I truly believe this as well. I don't believe most people choose to live near the poverty line because it's fun. Are there people taking advantage of the system? Yes. Can it be regulated better? Yes. But welfare is important and I don't mind paying higher taxes to ensure everyone gets a hot meal tonight.

How are you guys missing the entire point? If you can make X amount of dollars per year not working or apporximately the same/ a little more working, most rational people (excluding morality and pride) will choose not to work. The system is broken and it is set up for exploitation. I'm not saying a safety net for the short term isn't necessary but a lifestyle carved out of other people's effort is wrong/immoral/a drain on the system/lack of characcter/ ect ect.

Our country has increased the national debt by over 10Trillion in the last 8 years. That is more than twice what it had been in all of history before the last 8 years. As shown in the chart I posted on earlier pages, the majority of that is entitlement spending. IT IS A PROBLEM.

I'm all for giving help to people who truly need it- elderly, physically or mentally disabled, etc., but there is way too much waste, fraud and abuse in the current system. Rather than wanting to restructure the current system to make it more efficient, the democrats want to keep throwing money at the bloated, ineffective system we have today.

The left makes it sound like Trump supporters want the poor to starve and poor old granny to go off a cliff. That's not true- we need a better and sustainable system that will help our people, while also not overburdening the tax payer. Its not that fukking hard to do- thats why we need someone like Trump to come in and turn the system on its head and kick the chit out of all the career politicians (on BOTH sides)...

Raise minimum wage instead of protecting Walmart. If welfare is a better choice then free enterprise is not working. Workers that earn higher wages fuel the economy.

End NAFTA, end TPP, raise minimum wage, get big money out of politics, and WE would all be better off.

Ouch!

I honestly am not familiar with the details on welfare. Are they truly giving out to a single male the same amount he would make having a low paying job and will pay it indefinitely? I don't think that's the case.

That was my point. Instead iof paying these people more and more money for something they are supposed to be providing, but they are not, it's time they lose it, as well as their child.

IMO, when you have kids, you take on the responsibility of taking care of them and providing for them. If you cannot do that because you don't have money, then that was no one's fault but you're own and we should not have to pay for bad and irresponsible decisions.

This is an ignorant post. I don't want to explain how economics work to you bc I've typed enough, but it should be obvious that once minimum wage goes up, the cost gets passed on to the consumer. All costs that go into the production of any good or service are accounted for and then the business, in order to stay in business, sells that product to you at a higher cost then they paid to produce/provide it. Therefore, raising the minimum wage is just asking members of the market to subsidize their wages and then their buying power remains the same because the price of all goods go up.

Free trade is a good thing. Our standard of living is higher now than at any point in human history and it is because of free trade. A tarriff on foreign goods is again a subsidy in which market participants pay for the (american) workers wages through the price increase that gets passed on to the consumer. You live in america. Our "poor" people live in the top 20% of lifestyles in the world. I just don't understand why people have such soft hearts for those that don't add value.

Agreed but the hard part is where do you draw that line? It's not that black and white and you said it yourself, the fourth factor everyone needs to thrive is love. Obvious call to take a child away from a crack head that OD'd. But would you say someone that's taking welfare technically can't afford their kids so they should be taken away?

Your second paragraph states those who don't have money aren't fit to raise their children. My parents came here with the shirts on their backs as refugees from a war torn country. They had no money, and took government assistance. And they were the two best parents any kid could ask for. Their are millions of different circumstances. The trick is drawing the line.

I agree. But that's not how the unresponsible world works. So do we give them tough love and kick them to the curb, or fix the underlying problems and give them an opportunity to work - work for a wage that allows them to feed their kids and pay their bills?

That's not true. A minimum wage increase takes away profits from Walmart and has no bearing at all on inflation. None.

I'm trying to understand better. I'm a tech guy so bare with me. Doesnt California have some of the highest minimum wage? And their economy is booming isn't it?

From an economic perspective, the increase in minimum wage to something as high as $15 is not sustainable. If you really think about it, it turns in to a psuedo tax when the product and service costs go up beyond their value. Then you will have people that will stop doing business there because a. They can't afford it b. They are boycotting. Either way, the business goes down because the owner can no longer pull a profit.

Part of the problem here is that a lot of the major solutions from the progressives removes individual's responsibility and consequences, and puts the burden on everyone else.

