US has spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Blaming Obama for spending to restore the economy conveniently ignores the fact that the Great Recession was hatched on Bush’s watch, Likewise, not to mention that the financial meltdown has forced the government to shell out about $400 billion in unemployment benefits over the past few years — a problem that Obama clearly inherited.
The Bush tax cuts are the single largest contributor, according to the Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Fact_Sheets/Economic_Policy/drivers_federal_debt_since_2001.pdf
It was 35 years of supply side economics that have dismantled the middle class and that was BEFORE the economy contracted 8.9% in Q4 ’08, 6.7% in Q1 ’09.
rhzszm May 7th, 2015 at 09:55
Did you see a dime of any of that money?
OldLefty May 7th, 2015 at 10:00
I’ve seen it my roads and in jobs in my community and we saw the slow but steady decrease in job loss to sustained job gain in 13 months.
rhzszm May 7th, 2015 at 10:03
So it created a lot of jobs for criminal foreign national invaders while distorting the real price of construction?
OldLefty May 7th, 2015 at 10:13
No, it created jobs in every faction of the private sector, from the pizza shop to road crews.
rhzszm May 7th, 2015 at 10:32
You run a pizza shop?
What’s just about bailing out failing businesses with taxpayer debt?
OldLefty May 7th, 2015 at 10:49
You run a pizza shop?
______
I don’t.
It’s not about me. It’s about my community and my country.
It’s not about bailing out failing businesses with taxpayer debt, that’s GOP corporate socialism, and only applies to the very top.
It’s about saving the jobs of police and teachers and road crews and all the other hard working people who got screwed over by the crash of 2008, so that they have enough money in their pockets to support the pizza shop.
It was about priming the pump when business was not willing to.
That is what staved off another Republican great depression.
rhzszm May 7th, 2015 at 11:01
whoa whoa whoa. Teachers and police already had jobs.
What about the record high number of food stamps… is that a sign of declining unemployment?
OldLefty May 7th, 2015 at 11:24
whoa whoa whoa. Teachers and police already had jobs.
______
And local governments were cutting back like crazy.
Food stamps??
“We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George
W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before
comes close to that.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-18/fact-check-gingrich-obama-food-stamps/52645882/1
Like bank tellers and healthcare workers who work over 40 hours a week at such poor salaries that they require foodstamps?
A Third of Bank Tellers Rely on Government Assistance, Study Sayshttp://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-04/a-third-of-bank-tellers-rely-on-government-assistance-study-says
This is one way that business redistributes wealth to the top, by paying low salaries and counting on the government to pick up the slack.
It puts businesses who pay their workers what they are worth, (what they USED to pay back in the day when we had a strong middle class), at a competitive disadvantage.
rhzszm May 7th, 2015 at 14:30
Growth in food stamp use 14 years ago is not what is important to the economy today. How many food stamp recipients were there during Bush’s term, and how many are there today?
You keep talking about a middle class, but again… how can one be middle class if even the top 10% of earners are dependent on government subsidy from mortgage deduction, to childcare subsidy, health care subsidy, education subsidy, SS retirement, or even income from government?
Expansion of government by the democrat party over the last 100 years has distorted the real pricing and value of labor and labor services. It has made the majority of us poorer as fewer and fewer (often unelected, career government bureaucrats) decide how to spend what is confiscated from taxpayers and at what rate. This is a Soviet-style system with a government politburo, not a capitalist vision of America.
Remember when a gas station car mechanic could support a family of 4 and own a home on one income? What happened?
OldLefty May 7th, 2015 at 15:07
Growth in food stamp use 14 years ago is not what is important to the economy today. How many food stamp recipients were there during Bush’s term, and how many are there today?
_______
Of course it is. It marks a slow and steady decline.
Food stamp use spiked in 2001 when China was admitted to the WTO.
Bush started to use food stamps for disaster relief. (So did Obama and I agree with both of them)
Then it spiked after the crash of 2008.
Unless you are willing to pass a federal minimum wage so that government stops subsidizing private business by allowing food stamps to substitute a “living wage”, and you believe that it’s OK for business using sweat shop labor and oppressive government to keep the people in line, you are stuck with it.
