Maybe they should tie it to a minimum wage increase. And if they refuse we can get the names of all those who voted themself a raise and fire them next election year.

I am sure if enough of use get behind this we can make it happen.

Wage and price controls distort the market and are therefore the purview of failed moronic marxists.

a minimum wage increase would only cause inflation. it would not make the poor more wealthy.

What would make the poor more wealthy?
It seems to me that if we let market forces dictate everything, and the market never does anything to help the less fortunate, then the system isn't working as well as it should.

The market will never make the poor wealthier. Only social programs can do that, and they are almost always bad for business.

You can either let a market progress so well that the standards of living raise for everyone, or the poor can work to make themselves wealthier...

Anything else is probably some social safety net program that rewards incompetance and can probably be chalked up as socialism.

The market will never make the poor wealthier. Only social programs can do that, and they are almost always bad for business.


Are people generally more wealthy today than they were in 1850?

1950?

After 30 + years of the Great Society and the war on poverty I think that it is time that liberals call it what it is:

a quagmire.

You can either let a market progress so well that the standards of living raise for everyone, or the poor can work to make themselves wealthier...

false dichotomy.

What would make the poor more wealthy?
It seems to me that if we let market forces dictate everything, and the market never does anything to help the less fortunate, then the system isn't working as well as it should.

What has minimum wage accomplished after all these years, then?

Maybe they should tie it to a minimum wage increase. And if they refuse we can get the names of all those who voted themself a raise and fire them next election year.

I am sure if enough of use get behind this we can make it happen.
Hillary Clinton called for this exact plan a month or two ago.

Then there's the camp of Senators and Congressman who vote against pay increases... only a couple of members, including Russ Feingold, refuse to take pay increases, thogh.

What has minimum wage accomplished after all these years, then?
Strongest economy in the world?

Hillary Clinton called for this exact plan a month or two ago.


Yet another reason not to vote for her.

Then there's the camp of Senators and Congressman who vote against pay increases... only a couple of members, including Russ Feingold, refuse to take pay increases, thogh.

Does he take PAC money though?

Yet another reason not to vote for her.



Does he take PAC money though?
http://www.conginst.org/congressional_myths/income.html

Congressional Myths and Misconceptions:
Answers for common questions about your Representatives and Senators

How much can a Member earn in a year?

Although some might imagine that their representatives in Congress do double-duty as heads of corporations and keep their former business interests as their first priority, this is not the case. The types of work that Members are allowed to do and the amount of money they are permitted to earn on top of their Congressional salary are strictly controlled by ethics rules that seek to keep Members focused on their official obligations to their constituents, rather than outside businesses.

The House and Senate rules follow the guidelines of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act when dealing with limits on outside income. Representatives and Senators are limited to earning 15% in excess of their yearly Congressional salary. No income from fiduciary relationships is allowed. These are a type of business association where an individual is trusted to manage the money or assets of others; this rule is intended to prevent situations where a conflict of interests could occur, such as if a Member was in a position to pass laws benefiting a company of which he or she is a board member. Many professions such as law and banking are considered to involved fiduciary relationships and are prohibited. Practicing doctors were given a special exemption from this regulation.

Members and their senior staff are not allowed to accept honoraria for speaking at events. This was enacted through the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 as part of a system to offer annual pay adjustments while regulating other income. Contributions under $2000 are allowed to charitable organizations in lieu of an honorarium as long as neither the Member nor any family members receive financial gain from the charity.

Income from personal investments is regarded as “unearned” income, and is not subject to the 15% rule. Because the Member is only collecting money based on assets that are already owned, no personal services are being performed and the income is not considered to be “earned.” Examples of unearned income include interest, rent, and stock dividends. Readers should note that the Ethics Committees reserve the right to interpret the source of an income and make a decision on it, regardless of how the Member describes the income. This prevents Members from receiving payments for actual services rendered in the guise of unearned income.

thank you for providing me the opportunity to bust that myth!

