One View: While the US needs jobs, Democrats offering the candy store
(Photo: Provided to the RGJ)
I was watching the most recent Democratic Party debate. There was the inevitable nominee who leads because she is a woman against the self-identified socialist and an odd third party who held up his hand and was consistently ignored by the moderators. The context quickly turned into a contest to see who could promise more to the public.
Bernie wants to give free college to youngsters and Hillary wants to tell employers how much they must pay their employees and of course to make sure women get paid equally to men for the same job. Who still thinks your pay should be based on your sex?
With the escalating cost of college and our growing national debt, Bernie’s option seems a pipe dream. (Even Hillary thinks it is untenable.) He will pay for it by breaking up the big banks and making them pay their “fair share.” Fair share is a consistent line used by the Democrats and works only when “they” determine what the “fair share” owed actually is. There once was a feeling in the country that socialism was anti-American. What’s funny is that Democrats can’t tell you the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist.
Hillary wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Why not $25 or higher? What experience does she have on meeting a payroll? I thought it was the “private sector.” How much involvement do we want our government to have in the private sector? Most low-wage jobs are entry-level jobs. If you were an employer, would you willingly pay an entry-level employee twice today’s minimum wage? These jobs have traditionally been an opportunity for teenagers to get their feet wet in the workplace. For the first time in their life they must listen to a boss, not a parent. Parents don’t fire you. Bosses do (although I’ve found that employees usually “fire themselves” by their actions or attitudes). The first job is a vital step in developing maturity and promotes self-discipline and pride in their successes.
And then there was Martin O’Malley. ’Nuff said.
Each Democratic proposal is like dangling a carrot in front of a horse. Vote for me and I’ll give you this carrot or that carrot. What America wants is jobs. There is an old saying: “Figures lie and liars figure.” Take our unemployment rate, for instance. Does anyone really believe that our unemployment rate is 5 percent? Does anyone really feel the economy is in recovery? Two percent growth for seven years is not a recovery. If a Republican were in charge, the media would be calling for heads to roll. Remember the next time the carrot is offered, someone will have to pay for it. The way that all their schemes are funded is by raising taxes. The Democrats always bash trickle-down economics but their methods have developed a new economic designation. I call it “trickle-down poverty.”
When you go to the polls this year, consider where we are headed as a nation. If you want the candy store, vote Democrat. If you want to control your destiny and get rewards for accomplishments rather than participation, vote Republican. Either way, cast your vote!
Bill Hissam
Posts
15 comments:
This is fucked up thinking on so many levels.
Gee, Bill, which party has repeatedly blocked or sabotaged efforts to pass a variety of jobs and infrastructure bills?
Which party votes on tax cuts for the 1%?
Which party refuses to even consider a living wage?
Which party favors subsidies and tax breaks for the multinational corporations?
Which party routinely obstructs scientific research?
Which speaker talked up his own "job bill" almost 8 years ago, which we are still waiting to see?
And you have the gall to opine that the US needs jobs?
Oh, and this gem:
"What’s funny is that Democrats can’t tell you the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist."
No, Bill, YOU can't tell the difference between a democrat and a socialist. And that's not at all funny.
There once was a feeling in the country that socialism was anti-American.
I'm still waiting for a Republican to explain why each of us isn't expected to pave our own roads.
If you were an employer, would you willingly pay an entry-level employee twice today’s minimum wage?
No, if I were an employer, I probably wouldn't want to pay an entry-level employee at all, and neither would anyone else, as wages cut into profits. That's why we have laws that mandate a minimum level of pay.
These jobs have traditionally been an opportunity for teenagers to get their feet wet in the workplace.
Yes, but they're not anymore, and the average minimum wage employee in this country is now over the age of 30.
Frankly if the minimum wage were higher then maybe college students could work their way through school as in the old days and wouldn't be clamoring for free tuition. I was able to do it in the 80s. Today's minimum wage is 66% more than I earned. On the other hand tuition is now 1,000% higher than I paid (with my Pell Grant). So minimum wage would just have to be $32.50 per hour to allow today's kids the same chance. But Bill Hissam and RWD don't believe anyone but them deserve a break because they are selfish pricks.
We should really develop a non-military national service program for kids who could work for two years to help rebuild our infrastructure in exchange for free tuition at State Universities.
Yeah right.
"The US needs jobs". When a RW-er says that, what they're really saying is "We need cheap labor". The right is doubling...tripling down on the same supply-side ( aka "Trickle Down" ) economics, even as its utter failure since the 80's has marginalized the working class to the point of disenfranchisement as a permanent underclass.
