Since we are Going to Make Employers Give their Employees Free Money . . .

Feb 2020
1,748
643
Houston
The "working poor" are being defended in exactly the same way as the "working rich".
Deleted your personal attack.

How is $58 per day for the working poor (8 hours times the minimum wage) and $511 per day (what the working rich will get) "exactly the same?"

You misunderstand at least two of the words in that three word phrase.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
42,283
30,826
La La Land North
These types of threads are stupid and heartless.

If somebody who doesn't have the benefits of the rest of the civilized world nations and they get sick which causes them to miss work, they still need to pay rent.
They still need to pay doctor's bills.

The reality of this situation is this:
So what's the U.S.'s excuse for not doing it again?

Talking about just giving them free stuff is a satirical nonsense argument. It's like talking about the fire department for a city putting fires out for poor people, so why don't we just give the poor people free access to the expensive Dasani water bottles on the shelves?
THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!1!!!1!!

Giving farmers taxpayer money isn't. Giving airlines taxpayer money isn't giving corporations taxpayer money isn't. Arranging things such that corporations give taxpayer money to its workers is.

I can't figure out the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Jul 2019
12,632
9,245
Georgia
Deleted your personal attack.

How is $58 per day for the working poor (8 hours times the minimum wage) and $511 per day (what the working rich will get) "exactly the same?"

You misunderstand at least two of the words in that three word phrase.
what do you think about Gabbard/Romney's idea of a stack a month for everyone, even folks who don't have to miss work?

thinking it might be right up your alley based on your pro-Socialism posts in this thread.
 
Jul 2019
12,632
9,245
Georgia
THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!1!!!1!!

Giving farmers taxpayer money isn't. Giving airlines taxpayer money isn't giving corporations taxpayer money isn't. Arranging things such that corporations give taxpayer money to its workers is.

I can't figure out the difference.
Farmer welfare/Corporate welfare is straight up Socialism. It's not even Democratic Socialism, because us taxpayers don't have a choice.
 
Nov 2005
10,133
5,504
California
Deleted your personal attack.
To bad you don't delete your own personal attacks.
What I said: And regardless of your poor lie regarding not insulting others, your last line is both an insult and a lie.
And you did not delete any insult from me.
These faux victimhood / passive aggressive feints are meaningless and nobody is impressed.


The "working poor" are being defended in exactly the same way as the "working rich".
How is $58 per day for the working poor (8 hours times the minimum wage) and $511 per day (what the working rich will get) "exactly the same?"
You misunderstand at least two of the words in that three word phrase.
It is sad that you say "at least two of the words in that three word phrase" when it is you who do not comprehend that "exactly the same" is not identical to "exactly the same way".
I said "exactly the same way". The same way being that their income rate is preserved.

And these personal attacks you perpetuate by pretending that others are assisting the rich AS A LIMIT OF $511 PER DAY IS INSTITUTED is a laugh.
People earning $600 per day? They get $511 per day.
People earning $6,000 per day? They get $511 per day.
People earning $60,000 per day? They get $511 per day.


$511 per day only comes out to about 130K per year. Which isn't really that much, especially to support a family. In some cities that's kind of poor even for a single person. These people have bills too. The bill is fair as in it pays what you would have made if you were able to work. If you make over 130K per year, then you're getting less than what you'd normally make for 2 weeks, if you have to be out for that long.

Surely if you read the WaPo article, you would have seen that this is not forced on all employers, and only applies to people who have to take the time off, and is not paid by the employer, which would have helped you out before making a thread title that displays your cluelessness on how things work.
Predictably, he completely avoided this.
 
Feb 2020
1,748
643
Houston
what do you think about Gabbard/Romney's idea of a stack a month for everyone, even folks who don't have to miss work?

thinking it might be right up your alley based on your pro-Socialism posts in this thread.
Consider each of my posts on this thread to be prefaced with,

"Since we are redistributing wealth no matter what I think . . . "

That was the point of the subject line.

My new sig for every post should be:

"As long as we are hell bent on losing our fucking minds anyway . . "

So, within those parameters, giving literally everyone a thousand in printed money is much better than government paying the rich the same wages that made them rich, while giving the poor the same wages that kept them poor.

How do liberals, of all people, not see that?
 
Jul 2019
12,632
9,245
Georgia
Consider each of my posts on this thread to be prefaced with,

"Since we are redistributing wealth no matter what I think . . . "

That was the point of the subject line.

My new sig for every post should be:

"As long as we are hell bent on losing our fucking minds anyway . . "

So, within those parameters, giving literally everyone a thousand in printed money is much better than government paying the rich the same wages that made them rich, while giving the poor the same wages that kept them poor.

How do liberals, of all people, not see that?
Sorry. I'm a literal person, in the sense I say what I'm thinking, and like to stick to the truth. Regardless of what your implication is, your thread title is completely inaccurate and misleading. My straight-forwardness doesn't change because of some supposedly implied thoughts of yours I'm supposed to mind-read before every single one. I can be sarcastic as hell, but I'm always still clear on my intent.

In other words, I don't speak your language, and that's generally why bait doesn't work on me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: foundit66
Feb 2020
1,748
643
Houston
Sorry. I'm a literal person, in the sense I say what I'm thinking, and like to stick to the truth. Regardless of what your implication is, your thread title is completely inaccurate and misleading. That doesn't change because of some supposedly implied thoughts of yours I'm supposed to mind-read before every single one.

In other words, I don't speak your language, and that's generally why bait doesn't work on me.
I'm not baiting.

If you think I am, why do you obsessively respond to it?

Isn't that called, "taking the bait?"
 
Jul 2019
12,632
9,245
Georgia
I'm okay with Gromney's stack plan. I could do a lot of good work with an extra stack a month. A lot.
 
Nov 2005
10,133
5,504
California
Consider each of my posts on this thread to be prefaced with,
"Since we are redistributing wealth no matter what I think . . . "
It should be prefaced with "This is a strawman argument ..." as this is not about "redistributing" wealth.
The fact that the salary rates are provided at the same rate with an upper cap helps demonstrate this.


"As long as we are hell bent on losing our fucking minds anyway . . "
What would be "losing our f###ing minds..." is blindly pursuing the situation without regards to people's livelihoods / loss of income that people without paid medical leave would face.
We already have a HUGE problem in this country with people going bankrupt due to health related problems.
If people like you had their way, we would simply widen that hole and disregard how many more people's lives (financial lives) were destroyed by the coronavirus.


How do liberals, of all people, not see that?
Because you are arguing a strawman argument in the first place.
You are pretending to pursue some "extension" of our approach, when you haven't the first freakin' clue.

It wasn't until this morning that you stopped running around proclaiming that we were screwing over businesses by forcing them to give paid leave. You couldn't even be bothered to look at the FACTS of the legislation and see that angle was being covered.
I chuckle at the irony that you continue to post in a thread where the subject line emphasizes your ignorance on the subject line. You repeatedly run dogmatically forwards to implement your chosen philosophy without regards to consequence (much less the truth of the matter)...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: se7en