marks2065

rehmwa

***Poverty is based on a figure from the government. When the impact of the increase labor costs raise the prices of goods, all the people above the poverty level now (those making above min wage up to $15 hr) will now be moved into poverty. You can not reduce poverty by making more people become part of poverty.

silly man -

If poverty is DEFINED as the bottom 15% of income earners, then all we need to do is pull up everybody in the bottom 15% up above 16%......
.
.
.
.
Just like know, we have nearly 95% of students are above average. we should just use that logic and methods and all will be fixed.




I guess you did not understand what was wrote. reread and get back to me.

Personally, the one I have the most trouble with is the idea that higher wages lead to increased unemployment. It all sounds logical, especially with regard to the to uneducated, less efficient workers, but there are so many variables and things aren't always as the seem. There are so many studies, and they all draw different conclusions...which leads us back to the other idea expressed in this thread that people are just going to align themselves with whatever studies that support their personal ideologies best...

SC has once again failed to solve the worlds problems...I award us no points, and may God have mercy on our souls.

The raising of minimum wage may or may not increase unemployment, but it will increase poverty. Poverty is based on a figure from the government. When the impact of the increase labor costs raise the prices of goods, all the people above the poverty level now (those making above min wage up to $15 hr) will now be moved into poverty. You can not reduce poverty by making more people become part of poverty.

weekender

"Another point...If a company is making ridiculous profits and not paying their employees accordingly, why should the government have to offset the companies greediness with housing supplements and food assistance programs?"

the purpose of a company is to make a profit for its shareholders not to provide pay for its employee. people agree to provide labor for a wage. how much the company makes is not relevant to the employees wages. many people feel their pay should be connected to the companies profits, obviously you are one, but its not how it works. when you accept a job you agree to work for a particular wage. unless your employee agree's to share the profits with you then its not a factor. do you feel an employee should share in the companies loses? im sure you do not but it would only be fair if they feel obligated to share the profits.

If MCD's employees do not want to work for their wage, they are free to leave. pretty simple. if you deserve 15 bucks an hour then certainly you can earn it elsewhere.

Thinking the way many on here think the company should raise pay when profit is higher never seem to want fairness. Under that thinking the pay should go down when profits go down, try selling that to the "Fairness" group of entitled crybabies.

kallend

***The Republicans used the two wars to raise a lot of money - is that any different?

I see that Rep. J. Chaffetz, R-Utah, admits that the House GOP voted to cut funding for embassy security in 2012.

Oh the hypocrisy.

Cutting some funding to save the tax payers money and letting 4 Americans die with help minutes away are 2 completely different things. The help was withheld and the Americans were left to die. A couple more security persons would not have stopped the attack, but a well armed, well trained military unit could have.

jclalor

When someone can provide proof of financial responsibility for long term medial care for the rest of their life, is when I'll agree it's their choice to wear or not to wear a helmet.

It seems that some think the financial cost of personal freedom should be provided by the tax payer.

you do realize that the helmet is a big cause of many accidents right? the safest states for least # of accidents per motorcycles have no helmet laws. Iowa Illinois & Colorado. Proven fact that riders drive faster when wearing a helmet making the impact harder when crashing. also as of 5 years ago there was not a single dot approved helmet that could withstand an impact over 15 mph.

Amazon

******>yep, no one will get the 4 or 5 drugs they list

Which of those drugs are for male reproductive healthcare? I didn't see any such drugs (like Viagra, Cialis etc) on the list. Are they denying something else?

I'll give you this if you will call discrimination for the government making me pay for female thing on my insurance policy. otherwise there is no discrimination because they are canceling the drugs for both sexes

And why the hell am I paying for mens Stiffy pills????? Sounds like discrimination against women to me.

see we do agree, being made to pay for something we could never use is wrong.

billvon

>yep, no one will get the 4 or 5 drugs they list

Which of those drugs are for male reproductive healthcare? I didn't see any such drugs (like Viagra, Cialis etc) on the list. Are they denying something else?

I'll give you this if you will call discrimination for the government making me pay for female thing on my insurance policy. otherwise there is no discrimination because they are canceling the drugs for both sexes

billvon

>they did not pick out one race or gender

Ah. So they are denying certain kinds of reproductive health care to men as well? If so I agree; the above analogy would not be valid since they are applying similar limitations to both sexes.

yep, no one will get the 4 or 5 drugs they list

billvon

>How are they discriminating? they did not deny anyone any treatment, all they
>said was that all people that wanted the treatments listed would have to pay for it
>themselves.

Let's take the two parallel cases in the post above.

=========
Company B does not provide medical coverage for Bidil because they do not think blacks deserve it.

