Did you vote today?

Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,407 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Reality Check

Camden, AR

#26618 Sep 2, 2013
cathouse mouze wrote:
<quoted text> The ultra wealthy have too much influence in elections, it is that simple best examples are george soros and the koch brothers.
If we knock them down a notch maybe they won't be so influential.
You Have a problem taxing the assets of multi-billionaires?
I don't since the first billion isn't taxed as wealth.
Tell me can you actually make ends meet if all you have is 1 billion dollars?
You clearly don't understand the wealthy. You can't just "knock them down a few notches". They are very good at protecting their money and making it grow. If they are losing money in America, they will just go live in a more investment-friendly country, taking all their money and assets with them. We need to understand that they will protect what's theirs at all costs.
trust me

United States

#26619 Sep 2, 2013
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, did it TWO TIMES, WITH LAND SLIDE victories both times. I bet 2016 is scaring the Hell out of you your racist ass to. Get use to it M. F., the Tea Party has destroyed your beloved Party of the _Grand _Old _Pricks.
By the time 2016 rolls around there will be nothing left to argue over.
Sam I Am

Melbourne, AR

#26623 Sep 2, 2013
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, did it TWO TIMES, WITH LAND SLIDE victories both times. I bet 2016 is scaring the Hell out of you your racist ass to. Get use to it M. F., the Tea Party has destroyed your beloved Party of the _Grand _Old _Pricks.
M.F. you say? Did you learn to talk like that in the ghetto? Spoken like a true KneeGrow racist pig.
Sam I Am

Melbourne, AR

#26624 Sep 2, 2013
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right you stupid SOB, land slide Victories, get the fu#k over it looser.
More ghetto talk from a ghetto looser.
Guest

Bexar, AR

#26625 Sep 2, 2013
Sam I Am wrote:
<quoted text>More ghetto talk from a ghetto looser.
This thread has got to be the Topix home of the anti intellectionals.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#26626 Sep 2, 2013
Guest wrote:
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterintelligence & Terrorism, and a member of the House Intelligence Committee:
"President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents. The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria."
This is one of those remarkable moments when a prominent member of Congress urges the White House to circumvent Congress, even after many of his colleagues spent the week making the exact opposite argument.
Now that Obama is putting Congress on the spot, what's likely to happen next? Now that the dog has caught the car it was chasing, what exactly does it intend to do?
Rep. King is right. The president doesn't need Congress to carry out an military strike. The president does, however, need Congress for a declaration of war. That's not what this is. I would almost bet that Rep. King is simply wanting Obama to make the decision on his own because Rep. King and everyone else with an ounce of common sense knows this will turn out just like Iraq did for Bush. No weapons will be found and Obama, if he acted alone, would be solely responsible. Obama is looking for someone to blame if all this goes south, and he knows it will if we get involved.
Guest

Bexar, AR

#26627 Sep 2, 2013
Sam I Am wrote:
<quoted text>M.F. you say? Did you learn to talk like that in the ghetto? Spoken like a true KneeGrow racist pig.
Yeah M.F., Massy ferguson for you ignorant ass Red Necks . Tell your mom and sister hi for me, I will see them again my next visit to the truck stop.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#26629 Sep 2, 2013
Guest wrote:
Let’s add tax reform that makes corporations and the wealthiest Americans (like the Walton family that owns Wal-Mart) pay their fair share, and we have a plan.
Start by signing this petition asking Wal-Mart to make 40 hours of work available to every worker every week, and to pay at least $25,000 a year for full-time work.
Spoken like someone who is oblivious to the way business works. If you did that, Wal Mart would become unaffordable to most Americans yet they would rake in more than they do now because they would still be getting items made for next to nothing and their prices would increase five fold. The only people that would get hurt are the ones that shop at Wal Mart aka, the middle class. I would like to know what "their fair share" is? 35%, 45%, 55%, 75%, 90%? How much do the Walton's make to qualify for a fair share tax? Where would you send the new tax dollars? How then would you help those who would soon be in financial difficulties because more of their check is now required to shop at Wal Mart so they have less to make their house, car, utility, and insurance payments? Do you send the extra tax dollars to them? If so, then where will the rest of the money they will need come from because there are a whole lot more Wal Mart shoppers than Wal Mart executives? Do you just tax the upper class a little more to make up the difference? If so, how will the shopping public now afford the elevated prices from the businesses that those individuals own. Even worse, how will we afford the inevitable bankruptcies and loss of jobs that will result when the tax burden gets too heavy for people who own businesses that aren't near as large as Wal Mart but are large enough to qualify for your new "fair share" tax? The complications from such an ill-thought out irresponsible act would be far greater than the tiny and very short lived satisfaction individuals like you may get from knowing the rich are "paying their fair share".
nobody is fooled