What myth?

What would make the poor more wealthy?


A robust economy with plenty of opportunities


It seems to me that if we let market forces dictate everything, and the market never does anything to help the less fortunate, then the system isn't working as well as it should.

Who says the market never does anything to help the less fortunate? The "less fortunate" here in America all own color televisions, microwaves, and automobiles! None of those things ever would, OR COULD, have been produced without a free market in which they could be traded.

Feenix, maybe where you live poor people have all those things. Here in the deep south many of them don't have anything though. No color TVs, no microwaves, and no automobiles. When I say poor people, I mean dirt poor with nothing.
And for these people, a robust economy means nothing because the more destitute you are the less likely someone is to give you a decent paying job.
A minimum wage increase probably won't bring them out of poverty either, I can agree with that. But what changes could be made that would help them?

Feenix, maybe where you live poor people have all those things. Here in the deep south many of them don't have anything though. No color TVs, no microwaves, and no automobiles. When I say poor people, I mean dirt poor with nothing.
And for these people, a robust economy means nothing because the more destitute you are the less likely someone is to give you a decent paying job.
A minimum wage increase probably won't bring them out of poverty either, I can agree with that. But what changes could be made that would help them?

How is it possible for immigrants to come to this country with literally nothing but the clothes on their backs, and build themselves into wealthy middle-class Americans, and people who have lived here their entire lives cannot?

The question you should be asking is not "how can i help them?", but rather, "how did they get this way?". I think you'll find your answers there.

we can get the names of all those who voted themself a raise and fire them next election year.

.

The complacency of the American voters in continuing to reelect these 'career' politicians is the real issue. If anyone in the workforce continued the poor performance that some of these pols exhibit they'd be fired.

How is it possible for immigrants to come to this country with literally nothing but the clothes on their backs, and build themselves into wealthy middle-class Americans, and people who have lived here their entire lives cannot?

The question you should be asking is not "how can i help them?", but rather, "how did they get this way?". I think you'll find your answers there.

I know part of the answer to that, but it doesn't provide the answers.
Immigrants come to this country, and once here they go where opportunities are most plentiful.
People native to the US, who are born into a poor family, tend to stay with their families when possible. Meaning, these people are less mobile than their immigrant counterparts. And they are therefore affected quite profoundly by the state of their local economies.
Since a forced relocation program isn't a very American thing to do, I think the only solution is to do something to promote local economies in the poorest areas of the country. But, I don't expect this to be practical either given our brand of capitalism.

Feenix, maybe where you live poor people have all those things. Here in the deep south many of them don't have anything though. No color TVs, no microwaves, and no automobiles. When I say poor people, I mean dirt poor with nothing.
And for these people, a robust economy means nothing because the more destitute you are the less likely someone is to give you a decent paying job.
A minimum wage increase probably won't bring them out of poverty either, I can agree with that. But what changes could be made that would help them?

You point out that the people in the deep south don't have "anything though".

And that includes industries, and jobs.

A minimum wage is going to do shit for somebody who doesn't even have the opportunity to work.



Why don't these people move?

The complacency of the American voters in continuing to reelect these 'career' politicians is the real issue. If anyone in the workforce continued the poor performance that some of these pols exhibit they'd be fired.

This reminds me of the fact that schools are turning out crap, yet we keep giving into the teachers unions demands that no teacher ever get fired

even though they are consistently failing.

Immigrants come to this country, and once here they go where opportunities are most plentiful.

Freedom of movement is one of the hallmarks of our great republic. Again, why don't these people move.

The federal government is pumping billions into the places you are talking about, and have been for years and years.

Why not just make a direct transfer payment to the people in this area and tell they can either move to Chicago, California, or anywhere else their is ALREADY opportunity or they can go to hell.

People native to the US, who are born into a poor family, tend to stay with their families when possible.

BS. People are afraid of change. They need an incentive to overcome that fear.

Meaning, these people are less mobile than their immigrant counterparts. And they are therefore affected quite profoundly by the state of their local economies.

