Eric Cantor And Disaster Relief

Ockham said:

It certainly depends on the state of the country. What may be un-winable today may change in the future.

Click to expand...

You might be right, but I seriously doubt it. This position of Cantor is extreme and comes from the Tea Party.

1Perry said:

Crap on? I've worked those jobs also. There is nothing wrong with these sorts of jobs. The only problem is in thinking one should be able to live off of them. In the end it's also all a viscous circle. Raise the wage to $15.00 an hour, the guy making $15 an hour demands $20 because his standard of living has taken a huge hit and so on to where the person making $15 an hour is in the same position the person making $7.25 is now.

Click to expand...

The only way that the "it's not designed to be a living wage" argument could possibly be true is if low-paying jobs are necessarily high-turnover jobs. While this is true per se, high turnover decreases productivity. It is in an employer's best interest to lower turnover. And high wages are a very overrated problem, IMO.

Do you have an unbiased source to back up your slippery-slope argument? And even if it were true, so what? You think people are going to ask their bosses NOT to raise their wages?

SeattleRain said:

:: rolls eyes :: When i said "pay them more" .. "them" means "the workers" .

Click to expand...

Yes, it just shows how clueless you are about how things work.

Phys251 said:

The only way that the "it's not designed to be a living wage" argument could possibly be true is if low-paying jobs are necessarily high-turnover jobs. While this is true per se, high turnover decreases productivity. It is in an employer's best interest to lower turnover. And high wages are a very overrated problem, IMO.

Click to expand...

In many cases that is true. Not when you can train someone in a short period of time. The step son is working at Subway. He was complaining about have two new trainee's. They both were trained and working on their own in one day. People are not going to pay $12.50 for a sub either.

Do you have an unbiased source to back up your slippery-slope argument? And even if it were true, so what? You think people are going to ask their bosses NOT to raise their wages?

Click to expand...

So what? I posted so what. In no time the $15.00 an hour sub maker is right back in the position he is now when everyone else gets their raises.

It's easy to prove me wrong though. Open a sub shop and pay your workers $15.00, provide health care for them and a pension plan. When you succeed, you've proven me wrong.

1Perry said:

In many cases that is true. Not when you can train someone in a short period of time. The step son is working at Subway. He was complaining about have two new trainee's. They both were trained and working on their own in one day. People are not going to pay $12.50 for a sub either.

Click to expand...

False choice. Even manual labor has a learning curve.

So what? I posted so what. In no time the $15.00 an hour sub maker is right back in the position he is now when everyone else gets their raises.

It's easy to prove me wrong though. Open a sub shop and pay your workers $15.00, provide health care for them and a pension plan. When you succeed, you've proven me wrong.

Click to expand...

Again, a claim that requires proof. Got some?

pbrauer said:

Eric Cantor has said disaster relief must be offset with spending cuts elsewhere.

Do you agree with Eric Cantor that disaster relief must be offset elsewhere?

Agree with Cantor
Disagree with Cantor
Other

Click to expand...

Phys251 said:

False choice. Even manual labor has a learning curve.

Click to expand...

One day. They were proficient enough to do the job.

Again, a claim that requires proof. Got some?

Click to expand...

It doesn't take a study, it only takes common sense. A basic job like making subs will pay $7.25. When a business needs to hire a more skilled set of workers they must offer more pay. They offer $10. When the minimum goes to $15, to get a more skilled worker you'll have to offer $19 and so on.

Jobs like the sub maker are designed to allow high school kids or someone in college to get a part time job to make some money. If you are offering a "living wage" these jobs close up for the entry level worker. With no means of employment they aren't going to be able to afford $12.00 subs.

mike2810 said:

Ok you seem to like our deficit spending. You miss understood. I said we need to provide state/local with assistance ."Yes, we need disaster assistance to local, county and State level.

So you support continue deficit spending?
I have come to the conclusion some Liberals can't be helped.

Click to expand...

If things were to be balanced, if the tax rates were to be where they should be, and primarily, if there was no economic depression, then a good portion of the deficit would be no more.....
The trouble is, we have fools for congressmen....fools who know nothing about economics....Our money is being blown up in foreign adventures(Afghanistan, Iraq,Columbia ?) and our jobs are now in China and Mexico...never mind about the trillions of dollars for Arabian oil.....
Is it any wonder....

It's time we had a different debate. We as a nation need to determine our priorities first and then determine where the funds will come from to meet those priorities. Yes, I think we need to cut government spending but that is only one side of the coin. There is no reason that we cannot obtain additional revenues. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary. Since they have been in place our revenues have constantly declined. While corporations profits have increased to record highs they have not reinvested by creating new jobs in our economy. Ergo, your premise falls. Under President Clinton the budget deficit was gotten under control. And don't tell me that by putting insurance in the hands of private companies it will help the everyday person. Insurance rates have skyrocketed among such companies. The same is true with prescription drugs. Nor would a tax credit begin to pay the real cost. It would help the government by removing it from the budget, but it would not help the middle-class, lower-class, and poor in this country. Thus my original point. If what this country wants to focus on is business, then say so. Acknowledge that they are not concerned about those who are part of the growing lower & middle class in our society, and make decisions accordingly. But at least own their real beliefs and positions. I can respect that, though I disagree, but their game playing reminds me of a bunch of manipulative spoiled brats who will do anything necessary to get their way.

pbrauer said:

Eric Cantor has said disaster relief must be offset with spending cuts elsewhere.