How are they discriminating? It is their religious belief that blacks are undeserving, and they are entitled to it. They didn't deny blacks cardiac medications; they just said that if blacks want that particular medical care they have to pay for it themselves.

Company C provides maternity and paternity leave for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals.

How are they discriminating? It is their religious belief that gays should not raise children, and they are entitled to it. They didn't deny gays time off; they are free to quit and take as much time as they want to raise their kids.
==========

Still think it's not discrimination?

they did not pick out one race or gender, since all insurance policies have to have all coverage (mean have to carry maternity and birth control) and they deny it to all then they did not discriminate. so tell me again who they are discriminating against?

kallend

************So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead.

Your argument is pathetic
I will not debate your strawman

the is nothing to rebut
You start from a stupid premise
So you still haven't figured out the correct use of "strawman", and you still can't rebut my statement.

And you STILL haven't figured out how to use the quote function in this forum.

Still grading the paper instead of debating the issue. I guess when you don't have a good argument you need something to fall back on.

billvon

>They said corporations can donate to and influence politics and elections based on
>the beliefs of the board or owners, therefore that allows the beliefs of the board
>or owners in regards to religion to be expressed in how they handle the
>purchases of the business based on religious freedom.

Not when those expressed beliefs discriminate against people based on their gender, race or sexual orientation.

How are they discriminating? they did not deny anyone any treatment, all they said was that all people that wanted the treatments listed would have to pay for it themselves. they did not single out any one or group.
the only one being discriminated against is Hobby Lobby for their religious beliefs which are protected in our bill of rights.

Anvilbrother

Quote

Faux Spews

***Republitard

Quote

Republican sheeple

Are you freaking 12 years old? I cant read your posts, please try harder to be a grown up around here

We need a like button here!
Hey mods can you work on this for us?

kallend

***

It's the act. Not on whom the act is done. Not the actor. It's the act.

IMO, the ACT of using $millions to sway an election in your favor is subverting the very idea of democracy.

The concept that a corporation is a person is subverting the very idea of democracy.

The Roberts Doctrine is, IMO, totally contrary to the principles that the USA is supposed to represent.

We very clearly are in the era of government of the people, by the wealthy, for the very wealthy.

And the evidence of this is as clear as the nose on your face
I would think your words had merit if you actually used them equally. It seams it is bad for the Koch's to dump money into they political arena but it is ok for GE, George Soros, and other big money to dump money to the left. be fair and dump on them all.

kallend

******

Quote

The ACA would have employers pay for a bit over 30 different kinds and types of birth control

That is not entirely factually correct. Employers are already paying for it through insurance plans, or contributions to insurance plans howsoever structured within each company.

And even if the '4' that they claim are removed, they will still be paying for it and I bet $100 that the premiums that the companies pay will not actually be reduced by one nickel over these four forms of birth control.

So this is an ethical/moral, not a financial argument - I get that. So stop bringing up the issue of 'companies do not want to pay for it - I will argue that paying for it is not relevant to the case. Your (their) religious objections to it are relevant to the case, and exactly why they will lose this one.

Your religious beliefs end where they impose on my rights. rights for birth control are not constitutional, but they are well established case law. This case, while divisive to the country, much like the pro-slavery arguments will die in favor of women having the right to control their reproductive systems.

You can turn this argument against yourself as well
Employees are forcing their beliefs on the comany here
So, there religious rights end where they attempt to impose their beliefs on the company owner

It is NOT like the slavery issue in any way

The women can still get any product or procedure they want
At any time
The issue is who is being FORCED to pay for it

Tell us, Marc, how will you feel when a company owned by Muslims decides to enforce Sharia Law on its employees under the guise of "religious freedom"?

What religious beliefs are they imposing on the employees? they have not forced any employee to believe as they do. They have not imposed any religious beliefs on the employees, the employees are free to get any treatment they want.

Amazon

***More likely that it's an institutional type plan that is fully administered by an outside firm.

I know, that's no fun.

Read the article... there are administrators who take care of that.. I know EXACTLY where I am invested.
Edited to add
In their Supreme Court complaint, Hobby Lobby's owners chronicle the many ways in which they avoid entanglements with objectionable companies. Hobby Lobby stores do not sell shot glasses, for example, and the Greens decline requests from beer distributors to back-haul beer on Hobby Lobby trucks.

Similar options exist for companies that want to practice what's sometimes called faith-based investing. To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research. Dan Hardt, a Kentucky financial planner who specializes in faith-based investing, says the performances of these funds are about the same as if they had not been screened. But Hobby Lobby's managers either were not aware of these options or chose not to invest in them.


If they gonna be stoopid... they gotta have asbestos big boy panties.