Well it hasn't been a total failure; after all, it HAS resulted in a massive shift of wealth upward from the poor and middle classes to the upper classes. In deference to the "job creators" of course. That is if one assumes the "if you build it, it will come" canard. currently, the demand for widgets remains low however since the downward pressure on wages ( corporate lobbying, rent-seeking abroad ) has given the working class less to spend: rather ironic in view of the supply-sider's reliance on consumer spending as a driver of economic spending as a driver of the economy....which it is, except the overclass has gotten too greedy.
The original tenet that a system that favors capital over labor will cause capital to invest and create a tide that rises all boats was nothing more than a corporate giveaway. Corporate profits are at an all-time high and they're sitting on mountains of cash via labor arbitrage and loopholes that let them evade taxes. You impoverish your potential customers, you can't complain demand is static.
Sorry Bill, but you are quite simply, full of shit. You come across exactly what you are: A member of the comfortable class afraid the afflicted class isn't buying your bullshit anymore. Your screed does however highlight the adroitness of right's ability to exploit and a segment of the working class and convince them it's OK in the name of "freedumb". "USA! USA! USA!". Friggin morons....
Prior good comments covered most of the topics covered in this bullshit screed. Here's one more cherry-picked POS:
Hillary wants to tell employers how much they must pay their employees and of course to make sure women get paid equally to men for the same job. Who still thinks your pay should be based on your sex?
"Who still thinks your pay should be based on your sex"?? WTF does that mean? Is Bill suggesting that employers should just pay their staff what the Employer feels like? Because that's what's happening now, and there's factual, verifiable, credible statistics that back up the FACT that women are still paid less than men - by a good percentage - for either the exact same job or for a job requiring the exact same skill sets, experience, educational background, etc.
This is the disingenousness of hacks like Bill: diss Clinton and make it seem like she's being unfair or asking for special treatment for women simply because of her gender. No, Bill, no, that's not what Clinton is asking for, and furthermore you know it, but you're willing to lie like a rug to make it seem like Hillary's trying to "force" employers to give women an unfair "affirmative action" type of treatment. That's not true, and you know it.
Shithead.
ferschitz = One of these leftwing shitheads who believes that DIVERSITY in the workplace (sex, race, age) is more important than simply hiring the most qualified applicants.
What a warped mentality.
Nuff said.
Go get back in your looney tunes birdcage, and eat some sunflower seeds.
Mike Hawk
Well, troll, since you're an unabashed racist, sexist, homophobic tea-bagging moron...
No need to finish, I think I made my point.
ferschitz points out that there are verifiable stats about how women, who are equally educated/experienced/whatever, are paid less than men for the exact same or very similar job, but of course, that's only because all of these 100s of thousands of women are still somehow not "the most qualified" for all of these jobs.
Yeah right. Only white men are the most qualified. Only white men get the biggest paycheck. Yeah, we read that loud & clear.
All these butthurt Republican Trump fans... sobbing about how they have a big fat old sad that it's not still 1950. And I'm not exaggerating about that. That's actually what a lot of these white men are bitching about... some fantasy about 1950.
Sore losers.
An interesting article in this week's Time magazine interviewed transgender men about gender differences. In their unique experience living and working as both sexes, they found that with employers men are considered to be competent unless proved otherwise while women have to prove the opposite. Of course women have said this for years but its nice to have the confirmation.
@Thx 4 Fish
I went to college in Texas in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Back then, the state was run by Democrats and heavily subsidized tuition at state schools.
My tuition for my last semester, for a full course load, was $214.
I pulled out my checkbook and wrote a check, paid for by my part time job at UPS that pays about half as much today, adjusted for inflation, as it did then.
Republicans aren't interested in helping anyone who actually needs help, though they'll offer plenty to rich people who need nothing.
You have a reading comprehension problem and are a walking example of RW dumbfuckery. Go back to being a dung beetle rolling shit fuckhead.
@Hooray4US:
Nope, the most QUALIFIED person who applies for an open position is the one that I would hire....no exceptions.
The only people bringing up "RACE" are you dumb fuck liberal weenies....always playing the victim card.
Wake up....it's 2016.
Mike Hawk
@Mike Hawk
You may say that, as to many others. Statistically, however, it isn't true in practice. You'll hire the white guy every time, regardless of qualifications.
@CharlieE
Interesting, I went to college in TX in the early 80s (81-84) and worked at UPS also...lol Worked at the Dallas main working load, slide and primary sort over the course of 4 years. That was one job that would whip your ass into shape. I went to tech school however so my tuition was significantly than $214.
Max
*significantly higher than $214
Max
Post a Comment