San Jose, CA

#26630 Sep 2, 2013
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, did it TWO TIMES, WITH LAND SLIDE victories both times. I bet 2016 is scaring the Hell out of you your racist ass to. Get use to it M. F., the Tea Party has destroyed your beloved Party of the _Grand _Old _Pricks.
Is there a Barney in the house!?!?
I Disagree

Bexar, AR

#26632 Sep 3, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like someone who is oblivious to the way business works. If you did that, Wal Mart would become unaffordable to most Americans yet they would rake in more than they do now because they would still be getting items made for next to nothing and their prices would increase five fold. The only people that would get hurt are the ones that shop at Wal Mart aka, the middle class. I would like to know what "their fair share" is? 35%, 45%, 55%, 75%, 90%? How much do the Walton's make to qualify for a fair share tax? Where would you send the new tax dollars? How then would you help those who would soon be in financial difficulties because more of their check is now required to shop at Wal Mart so they have less to make their house, car, utility, and insurance payments? Do you send the extra tax dollars to them? If so, then where will the rest of the money they will need come from because there are a whole lot more Wal Mart shoppers than Wal Mart executives? Do you just tax the upper class a little more to make up the difference? If so, how will the shopping public now afford the elevated prices from the businesses that those individuals own. Even worse, how will we afford the inevitable bankruptcies and loss of jobs that will result when the tax burden gets too heavy for people who own businesses that aren't near as large as Wal Mart but are large enough to qualify for your new "fair share" tax? The complications from such an ill-thought out irresponsible act would be far greater than the tiny and very short lived satisfaction individuals like you may get from knowing the rich are "paying their fair share".
The argument that a higher minimum wage will be a job killer is contradictory to basic economic arithmetic, it is also contradicted by serious economic research.

Many studies have shown that raising the minimum wage doesn’t hurt job growth and can actually help businesses by raising productivity, lowering turnover, and increasing demand when workers have more money to spend.
http://soulandbluesreport.com/burrito-chain-p...

“An increase in the federal minimum wage from its current rate of $7.25 per hour to $9 per hour by the end of 2015 will raise hourly earnings for about 21 million people. These are—by definition—the lowest-paid workers in the economy. Their total earnings amounted to 1.6 percent of the entire economy in 2011, the most recent year for which data are available.

How could putting that much money back into the economy cause anybody to go broke.

How could taking that much money out of the economy cause a government to go broke ...

Here is how it is done,

When big businesslike Wall-Mart sits on enormous amounts of cash and pay there workers less than a living wage, here is what you get.

A combination of low wages and less than full-time schedules, leave workers dependent on social programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and section 8 housing – all of which are being paid for with our tax dollars.
- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/06/wal...

I Disagree

Bexar, AR

#26633 Sep 3, 2013
Could it be that you are oblivious to the way free market capitalism works.
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#26634 Sep 3, 2013
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
This thread has got to be the Topix home of the anti intellectionals.
And you are the QUEEN of Topixville!
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#26635 Sep 3, 2013
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah M.F., Massy ferguson for you ignorant ass Red Necks . Tell your mom and sister hi for me, I will see them again my next visit to the truck stop.
Is there where you want me to drop your mammy off at, the Truck Stop again!
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#26636 Sep 3, 2013
I Disagree wrote:
<quoted text>
The argument that a higher minimum wage will be a job killer is contradictory to basic economic arithmetic, it is also contradicted by serious economic research.
Many studies have shown that raising the minimum wage doesn’t hurt job growth and can actually help businesses by raising productivity, lowering turnover, and increasing demand when workers have more money to spend.
http://soulandbluesreport.com/burrito-chain-p...
“An increase in the federal minimum wage from its current rate of $7.25 per hour to $9 per hour by the end of 2015 will raise hourly earnings for about 21 million people. These are—by definition—the lowest-paid workers in the economy. Their total earnings amounted to 1.6 percent of the entire economy in 2011, the most recent year for which data are available.
How could putting that much money back into the economy cause anybody to go broke.
How could taking that much money out of the economy cause a government to go broke ...
Here is how it is done,
When big businesslike Wall-Mart sits on enormous amounts of cash and pay there workers less than a living wage, here is what you get.
A combination of low wages and less than full-time schedules, leave workers dependent on social programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and section 8 housing – all of which are being paid for with our tax dollars.
- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/06/wal...
LMAO! Did you learn all of that at the University of Salem? You sure do know a lot about money for being so poor! LOL!
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#26637 Sep 3, 2013
I Disagree wrote:
<quoted text>
The argument that a higher minimum wage will be a job killer is contradictory to basic economic arithmetic, it is also contradicted by serious economic research.
Many studies have shown that raising the minimum wage doesn’t hurt job growth and can actually help businesses by raising productivity, lowering turnover, and increasing demand when workers have more money to spend.
http://soulandbluesreport.com/burrito-chain-p...
“An increase in the federal minimum wage from its current rate of $7.25 per hour to $9 per hour by the end of 2015 will raise hourly earnings for about 21 million people. These are—by definition—the lowest-paid workers in the economy. Their total earnings amounted to 1.6 percent of the entire economy in 2011, the most recent year for which data are available.
How could putting that much money back into the economy cause anybody to go broke.
How could taking that much money out of the economy cause a government to go broke ...
Here is how it is done,
When big businesslike Wall-Mart sits on enormous amounts of cash and pay there workers less than a living wage, here is what you get.
A combination of low wages and less than full-time schedules, leave workers dependent on social programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and section 8 housing – all of which are being paid for with our tax dollars.
- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/06/wal...
So $9 an hour is a living wage. Thanks nobody has ever been able to answer that question for me.
ABC