Republican policies produced an economy that resulted in the grinding poverty where Little Johnny had to drop out of the 5th grade because Dad got his legs crushed in a machine, or Grandma got sick, and everyone got paid in company script that could be used only in the company stores.
Democratic policies produced a middle class that became the envy of the world.
(I don’t know what the “democrat party” is.)
Reaganomics rolled that back and has decimated the middle class, where we have come to value money made from money over money made from hard work and innovation.
Inequality had been declining up to the late 1970s, after the Powell memo and the formation of the Heritage Foundation, ALEC, The Business round Table and the US Chamber of Commerce.
Between 1979 and 2006, while in ALL quintiles together there was 50% rise in after tax
household income;
In the lowest quintile, there was an
10.7% rise.
In the middle quintile, there was a
21% rise.
In the top 5% there was a 142%
rise
In the top 1%, there was a 256%
rise
http://cbo.gov/publication/42729
Remember when a gas station car mechanic could support a family of 4 and own a home on one income? What happened?
_______
What happened was the kind of deregulation that allowed Big Business to put Mom&Pops out of business, and increase corporate profits by downsizing and cutting salaries.
Now the guy who does that SAME job, has TWO jobs and his wife has a job and they STILL have to get food stamps, because the gap in executive pay and worker pay has jumped to 3rd world levels.
The right calls it the “free market”.
Remember when Tom Delay and Jack Abramof went to Siapan, and looked at where workers were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid rat-infested shacks minus plumbing, work 12 hours a day, often seven days a week?
He fully approved of the working and living conditions. A Department of the Interior report found that “Chinese women were subject to forced abortions and that women and children were subject to forced prostitution in the local sex-tourism industry.”
The Texan’s salute to the owners and Abramoff’s government clients was recorded by
ABC-TV News: “You are a shining light for what is happening to the
Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we are
trying to do in America and leading the world in the free-market system”
That is what they want.
That is what they got.
That is probably the only time Tom Delay told the truth.
rhzszm May 7th, 2015 at 15:21
“Unless you are willing to pass a federal minimum wage”
An increase in minimum wage did nothing but increase inflation in Argentina.
The reality is that if a $1 buys a $1 worth of stuff today, a doubling of money ($2) will be responded to in the free market by making the item that cost $1 yesterday cost $2 tomorrow.
Further, with the number of unemployed currently in America, an increase in minimum wage may make current workers unemployed as there will be more competition for their position.
That’s my argument against minimum wage increase. If I truly believed it would help the economy, I would support it. But like most Democrat policies, they are demagoguery designed to appeal without having a basis in economic reality. Hence the middle class’ steady decline after 100 years of Democrat Party programs.
OldLefty May 7th, 2015 at 16:14
An increase in minimum wage did nothing but increase inflation in Argentina.
_______
No it wasn’t. Their problems stem WAY back, and follows on the heels of many collapses and cooking the books.
And $1 buys less than that today and the money necessary to live frugally has been shifted from employer to government.
A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.
When the business can not the demand they will hire more employees regardless.
I think it is clearly the Republic pandering to the big donors, (not EVEN demagoguery ) who see their greatest profits in a poor desperate population and work force.
History and the stats show that the Democratic policies have strengthened the middle class.
rhzszm May 7th, 2015 at 17:09
I’m not talking about their problems that created their economy. I’m talking about how their solutions, including raising the minimum wage, aren’t working.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/guest-post-minimum-wage-myth-won%E2%80%99t-die
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-04/argentina-freezes-supermarket-prices-halt-soaring-inflation-chaos-follow
At Argentina’s internal dollar exchange rate, their minimum wage is something ridiculous like $39/hr… but it still buys just one loaf of bread.
OldLefty May 7th, 2015 at 18:35
Quoting von Mises to me would be like my quoting Marx to you, (which I would not do).
