(April 4, 2014 at 10:18 am)KUSA Wrote: If you raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour the price of everything would go through the roof the next day.

There is no evidence for your statement if you review past minimum wage increases. Next time let's use facts & math instead of conservative talking points. Thanks.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicatio...013-02.pdf

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-16...raise.html

"The studies find minimum-wage increases even provide an economic boost, albeit a small one, as strapped workers immediately spend their raises. A 2011 paper by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that a $1 minimum-wage increase lifts household income by about $250 and increases spending by about $700 a quarter in the following year. The spending increase is driven by a small number of households that primarily buy vehicles. "

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/e...usinesses/

"There is no evidence to support the claim that a higher minimum wage will lead to less employment. Businesses can easily absorb a higher minimum wage—with a small price increase or a small reduction in already very high profits, for example. The argument that a higher minimum wage will be a job killer simply doesn’t pass the sniff test of basic economic arithmetic, and is contradicted by reams of serious economic research."

Even Goldman-Sachs disagrees with your assertion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02...77677.html

---

(April 4, 2014 at 10:42 am)Heywood Wrote: Why should a person on food stamps be told they have to use those funds to buy food when they might be better served by buying diapers?

1.) Food is a necessity, diapers aren't.

2.) Single-use plastic diapers are horrible for the environment. Food isn't.

3.) People that are strapped for cash should be using washable cloth or plastic diapers. My parents did, I turned out just fine.

4.) WIC already pays for a number of items that offset the expense of diapers.

P.S. I'm back, bitches.

His statement does reveal his agenda Jaysyn – it's not about corporations parasitizing our taxes, or about working class citizens being able to afford to eat.

It's about him and his self–absorbed need for low priced goods at the expense of anything.

You're fighting self–absorption and entitlement itself.

Good luck cracking that nut.

(April 4, 2014 at 10:42 am)Heywood Wrote: In addition we don't need to waste tax payer money paying for an army of bureaucrats to enforce spending habits on poor people.

You mean the simple list they use to determine if something falls under SNAP or not? Army my ass.

(April 4, 2014 at 10:50 am)Jaysyn Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 10:42 am)Heywood Wrote: Why should a person on food stamps be told they have to use those funds to buy food when they might be better served by buying diapers?

1.) Food is a necessity, diapers aren't.

2.) Single-use plastic diapers are horrible for the environment. Food isn't.

3.) People that are strapped for cash should be using washable cloth or plastic diapers. My parents did, I turned out just fine.

4.) WIC already pays for a number of items that offset the expense of diapers.

P.S. I'm back, bitches.

What your doing is forcing your views on how people who are strapped for cash should live....onto people who are strapped for cash.

Why do you want to impose your will on others?

Pretty much what Jaysyn said. Of the 75 millionish hourly workers in the US only about 3.5 million of them are paid at or below minimum wage. Unsurprisingly more than half of those earn a rate less than minimum wage.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm

(April 4, 2014 at 11:07 am)Jaysyn Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 10:42 am)Heywood Wrote: In addition we don't need to waste tax payer money paying for an army of bureaucrats to enforce spending habits on poor people.

You mean the simple list they use to determine if something falls under SNAP or not? Army my ass.

The welfare bureaucracy is more than just a list of foods you can and can't buy.

(April 4, 2014 at 11:10 am)Heywood Wrote: What your doing is forcing your views on how people who are strapped for cash should live....onto people who are strapped for cash.

Why do you want to impose your will on others?

Beggars can't be choosers.

And what "you're" wanting to do is going to cause American children to starve. That was the situation before public assistance & that is what will happen if you get your wish.

Also, nice strawman.

(April 4, 2014 at 11:16 am)Jaysyn Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 11:10 am)Heywood Wrote: What your doing is forcing your views on how people who are strapped for cash should live....onto people who are strapped for cash.

Why do you want to impose your will on others?

And what "you're" wanting to do is going to cause American children to starve. That was the situation before public assistance & that is what will happen if you get your wish.

Also, nice strawman.

You think if we gave poor people money they wouldn't use it to buy food? I am all for public assistance....in the form of money. I am against restricting people's freedom just because they are poor.

How screwed are we this time? "If Americans are stupid enough to fall for this one .." invariably only gets answered one way. If it isn't in their best interest, they'll want to put the barrel in their mouth and pull the trigger themselves. Being smart enough isn't a fair test for Muricans. The stupid is very wide and extends very deep.

(April 4, 2014 at 11:22 am)whateverist Wrote: How screwed are we this time? "If Americans are stupid enough to fall for this one .." invariably only gets answered one way. If it isn't in their best interest, they'll want to put the barrel in their mouth and pull the trigger themselves. Being smart enough isn't a fair test for Muricans. The stupid is very wide and extends very deep.

Considering this is basically the same budget that Ryan offered in 2010 & 2012 & they both went down in flames, I'm hoping it won't come to that. People are starting to wake up & smell the plutocracy.

---

(April 4, 2014 at 11:21 am)Heywood Wrote: You think if we gave poor people money they wouldn't use it to buy food? I am all for public assistance....in the form of money. I am against restricting people's freedom just because they are poor.

Lame argument. Economic freedom isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

You want children to have the "freedom to starve" because a parent doesn't manage money well or has a chemical addiction? No, I'm sorry, but you are wrong. It's better that SNAP only covers necessities.

Won't someone think of the children?