Bexar, AR

#26638 Sep 3, 2013
WARRIOR wrote:
<quoted text>So $9 an hour is a living wage. Thanks nobody has ever been able to answer that question for me.
Maybe you should ask some one else besides OLE, "Thanks nobody" .
If he don't know why do you keep asking him? Judging from your post here today, the answer is obvious.
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#26639 Sep 3, 2013
ABC wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should ask some one else besides OLE, "Thanks nobody" .
If he don't know why do you keep asking him? Judging from your post here today, the answer is obvious.
I would ask you but it's obvious that you don't know shyt!
Guest

Bexar, AR

#26641 Sep 3, 2013
WARRIOR wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO! Did you learn all of that at the University of Salem? You sure do know a lot about money for being so poor! LOL!
NBC c
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#26642 Sep 3, 2013
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
NBC c
So you learned it from msnbc where you get all of your talking points! LOL!
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#26643 Sep 3, 2013
I Disagree wrote:
<quoted text>
The argument that a higher minimum wage will be a job killer is contradictory to basic economic arithmetic, it is also contradicted by serious economic research.
Many studies have shown that raising the minimum wage doesn’t hurt job growth and can actually help businesses by raising productivity, lowering turnover, and increasing demand when workers have more money to spend.
http://soulandbluesreport.com/burrito-chain-p...
“An increase in the federal minimum wage from its current rate of $7.25 per hour to $9 per hour by the end of 2015 will raise hourly earnings for about 21 million people. These are—by definition—the lowest-paid workers in the economy. Their total earnings amounted to 1.6 percent of the entire economy in 2011, the most recent year for which data are available.
How could putting that much money back into the economy cause anybody to go broke.
How could taking that much money out of the economy cause a government to go broke ...
Here is how it is done,
When big businesslike Wall-Mart sits on enormous amounts of cash and pay there workers less than a living wage, here is what you get.
A combination of low wages and less than full-time schedules, leave workers dependent on social programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and section 8 housing – all of which are being paid for with our tax dollars.
- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/06/wal...
I see where you're going with this and I understand how you can argue for that. I thought the same way when I first heard the notion that minimum wage actually decreases productivity. It wasn't until I had my own business that the light came on. People who are guaranteed a starting wage begin not to try at the entry level which was never designed as a career. Entry level jobs are designed for high school and college students in order to give them work experience. The problem with guaranteed wages is the individual applying for the job knows they don't really have to prepare or have a work ethic at all and they still will get paid the minimum amount if they get hired. Let me ask you this. Since 1938 when the minimum wage law was enacted, have workers become more driven or more lazy? I know what you should say and my question then would be why? Wages for jobs are market driven. Some jobs are just not worth more than $7.25 per hour. Raising that amount only causes goods to increase in price and makes the workforce that much more lazy. In theory, your assumption is plausable. In reality, however, it simply doesn't play out that way and I think you can look around and see it if you want to. I would encourage anyone who thinks minimum wage should be increased to open up a business that requires minimum wage workers and attempt to pay them what they think the minimum wage should be and see how it works out.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hasty Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What do i need to know about ozark mountain wed... Apr 20 Me to 1
Congrats To V-Springs Girl's Basketball Team Mar '16 basketballwatcher 1
News Sheriff's race centers on recent disappearances (Jan '07) Jan '16 ExResident 2
wanted fugitives Nov '15 steve 1
Ronald lawson (Mar '15) Sep '15 Zorro 5
News Animal Abuse Caught on Tape (Aug '08) Jul '12 mary smith 105
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Arkansas (... (Oct '10) Nov '10 Republican 7
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hasty Mortgages