Do you agree with Eric Cantor that disaster relief must be offset elsewhere?
Other

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what Cantor says or if it's for Disaster relief. Every expense needs to be offset. If not, it turns into debt, then you need to offset for the debt payments and, eventually, the principal on the debt. Meaning, eventually you have to offset somewhere for every expene. Or, just print money turning it into worthless papet. Who would do tjat?

Phys251 said:

Who said I was or wasn't a Christian? I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of conservative Christians to refuse to take care of their neighbors.

Click to expand...

Just realize that not all Conservatives are Christians either, Phys. I'm about as Conservative as you'll find around here and I am most definitely NOT a Christian.

Tigger said:

Just realize that not all Conservatives are Christians either, Phys. I'm about as Conservative as you'll find around here and I am most definitely NOT a Christian.

Click to expand...

Weird, you don't find many nonreligious conservatives around (that's conservatives, not libertarians).

Phys251 said:

Weird, you don't find many nonreligious conservatives around (that's conservatives, not libertarians).

Click to expand...

Some of us understand that Religion and Morality are not the same thing, and that one does not necessarily have to stem from the other. However, you're right that most people do not comprehend that small bit of logic and so they tie themselves down to Religion instead of concerning themselves with Right and Wrong.

Tigger said:

Some of us understand that Religion and Morality are not the same thing, and that one does not necessarily have to stem from the other. However, you're right that most people do not comprehend that small bit of logic and so they tie themselves down to Religion instead of concerning themselves with Right and Wrong.

Click to expand...

Good point. I guess I find it weird that any American who's nonreligious would support a political viewpoint that believes they can't be "real" Americans, entitled to all of the same rights.

Looks like even some other congressional Republicans do not like Cantor's idea.

Ockham said:

Tip for you:

Go to user control panel, choose the ignore list, type in the name Ockham, save. It'll ensure you don't have any more reality from me added to your own little world view. Otherwise, I'll be happy to continue to add to your education.

Click to expand...

Dont need nor want any advice from you sir and I dont want you on ignore...from time to time I need a laugh....but thanks anyway

Phys251 said:

Good point. I guess I find it weird that any American who's nonreligious would support a political viewpoint that believes they can't be "real" Americans, entitled to all of the same rights.

Click to expand...

Conservatism as a political viewpoint does not even consider Religion. It considers Morality and the concepts of Right and Wrong, but it doesn't consider specific Religious systems. Now Republicanism.... that's a different story. I am not and never have been a Republican. I feel they have no more Moral high ground to stand on than the Democrats do.

Tigger said:

Conservatism as a political viewpoint does not even consider Religion. It considers Morality and the concepts of Right and Wrong, but it doesn't consider specific Religious systems. Now Republicanism.... that's a different story. I am not and never have been a Republican. I feel they have no more Moral high ground to stand on than the Democrats do.

Click to expand...

But how do you explain all this? Exceptions occur, sure, but is not the overall trend undeniable?

Cantor is basically Wall Street's bitch. When a natural disaster hits those type of people, they don't need government help. It makes some sense considering who his backers are that he basically doesn't give a **** about everyone else when it comes to natural disaster relief.

Phys251 said:

But how do you explain all this? Exceptions occur, sure, but is not the overall trend undeniable?

Click to expand...

The problem with your theory is that it assumes Democrat=Liberal and Republican=Conservative. That's not necessarily true; especially on the Republican side.

"Conservative" is too broad a term for most discussions. Fiscally? Constitutionally? Morally? Religiously? How are you conservative or liberal? And, do you mean how you live your life vs. who you support politically vs. what you believe you have the right to impose upon others?

Tigger said:

The problem with your theory is that it assumes Democrat=Liberal and Republican=Conservative. That's not necessarily true; especially on the Republican side.

Click to expand...

Uh, since when? How many Tea-Party congresspeople are independents or Democrats?

Phys251 said:

Uh, since when? How many Tea-Party congresspeople are independents or Democrats?

Click to expand...

Irrelevant - how many in congress and what letter comes before or after their name does not reflect the public make up of the tea party. 60 tea party members are in congress of the 435 total making up a whopping 13.7%.

Ockham said:

Irrelevant - how many in congress and what letter comes before or after their name does not reflect the public make up of the tea party. 60 tea party members are in congress of the 435 total making up a whopping 13.7%.

Click to expand...

Uh, actually it does matter. Every single Tea-Party member of Congress a member of the Republican Party. The Tea Party is a party in name only.

Phys251 said:

Uh, actually it does matter. Every single Tea-Party member of Congress a member of the Republican Party. The Tea Party is a party in name only.

Click to expand...

Yet, that's not true of the population at large now is it. I understand the need to marginalize the tea party by pointing to the politicians from a tactical view. The problem is, the tea party is much larger than the 60 members in Congress, and it's not a party at all. The initial "tea party" wasn't using the word "party" in an political organization sense either.