Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
rashore

2018 elections

39 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Aquila King
4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I, myself, don't believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage.

Then you are essentially advocating for wage slavery.

If you work full time and aren't paid proportional to the bare basic cost of living, then what other choice do you have other than gain government assistance in some areas or become homeless and unemployed? I understand your argument about them being starter jobs that launch you into better jobs down the road, but there are numerous instances where going to school costs a lot of time and money and necessarily requires that you work full time to pay for all that. Yet if you aren't paid enough for basic necessities, then what good is it to work there at all?

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If they have no marketable experience, or talent, or education, that should be their own fault.

Okay, let's say that it is their own fault for the sake of argument. What you're suggesting is that they should not get paid enough to survive, receive no government assistance to fill the gaps left by their low paying job, and risk becoming homeless or a criminal so as to fill the gaps that we refuse to fill. The fact is, when you lack basic necessities is when you have an uptick in crime and homelessness. That's just a fact.

Would you rather insure that these people's basic necessities are met rather than increase the amount of crime and homelessness? Or do you simply enjoy pointing a finger at the poor and disadvantaged without offering any solutions?

Regardless, you fail to even consider the possibility that various life circumstances that are out of these people's control could lead to such life problems. Your lack of empathy here is telling.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I do understand that some people are disadvantaged, either by physical circumstances, or mental circumstances, or life choices, and need help. But they shouldn't have to be held up and coddled for 30 or 40 years. That is just them taking advantage of the system, and staying at an easy job. Easy here being relative. But, I don't know a single high paying job that isn't hard/stressful in some way.

Again, we're taking about basic necessities here. No one is talking about giving these people enough money to live lavish lifestyles, so this idea that people would want to lay back on a living wage job and go no further in life is just flatly untrue.

Most countries in Europe provide a living wage, so does Australia. They have for several decades. You don't hear of their economies crashing or the majority of their people choosing a minimum wage job over higher paying ones. No, giving people a living wage simply offers them the chance to have their basic needs met while they advance in life. Nothing more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
F3SS

Yet you still can’t address the main problem with the term living wage. Your living wage is different than mine. I did some rough math and I can make no less than $19/hr after taxes at full time to meet my basics. Your living wage is likely different. Jobs pay what they’re worth and not what you need.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

And I’m pretty sure Europe has had its share of economic issues. Greece is notorious for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
12 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Then you are essentially advocating for wage slavery.

If you work full time and aren't paid proportional to the bare basic cost of living, then what other choice do you have other than gain government assistance in some areas or become homeless and unemployed? I understand your argument about them being starter jobs that launch you into better jobs down the road, but there are numerous instances where going to school costs a lot of time and money and necessarily requires that you work full time to pay for all that. Yet if you aren't paid enough for basic necessities, then what good is it to work there at all?

Uhhhh... Get a second job. Go to school to get educated to get a better job. Interview constantly for a better job? Take in a room mate? 

I'm not against government assistance (I think I stated that), but it shouldn't be a way of life.

Where did I say not to help the homeless?

I do agree that education costs are way out of control, especially in the larger university systems. Tuition increases of 10% per year seems the norm. That is out of control, if you ask me.

Quote

Okay, let's say that it is their own fault for the sake of argument. What you're suggesting is that they should not get paid enough to survive, receive no government assistance to fill the gaps left by their low paying job, and risk becoming homeless or a criminal so as to fill the gaps that we refuse to fill. The fact is, when you lack basic necessities is when you have an uptick in crime and homelessness. That's just a fact.

Would you rather insure that these people's basic necessities are met rather than increase the amount of crime and homelessness? Or do you simply enjoy pointing a finger at the poor and disadvantaged without offering any solutions?

Regardless, you fail to even consider the possibility that various life circumstances that are out of these people's control could lead to such life problems. Your lack of empathy here is telling.

Is that a fact? Care to point out some statistics that prove that?

Homelessness affects roughly one in a thousand and that includes all those who are staying with friends, or otherwise still living in comfortable conditions. The fact is that homelessness is sad, but it is not the major issue. And, like I said, those who are having physical/mental/societal issues should be helped, just not on a permanent basis, or at least as short a time as is required to meet a minimum standard (Which will not be an actual living wage).

I did not fail to consider, you failed to read my post effectively. Does "I do understand that some people are disadvantaged, either by physical circumstances, or mental circumstances, or life choices, and need help. " ring a bell?

Quote

Again, we're taking about basic necessities here. No one is talking about giving these people enough money to live lavish lifestyles, so this idea that people would want to lay back on a living wage job and go no further in life is just flatly untrue.