But…
Business Leaders Cheer Raise in Minimum Wage
Contrary to Conventional Wisdom, Growing Numbers of U.S. Businesses Say Increase in Minimum Wage is Good for the Bottom Line
http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/0041/business-leaders-cheer-raise-minimum-wage
How Seattle Business Owners Are Paying the New Minimum Wage
As the state slowly edges its way to a $15 minimum, bosses make some big moves.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/home/957758-129/how-seattle-business-owners-are-paying
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-minimum-wage-2773.html
Libertarian Billionaire Peter Thiel Supports Raising the Minimum WagePicking Up the Tab for Low Wages
http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/02/republican-billionaire-peter-thiel-supports-raising-minimum-wage/
This conservative billionaire wants to raise the minimum wage
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/30/6_reasons_why_conservative_billionaire_run_unz_wants_to_raise_minimum_wage_partner/
How this mega-rich Republican is making moves to dramatically bolster pay for low-wage workers
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/opinion/picking-up-the-tab-for-low-wages.html?_r=0
The employers who pay low wages count on the tax payer to chip in and pay the difference, so they don’t have to pay what they would have had to pay 40 years ago.
rhzszm May 7th, 2015 at 18:55
Minimum wage is minimum wage. If you want a higher minimum wage, move to San Rafael in California… minimum wage $16. You still won’t be able to afford to live there without a roommate.
Increase in minimum wage means ALL prices increase.
OldLefty May 7th, 2015 at 19:39
I don’t require a minimum wage, although I believe that many Americans do.
California is expensive because it is a ‘desirable ‘ place to live, and a destination place.
There is no reason why prices increase with minimum wage.
In a true free market, someone is willing to take a little less profit to offer a lower price.
rhzszm May 17th, 2015 at 02:59
“someone is willing to take a little less profit to offer a lower price.”
Let me know when you do that.
OldLefty May 17th, 2015 at 07:08
I don’t see much of that on Craigslist, in the real estate market, in ebay, in used cars. Nowhere.
Let me know when you do that.
_______
Everywhere someone offers to match a lower price, when we had several cable companies and they would compete with each other either by lowering their prices or offering more for the same price, price wars between airlines, electronics like Amazon’s Kindle v Barnes and Noble’s Nook v Sony’s Reader Pocket, ETF, Apple v Android.
There is still some of that old fashioned competition among industry for OUR business, but the trend since Reagan has been for the working people to compete for the lowest wages and the lowest standard of living.
tracey marie May 6th, 2015 at 19:37
that’s all you have, tired and debunked sound bites.
rhzszm May 7th, 2015 at 09:56
Hasn’t been debunked by you lala’s here.
rhzszm May 7th, 2015 at 15:52
Oldlefty, thank you for taking the time to talk to me. I just want to point out the flaws in liberal economic policy.
I can’t support democrats as long as they continue their pattern of demagoguery, buying votes with promises, redistribution, generational theft, and lowering of the voting age in order to win elections. Maybe it worked to help us out of the Great Depression in the 30’s, but let’s not forget the awesome peace dividend our nation had as a result of winning WWII.
We both want what’s best for Americans, we just believe different things. But the results don’t lie and we have a breakdown in family values, in one-income households, and the decline of the middle class. These don’t make for happy people, although it certainly lines the government’s pocket. Let’s work to represent all Americans instead of just the constituents that make up federal and state payroll.
OldLefty May 7th, 2015 at 16:26
Oldlefty, thank you for taking the time to talk to me. I just want to point out the flaws in liberal economic policy.
_______
It’s mutual, as I am sure that I am pointing out the flaws in CONSERVATIVE economic policy.
I can’t support democrats as long as they continue their pattern of demagoguery, buying votes with promises, redistribution, generational theft, and lowering of the voting age in order to win elections.
_______
Basically THAT is mutual.
I would claim it is the Republicans who engage in those activities through tax increment financing, cost plus contracts, carried interest, deferred compensation, subsidies and property tax abatements and grant of public money to private businesses.
The Republic party has certainly redistributed the wealth from the middle to the top.
The US economy today is faltering largely because its past barriers against rent-seeking are being breached and that started with Reagan.
Also I can never considers a party who wants to deny the vote to eligible voters.
forget the awesome peace dividend our nation had as a result of winning WWII.