What? Immigrants don't have the same emotions and fears that these people have? In reality they have more fears,

but they are desperate and know that if they just sit on their asses their families will starve.

In the US they won't starve. So they stay and complain.

Since a forced relocation program isn't a very American thing to do, I think the only solution is to do something to promote local economies in the poorest areas of the country.

You liberals love the "mass deportation" "forced relocation" arguments.

The fact is that if you bothered to try to understand human nature you would know that "forced relocation" isn't necessary, but proper incentive would work.

Also, their should be a disincentive. And that is that we shouldn't have to pump in billions or trillions of dollars into this area to eleveate the disincentives.

What possible justification is there in saying that these people can't move to an area where there is opportunity?


But, I don't expect this to be practical either given our brand of capitalism.


What brand of capitalism is that?

What a vague statement.

Wage and price controls distort the market and are therefore the purview of failed moronic marxists.

Well Sweden is a model welfare state where people do have very basic standards of living. In Sweden every mother gets a year of PAID vacation when they have a baby. In Sweden everyone has free health care. Sure the rich and greedy folks like to yap about how taxes are there. But guess what, I would rather live in a successful wealfare state than a huge gated community where the rich, greedy and corrupt prosper and the poor starve anyday.

a minimum wage increase would only cause inflation. it would not make the poor more wealthy.

See above... and that is not true. Maybe if those making over $100,000 were taxed more then we could provide for the poorer citizens a lot better.

Hillary Clinton called for this exact plan a month or two ago.

Then there's the camp of Senators and Congressman who vote against pay increases... only a couple of members, including Russ Feingold, refuse to take pay increases, thogh.

Cool:nice: Hilary is not all bad.

The complacency of the American voters in continuing to reelect these 'career' politicians is the real issue. If anyone in the workforce continued the poor performance that some of these pols exhibit they'd be fired.

True... which tells me that most voters are ignorant.

Well Sweden is a model welfare state where people do have very basic standards of living.

You got part of the idea right. Sweden is a model. Model of lowered expectations.


In Sweden every mother gets a year of PAID vacation when they have a baby.

Wow. If you are productive here you could have a lifetime off to raise children.

In Sweden everyone has free health care.

Does it grow on the "free healthcare tree"?


Sure the rich and greedy folks like to yap about how taxes are there.

Yeah make those bastards pay their fair share. :not:


But guess what, I would rather live in a successful wealfare state than a huge gated community where the rich, greedy and corrupt prosper and the poor starve anyday.

Guess what? You can emigrate!!!



See above... and that is not true. Maybe if those making over $100,000 were taxed more then we could provide for the poorer citizens a lot better.


How much should these rich people be taxed? 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%?

What percentage of the total tax should the top 1% pay?

70, 80, 90, 100?

Should people who not pay taxes get tax cuts?

Meaning that there would just be a simple redistribution of wealth?


Huh Mr. Engels?


Cool:nice: Hilary is not all bad.



True... which tells me that most voters are ignorant.

Are you in the 'most' category? LOL.

You got part of the idea right. Sweden is a model. Model of lowered expectations.



Wow. If you are productive here you could have a lifetime off to raise children.



Does it grow on the "free healthcare tree"?



Yeah make those bastards pay their fair share. :not:




Guess what? You can emigrate!!!




How much should these rich people be taxed? 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%?

What percentage of the total tax should the top 1% pay?

70, 80, 90, 100?

Should people who not pay taxes get tax cuts?

Meaning that there would just be a simple redistribution of wealth?


Huh Mr. Engels?


Cool:nice: Hilary is not all bad.





Are you in the 'most' category? LOL.
OMG you sound like a conservative!

Well all I can say is that I was born in the US and in the US I will stay. And I do know that some day the US will see the light and in my own land there will be a welfare state that will shine like a becon for the entire world.

The american people have proven themselves capable of acheiving the impossible and I know that we can make this work.