And Michael Moore was heavily invested in the stock market including Haliburton and other companies when he bad mouthed capitalism and Haliburtan. So this means that everything Michael Moore's said is now wrong in your eyes.

Amazon

Want to bet the Hobby Lobby men are all covered for penis pumps and stiffy pills for their ED???
Its a goose and gander thing... you cover one.. you cover the other.

And I would agree that these should not be covered either, but how do these cause abortions? it is abortions that Hobby Lobby is against. So you are using something completely not relevant to try to prove a point. beside the catholic religion does not condem making babies, only abortions and blocking the babies from being conceived because sex is for creation not pleasure. Whether you believe this or not is your right just like it is their right to believe how they do. You do not have the right to tell them how to believe and they are not stopping anyone from believing how they want.

billvon

>THIS case is about the CORPORATION, which is legally a different entity than the
>people who run it.

Ah, so you are arguing that corporations are separate legal entities that can have their own unique opinions! Looks like you've answered your own question, then.

The supreme court has already ruled on this. They said corporations can donate to and influence politics and elections based on the beliefs of the board or owners, therefore that allows the beliefs of the board or owners in regards to religion to be expressed in how they handle the purchases of the business based on religious freedom.

Amazon

******I don't actually know anyone who hates people just because they are rich. Do you actually know such people?

On the other hand, I know quite a few people who resent how some people are able to use their wealth to buy political influence and game the system to their advantage. Examples include hedge fund managers who are paid millions of $$/year, but are taxed on that income at a rate far lower than anybody whose income is through a salary or hourly wage. While there may be valid reasons why people such as Romney are (or were until quite recently) taxed at only 15% on income from investments, whereas auto mechanics (as one example of people who get their hands dirty doing while working) are taxed at a significantly higher rate, perhaps you can understand why people would resent that arrangement. You may be confusing resentment of the special treatment the rich are able to buy for themselves with hatred of the rich.

Of course the right wing of American politics done a fine job of painting any questioning of the special treatment the very wealthy tend to get as "class warfare". It's really quite brilliant, especially if you consider that the growth in income of the top 5%, compared to everybody else, suggests that it's the wealthy who have declared economic war on everybody else.

Don

I think the hate is from being told lies from the people that profit from class warfare. When the issue with Romney only paying 15% on investments was compared to the average Joe they were misled. If you look at the average Joe making less than 100k, after their tax return is filed, they pay about the same percentage or less. They definitely pay less in total $s than Romney. Class warfare is staged to keep people from working together and solving problems while keeping power hungry people in power. The left would loose greatly if it were not for class warfare and racism. I think you should use the rich as examples of what is possible, to promote the American dream and drive people to work harder to obtain their goals and desires.

Yes the Rich do... I agree that they who hold all the real power are actually PRACTICING class warfare. It is the perfect application of the Golden Rule...

He who has the GOLD has made all the rules to benefit his class. Murica

And the ones that pay for most of our infrastructure, defense, and charity that make this nation great deserve our thanks and appreciation.

rushmc

***

Quote

Actually the 101 million was the records of voters in 28 states. The 35K issues was within NC voter roles alone

so x 50 states is 1.5%, which is incredibly small, but also completely inaccurate, becuase if they reviewed 101 M voter records, why did they only find the 35000 that pertained to one state?

Studies like this I get a chuckle out of. delve into them for 5 minutes and shoot it full of holes.

And if one voter fraud is too many and must be stopped, then one gun death is too much and must also be stopped.

oh that's right, you would claim that the gun owners have rights.....hmmmm....

I think gun buyers should have an ID
I think voters should have an ID
That is the jist of all of this
Nothing wrong with proving citizenship either
A possible 35,000 votes to be illegal is not just one
And I do not think you have shot holes in anything here

If they found this in one state, I bet there are other states that have fraud. Like the New Yorkers that vote in new York and Florida, or the county in Ohio (I think?) that voted 120% for Obama and 0% for Romney, or the dead voting in Florida or Chicago. Voter fraud has been around for many years and needs to be greatly reduced. Voting is probably the most important thing a citizen can do, and anything that important needs to watched and verified. Citizenship, picture ID, and yearly registration for proof of address should be the minimum requirements to vote. If the people were serious about having a great country they would want to make sure their vote counted and not cancelled by fraud. To have an election change because dead people, illegals, inmates, double voting or any other fraud only hurts our country and the people that live here.

kallend

******

I guess you weren't around during the Vietnam War.

Kent State atrocity exceeds anything that happened to these poor newspapers.

so you're ok with what has happened to these "poor newspapers"?

You could always try reading the QUESTION in the OP instead of inventing strawmen to whack.

It would be nice to hear if you support or denounce what happened.