We both want what’s best for Americans, we just believe different things. But the results don’t lie and we have a breakdown in family values,
______
The results DON’t lie, that’s why I supports Democrats.
As for family values?
More divorce and teen pregnancies in red states.
And I still value public service.
Want to make it more pure?
Get the money out.
rhzszm May 7th, 2015 at 16:57
Thank you. I’m in agreement with you almost 100%. Now nominate a fiscally conservative Democrat I can vote for… and one with a spine.
The job ahead is very tough.
frambley1 May 6th, 2015 at 00:56
I was going to ask you a question after reading the first part of your sentence. Then I read the second part and realized you are just a xenophobic troll unhinged from reality. It must be so sad to live in your world. Goodbye.
fahvel May 6th, 2015 at 04:15
you are truly one sick fk with a lot of words.
rhzszm May 7th, 2015 at 15:06
So you’re a member of the “middle class”? Why does a middle class need government benefits to help pay for child care, education, health care, retirement, heck maybe even an income?
If you’re dependent on government, you should stop calling yourself middle class and stop expecting middle class lifestyle, ’cause there aren’t enough rich people to tax in order to bring the poor into prosperity.
rhzszm May 4th, 2015 at 22:13
The issue is that there is no longer any middle class outside the top 1%. A middle class is NOT dependent on government at any stage of its life, not for income, nor for child care, not for education, not for housing, not for health care, nor for retirement!
This big government we have today is the result of a century of IMMORAL and COMMUNIST rule by the democratic party that leaves us with less of our income because of higher taxes and expanded government into ALL areas of our lives. As a result, we are no longer a capitalistic society, but one in which we have to listen to the president buy votes with statements like subsidies for college, subsidies for child care, subsidies for health care, a life-long tax for our retirement (who knows where the money for that “social security” Ponzi scheme goes).
We the people are POORER from these programs, not richer. We are not better off, we are worse off.
arc99 May 4th, 2015 at 22:48
Private sector defense contractors receive hundreds of billions of dollars for weapons and military facilities thousands of miles away that we do not need and you rant about social programs to help people feed and educate their children.
You are the immoral one. You can throw around all caps COMMUNIST all you want. Britain, Canada, Australia, Scandinavia, and Israel to name a few all have vastly superior social safety nets to the United States. Are those countries IMMORAL and COMMUNIST?
If you hate this country so much, move to Somalia where there is no government and you can have as many guns as you can carry.
rhzszm May 4th, 2015 at 22:51
According to Recovery.gov, one of Baltimore’s central ZIP codes, 21201, received the most stimulus funding in the city, a total of $837,955,866. The amount included funding for 276 awards, and the website reports that the spending had created 290 jobs in the fourth quarter in 2013.
Of this amount, $467.1 million went to education; $206.1 million to the environment; $24 million to “family”; $16.1 million to infrastructure; $15.2 million to transportation; $11.9 million to housing; and $3.1 million to job training.
—-
at $3m/job created (50x median household
income for a family of four in America), one wonders how taxpayers can ever support their government’s appalling spending habits. And this is “stimulus” spending, on top of normal spending for education, environment, family, infrastructure, transportation, housing, and job training.
Officials holding the purse strings are lining their pockets very, very, very, very well. No wonder the Clintons went from being “dead broke” in 2000 to being quarter billionaires just 15 years later.
Obewon May 5th, 2015 at 01:55
The mere 60% $500 B Jobs Stimulus created 70% of 12 M+ private jobs exactly as CBO predicted. Reversing GWB’s 12/07 Great Recession record low everything since (R) Hoover’s Great Depression! 1.08 M eight year private jobs total left “Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record on Record”-WSJ 1/09/2009. 2nd worst is GHWB Sr’s 2.5 M jobs, four year total.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2010/jul/25/sherrod-brown/sherrod-brown-touts-job-grown-during-clinton-presi/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/13630053153/in/photostream/ <-BLS March 2014. As of 3/2015, 12 M+ Private Obama Jobs created.