So if we required welfare recipients to

-work 20hrs a week for their community doing some kind of productive service
-pass a drug test at random once a month
-prove that they are actively looking/applying for other work
-not have kids for a specified amount of time once being on welfare in order to find some stability in their life and not create an extra burden on the system

Would that be a deal breaker? All of that sounds reasonable for getting "free" money

Says the domestic-terrorist supporting progressive. How do you even keep it together from day to day? Constantly contradicting yourself while also being a complete racist. You are the new KKK.

There was a time where very young children were a major part of the work force. They earned pennies on the hour and the quality of life for all Americans suffered.100% free enterprise hurts the economy. Free enterprise with the right regulations makes the greatest country in the world. We just need to tweak the rules to involve everyone and provide an incentive to be involved rather than leach.

Free money that Walmart and others lobbied to make available so they could increase profits. Do you think big business lobbies for laws that don't benefit them? They want people to get unemployment so they can increase profits from tax payers dollars since income from earners aren't providing enough profit.

You might be the dumbest poster in this forum. Time to get banned again.

I agreed with all of that. But the system has to be put in place to handle those operations effectively.

I'm pretty sure a lot of states already require some of those things.
I'm not against paying higher tax if it's used effectively. That's coming from someone who has already paid more than six figures in taxes this year. I am for a progressive tax rate which will help minimize the burden on other that are working but just scraping by.

It has nothing to do with inflation. I didn't want to do this, but i will



this is a supply demand curve. You can see that the supply curve goes from bottom left to top right and the demand curve goes from top left to bottom right. You should be able to look at these two lines and see that the supply curve increases as price goes up, and the demand curve decreases as the price goes up. More people are willing to supply the market (in this case with labor) as prices go up, but the demand for it (in this case labor) goes down as prices rise. Where the supply meet the demand is called the equilibrium price. In the free market, with no interferance, an the supply and demand of a product/service (in this case labor) will happen. Now you can see when you introduce a "min wage" it sets an artificial "price floor". You can see that on the graph as well. Even though someone is willing to supply labor at a cheaper cost, it is not legal to do so. For this reason, there is a higher supply than the market needs (bc they are getting paid more than the job is inherently worth) and there is a shortage of demand for the job (bc no one wants to over pay) The triangle above where the suppply curve and demand curve meet (equilibrium) is market inefficencty. It shows that all parties lose because less people are working and more people want to. The graph shows that without minimum wage 10 people would be working. With minimum wage 8 people are working and 12 want to be working. At equilibrium 10 people are working and 10 people want to work (at that rate); the market is effecient at that point

Now I don't understand why we can't do away with minimum wage and just subsidize what people can not earn at their jobs. Id rather pay 25% of what people cant earn out of government funds, then support them completely and not have them work at all.

This minimum wage increase could be great for the state.

The increase means that high-school and college grads will now fight for jobs they once thought were beneath them. This will squeeze out the uneducated out of the workforce, as the standard for hiring will increase across the board. This theoretically should mean better service since the state will have more qualified workers. This should also theoretically lead to more people staying in school. Because of the rising hiring standards, it would not make economic sense for one to drop out of high school. Whereas in the past you could drop out in 9th grade and get a job at Mcdonalds, now, Mcdonalds will not hire you for that job because it'll have more qualified applicants given the higher pay. So people will be incented to stay in school, which will lead to a more educated population.

Cliffs:

-US economy is a mess
-people suck
-the govt takes too much money from us

Im pretty sure the welfare system is already doing this, subsidizing working folks who can't make ends meet.

I'm not versed enough in economics to have an opinion on minimum wage. I'm just stating I'm happy to pay my share of welfare even though I know there are bad apples abusing the program.

Again, just because someone is willing to supply labor at a cheaper cost, does not mean that is good for society. Look at China. They are the 19th century version of America and we're suffering for it. A living wage will not cause inflation. Your googled graph even shows that it should be raised.

You mad he caught u with the pic?

couldn't even get passed the first page. this is stress i don't need. feel weak just thinking of these asswholes.

fuq u op

You seem like a cool dude but you just are wrong about what you are saying. That's fine if you are happy paying for other people to abuse our country's system, but most working people do not feel the same way.

Or businesses will realize they have a choice - pay employees and make less profit - or shut down and make no profit.

Btw, I own a small business and recognize the impact his would have. However, if big business paid better wages, there would clearly be a better economy for me to work in.

Your argument assumes all workers are created equal. They're not. Five competent workers are more productive for society than ten incompetent ones.

If the market inefficiency consists of incompetent workers, then society is better off.

In most cases, it's just going to perpetuate more poverty. An endless cycle.Lmao