Sessions: I'm Shutting Down Colorado

ttystikk said:
You forgot that apartments often cost over $1000 a month and that the government gets to take taxes first.

Your math starts not adding up fast.

Why do people need to work 80 hours a week just to avoid starvation?

I think a living wage would not only go a long way towards solving this problem, but would create a better economy.

Why is it acceptable to pay people below poverty wages in exchange for their labor? I don't think it is. Why do you feel differently?
Click to expand...


I have to get to work, I have a customer standing in my driveway waiting for me to get his tractor off the trailer. I'll reply later today brother
 
ttystikk said:
Have you tried using these options?

I have and I found that even in developed areas these options are marginal at best. Our country does not prioritize public transportation, preferring instead to fund tax cuts benefiting the rich.
Click to expand...

Absoloutely, I've rode my bike to and from jobs for years
 
Again, what's wrong with paying people enough that they won't be below the poverty line?

I don't get a straight answer from conservatives about this.

Business owners hate the idea because all they see is higher costs. But if everyone does it, the playing field is leveled and suddenly there are more people with disposable income, aka potential customers!
 
politicians aren't the only problem.
take fishing. for thousands of years it took 5 or 6 people to run a small fishing boat, and that boat could take enough fish to feed the crewmen and the owner, plus pay them a small amount so they could buy the other things they needed.
over the last 100 years, we've been "improving" "streamlining" modernizing" things, so that now, it only takes 3 guys to run the same boat. and that boat can now take 5 times what the crew needs to eat. the owner makes more money, and pays his workers more, but he has less of them to pay. so what happened to those other 3 or 4 guys he doesn't need anymore?possibly some of them went to work in the cannery needed to keep the extra fish from spoiling so it can still be sold. possibly some moved and went into other professions. possibly some gave up after the only way of life they've ever known was destroyed in the name of progress, and are now the guy sleeping behind the dumpster behind your building.
and this is happening in all industries. progress comes with a price. the price of not destroying the culture you're trying to improve. we don't just need political reform, we need societal reform. you can get rid of the wolves, and if all that leaves is a herd of sheep, thats just inviting more wolves. you need to wake the fucking sheep up. sorry i don't have a good suggestion as to how to do that, if i had a decent idea, i'd already be trying it
 
you know, thats not true, i have a lot of ideas, i just doubt many of them would be popular. the first idea is mandatory service. either 2 years in the military, the peace corp, or something like the C.C.C.s that would work at rebuilding the badly aging infrastructure of the country.
mandatory service would help a lot of aimless young people get a grip on their lives, would teach them to work with other people, show them that they can achieve something, especially if they work together. would help them understand that the decisions they make have consequences, and repercussions. would help them get ready for a life where they were already aware that there was a world outside of their little bubble
 
The concept of "trickle down" is what's killing our economy -- and Trump wants to try it again!
I can't figure out why republicans think corporations will use tax cuts to hire people. Based on past performance, it's far more likely that execs will dismiss the tax breaks, claim that increases in net income were due to their "strong leadership", then soak up the extra cash with upper management bonuses.
 
Chunky Stool said:
The concept of "trickle down" is what's killing our economy -- and Trump wants to try it again!
I can't figure out why republicans think corporations will use tax cuts to hire people. Based on past performance, it's far more likely that execs will dismiss the tax breaks, claim that increases in net income were due to their "strong leadership", then soak up the extra cash with upper management bonuses.
Click to expand...

What have we learned?

It's already been proven tax cuts for business owners do not spur employment.

It's already been proven with tax cuts business owners pay about 14%

It is now being proven that a business man cannot run the government.
 
blu3bird said:
I know its not ideal but at $1200 a month you can find a small apartment $6-700, that leaves $500 for food, utilities and daily living expenses, its do-able. Again, not ideal, but you're not homeless and hungry, now if you take that second job and pull another $1200 a month, you're living a little more comfortable and even possibly save a little money to a saving account. Not going to have a lavish lifestyle by any means, but you're not homeless and hungry.
Click to expand...

good imagination, kid.
 
Roger A. Shrubber said:
you know, thats not true, i have a lot of ideas, i just doubt many of them would be popular. the first idea is mandatory service. either 2 years in the military, the peace corp, or something like the C.C.C.s that would work at rebuilding the badly aging infrastructure of the country.
mandatory service would help a lot of aimless young people get a grip on their lives, would teach them to work with other people, show them that they can achieve something, especially if they work together. would help them understand that the decisions they make have consequences, and repercussions. would help them get ready for a life where they were already aware that there was a world outside of their little bubble
Click to expand...
This idea worked in the 1930s and it would work again.
 
schuylaar said:
What have we learned?

It's already been proven tax cuts for business owners do not spur employment.

It's already been proven with tax cuts business owners pay about 14%

It is now being proven that a business man cannot run the government.
Click to expand...
America did really well in the 1950s and 1960s- with HIGH taxes on business and non wage income streams.

It worked then, why not now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top