Dwendt44 May 5th, 2015 at 12:27
If it weren’t for the programs that the evil Democrats put in place, that recession would have been a depression and it would be a long one. Social Security, Medicare, medicaid, unemployment benefits, child labor laws, WIC, SNAP, CHIP, Section 8, 40 hr work week, to name just a few.
Obewon May 5th, 2015 at 02:05
Your nuts, politically and economically illiterate. U.S. record $17.5 T 2014 GDP grew +3% APR in the past year. Vs GWB’s imploding Q4-2008 $12.7 T GDP shrinking -9% APR losing 812,000 jobs monthly. Candidate Bernies’ proposals make it real simple to see that your record low approval congress can’t even govern. 61+ impossibe repeal votes cost $130 M. Plus Ted Cruz’s ‘green eggs and teaparty spam’ shutdown wasted another $24 B.
Nice! February 11th, 2016 at 10:08
Why should employers be FORCED to pay people more because certain people decide to have kid after kid, knowing that they that cannot financially support even ONE without tax payer help? That isn’t my fault, nor the employer. It is the person. Your poor choices should not shrink my paycheck by one penny. And nothing like a one percenter (Sanders) to come out against the 1% lol
Obewon February 12th, 2016 at 00:18
Look out below! “Discussion on Infowars”-“Nice!”? Nope he’s a very poor Alex Jones troll!
fahvel May 6th, 2015 at 04:13
goodness gracious, for a stupid closed minded non thinker you sure used a lot of words. Putain idiot.
rhzszm May 6th, 2015 at 18:33
So you’re a member of the “middle class”? Why do you need government benefits to help you pay for child care, education, health care, retirement, heck maybe even an income?
If you’re dependent on government, you should stop calling yourself middle class and stop expecting middle class lifestyle, ’cause their aren’t enough rich people to tax in order to bring you into prosperity.
StoneyCurtisll May 6th, 2015 at 08:40
The rantings of a lunatic.
Get help.
robert May 4th, 2015 at 22:42
i cant remember the last week where i worked under 40 hrs bernie but thanks for suggesting i should live next to our congressmen and senators.
William May 5th, 2015 at 21:58
Well, that leaves out Congress.
rg9rts May 6th, 2015 at 05:19
Should have said fulltime
Mighty Watchfull May 10th, 2015 at 07:16
What constitutes “work” here..,someone could “work” 40 hours at McDonalds…,then you need to clearly define “poverty”..,and be careful when discussing these terms with democrats and liberals.., they will change, at will, the definitions AND parameters of every term
Mike September 16th, 2015 at 11:02
If everyone and their mother claimed exempt let’s call the irs’s bluff.
MZ13 February 3rd, 2016 at 13:01
So my 16 yr old working at the burger joint should be making the same as some professional? This is EXACTLY the philosophy of Lenin. Take from those with and give to those without. And the end result is equality, which ends up being equal poverty for all as all incentive to achieve is removed. When all are poor (except for the few privileged of the government core group) then the poor will not be poor in a relative sense.
Nice! February 11th, 2016 at 10:04
Well, I can agree that no one who works full time should be living in poverty, but the fact of the matter is, is that the majority of those who “live in poverty” while working 40/he weeks have made terrible choices in their life. If you cannot afford to take care of ONE child without government assistance, then do NOT HAVE MORE!!! There aren’t single men or women, without kids, who work 40 hours a week and are living in poverty. If they are, they are doing something wrong with their money. OD not claim you cannot survive because you make crappy money when it was YOU who though it was a great idea to have kid after kid while working a minimum wage job.
I am 34 years old and didn’t’ make over 30k a year until I was about 32. I lived on 7.50 an hour for 3 years and had an apartment, car, food, and extra money. You know why? Because I didn’t make stupid choices that would have made my financial life a living hell. Do not pop out babies you cannot care for without taxpayer help and you won’t be living in poverty. It isn’t the bosses fault, it is yours.
Nice! February 11th, 2016 at 10:05
BERNIE SANDERS IS PART OF THE 1% YOU IDIOTS!!
Anthony D'Silva June 21st, 2016 at 16:45
Raising the minimum wage wouldn’t help at all.People would try to have more kids, get cars, loans etc and then become poor again.