GeorgiaDon

I don't actually know anyone who hates people just because they are rich. Do you actually know such people?

On the other hand, I know quite a few people who resent how some people are able to use their wealth to buy political influence and game the system to their advantage. Examples include hedge fund managers who are paid millions of $$/year, but are taxed on that income at a rate far lower than anybody whose income is through a salary or hourly wage. While there may be valid reasons why people such as Romney are (or were until quite recently) taxed at only 15% on income from investments, whereas auto mechanics (as one example of people who get their hands dirty doing while working) are taxed at a significantly higher rate, perhaps you can understand why people would resent that arrangement. You may be confusing resentment of the special treatment the rich are able to buy for themselves with hatred of the rich.

Of course the right wing of American politics done a fine job of painting any questioning of the special treatment the very wealthy tend to get as "class warfare". It's really quite brilliant, especially if you consider that the growth in income of the top 5%, compared to everybody else, suggests that it's the wealthy who have declared economic war on everybody else.

Don

I think the hate is from being told lies from the people that profit from class warfare. When the issue with Romney only paying 15% on investments was compared to the average Joe they were misled. If you look at the average Joe making less than 100k, after their tax return is filed, they pay about the same percentage or less. They definitely pay less in total $s than Romney. Class warfare is staged to keep people from working together and solving problems while keeping power hungry people in power. The left would loose greatly if it were not for class warfare and racism. I think you should use the rich as examples of what is possible, to promote the American dream and drive people to work harder to obtain their goals and desires.

kallend

So it's "Obama's debt" when the GOP controls the House, but Pelosi's debt when GWB was in the White House.

Got it.

Don't get dizzy from all that spinning.

A large part of Obama's debt is Polosi's fault also. I am not letting the president off because he signed it. You guys blame everything on the right, but you fail to see the source. you need to read and learn, hey isn't that what you say? I guess you need to listen to yourself.

Amazon

Quote

As long as you pay it off, these guys are not paying it off. if you need a loan that is fine, but just like the people Washington needs to pay off the loan. The debt we have is not being treated as a loan it is treated as a never ending personal bank account.

That was being done.. till W came to power.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

We would have no debt now if W and his buddies were not allowed to set in motion the largest transfer of wealth from MAIN Street( think middle class America) to WALL Street ( think our lords and masters.. aka the Oligarchs)

The American people lost out.. then the GOP has done everything to block and obfuscate any chance of a real recovery for the middle class.

The 1% did quite well as did the corporations since this economic recovery began under the black guy... in SPITE of the GOP... if they had been on board with any kind of jobs bill... anything millions more people would be back at work.

Who wrote and passed the bills in the house? posting that is like you being arrested because you where outside the bankduring a robery. I know you want to place blame but lets really find out who is responsible not just through granades in the area.
Unless you are not interested in the truth.

kallend

***************

Quote

Now how about you answer my question?

The US has run a debt every year since Andrew Jackson was president. In that time the US went from being a backwater to being a superpower and the world's richest nation.

So tell us why debt, per se, suddenly becomes bad when a Dem is in the White House.

It is bad no matter who overspent,

If it is always bad, and the US has been doing it every year for the last 179 years, (and for decades prior to 1835) how come the US became the world's richest country and the only superpower?

Over spending is not always bad

Indeed it seems to be OK just so long as a Republican is in the White House.

You are as bad as those in the news that can't tell the truth. You make fun of Fox news for not telling the full story then you do the same by chopping most of what was wrote to make your statements look good. you are worse then the news stations you slam. you took the entire piece I wrote and dropped the important part.

First you write: "It is bad no matter who overspent", then you write "Over spending is not always bad".

Seems you change your tune according to the needs of your "Hate Obama" attack of the moment.

As long as you pay it off, these guys are not paying it off. if you need a loan that is fine, but just like the people Washington needs to pay off the loan. The debt we have is not being treated as a loan it is treated as a never ending personal bank account.

kallend

*********

Quote

Now how about you answer my question?

The US has run a debt every year since Andrew Jackson was president. In that time the US went from being a backwater to being a superpower and the world's richest nation.

So tell us why debt, per se, suddenly becomes bad when a Dem is in the White House.

It is bad no matter who overspent,

If it is always bad, and the US has been doing it every year for the last 179 years, (and for decades prior to 1835) how come the US became the world's richest country and the only superpower?

Over spending is not always bad

Indeed it seems to be OK just so long as a Republican is in the White House.

You are as bad as those in the news that can't tell the truth. You make fun of Fox news for not telling the full story then you do the same by chopping most of what was wrote to make your statements look good. you are worse then the news stations you slam. you took the entire piece I wrote and dropped the important part.