Most countries in Europe provide a living wage, so does Australia. They have for several decades. You don't hear of their economies crashing or the majority of their people choosing a minimum wage job over higher paying ones. No, giving people a living wage simply offers them the chance to have their basic needs met while they advance in life. Nothing more.

But you are. You are saying support them at a Living Wage, which depending on the definition means being able to afford a home, car, insurance, healthcare, education, etc.... Which requires a moderate middle class income. You are not arguing for a minimum coverage if you are demanding a living wage. 

Uhhhhh... The nations of the Southern part of Europe are, or already have, crashed. Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal.... All have crashed due to social programs. It is only the brokering of the UE government and help of loans from Germany that have kept those nations afloat. And notice that those failing nations were put into Austerity by the other nations of Europe. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
10 hours ago, F3SS said:

Yet you still can’t address the main problem with the term living wage. Your living wage is different than mine. I did some rough math and I can make no less than $19/hr after taxes at full time to meet my basics. Your living wage is likely different. Jobs pay what they’re worth and not what you need.

And varies by location. A person living in Rural Montana does not have the same costs as one living in Manhattan. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

This week was a fairly quiet elections week- a few states had their registration and ballot deadlines, and Wisconsin had the first primaries, for judges.

Next week has a bit more serious stuff along with a bunch of ballot and filing deadlines. A handful of House and Senate elections are happening too.

On the 27th Arizona is holding it's special election for the 8th district House seat, Alabama's Senate 26th seat is having a Primary Democratic run-off, House 4th seat is having a Republican run-off, Connecticut House 120 general elections, Kentucky House 89 general elections, New Hampshire House belknap 3 special general elections, Rhode Island Senate 8 primary, and South Carolina House 69 primary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
On 23/02/2018 at 4:58 AM, F3SS said:

And I’m pretty sure Europe has had its share of economic issues. Greece is notorious for it.

Greece is where sound economic policies go to die.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

In a county that Trump won by 20 points, the Republicans had to spend $1m and it was still far closer than it had any right to be. 

The GOP must be quite worried by now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 4/26/2018 at 7:31 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

In a county that Trump won by 20 points, the Republicans had to spend $1m and it was still far closer than it had any right to be. 

The GOP must be quite worried by now.

True. But if this goes like 2016, where the DNC was begging money off of Clinton, with zero in the bank, and the GOP rolling in money.... Then this could be indicative of where things are going to go.

It is looking like there will be a good chunk of Dem gains, but I think it is still going to be hard to tell until the actual voting is going down. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

True. But if this goes like 2016, where the DNC was begging money off of Clinton, with zero in the bank, and the GOP rolling in money.... Then this could be indicative of where things are going to go.

It is looking like there will be a good chunk of Dem gains, but I think it is still going to be hard to tell until the actual voting is going down. :D

By all reports, Dem candidates have had superb funding and it's like Bernie's funding in that vast majority comes from lots and lots of small and personal donations.

The Senate race should be mentioned in particular. The Dems have 152 candidates to the Republicans' 238, but have raised over $100m more so far, with the majority coming from personal donations. 

Data from the Center for Responsive Politics

This is a clear indication of Trump backfiring with the electorate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

I don’t think you can judge much of this till the actual midterm. These few special elections many people might not even be aware of. 

Also so much can change from now till then. What happens if Korea actually ends up in a peace deal? Which it looks like that might very well happen. Or any number of things that could either hurt or help either party. 

New York electing a Dem means literally nothing. Most of NY has no say with any election. NYC decides everything for us. We have a sea of generational welfare recipients that speak for us all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
18 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

By all reports, Dem candidates have had superb funding and it's like Bernie's funding in that vast majority comes from lots and lots of small and personal donations.

The Senate race should be mentioned in particular. The Dems have 152 candidates to the Republicans' 238, but have raised over $100m more so far, with the majority coming from personal donations. 

Data from the Center for Responsive Politics

This is a clear indication of Trump backfiring with the electorate. 

That's all true. But, the season is just starting, and from what I've just read GOP donors usually wait till Summer to start throwing money. So we'll have to see what is happening in August and September, before we can actually make good predictions.

From what I've read, Trump's approval with his base voters is still strong. And I very much doubt that the bigger GOP donors who are profiting off the good economy, are going to turn against Trump or the GOP. There's going to be plenty of money.

It will be lucky if the Dems don't LOOSE seats in the Senate this year. Since there are only like 3 GOP seats up for serious contest, but 7 or 8 Democrat seats that are in states that GOP did well in in 2016.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.