Half Of U.S. Republicans Back Minimum Wage Of $9 Per Hour: Poll

[Salty]

And do you conservatives hate people so much you want to keep them in poverty? .

If a person demands $10 an hour for a job only worth $5 an hour - wouldn't that be considered stealing from the employer.

The Bible says a man is worthy of his labor - and as a Christian Business, I would strive to pay my employees a fair wage. - nothing less,

 

[OldRegular]

Just where does the Federal Government get the authority to establish the wage that an employer must pay?

 

[OldRegular]

It is very simple Old, their own words posted show contempt, no concern and hatred toward others. Simple as that.

Crabby, I suppose justifying the slaughter of 55,000,000 unborn children is an expression of LOVE by the people you support!

 

[OldRegular]

It is very simple Old, their own words posted show contempt, no concern and hatred toward others. Simple as that.

Crabby, Do you contend that all the trash you post from Huffington Post and like sources epitomizes the LOVE of the leftists/democrats for the less fortunate. These people want to keep the poor in poverty so they can manipulate their vote. Since 1964 ~15 trillion dollars have been spent in the LBJ War on Poverty, roughly equivalent to the national debt!

Tuesday, 26 June 2012 07:06
The War on Poverty: $15 Trillion and Nothing to Show for It

Fifteen trillion dollars: That’s how much American taxpayers have forked over in the name of helping the poor since 1964. And what do we have to show for it? A poverty rate that has barely budged, an entrenched bureaucracy, and a population — like that of Greece and Portugal, two welfare-state basket cases — increasingly dependent on government handouts.

These are the conclusions of a recent Cato Institute report on the American welfare state by Michael Tanner, Cato’s director of health and welfare studies and author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society. It is hardly an encouraging read, to say the least.

When President Johnson declared war on poverty nearly half a century ago, writes Tanner, “the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly.” Increasing prosperity brought about by the free market, coupled with strong civil institutions such as churches, charities, and fraternal organizations, was already accomplishing the unthinkable: making poverty, the general condition of mankind throughout most of history, a rarity in the United States. A rising tide, as Johnson’s predecessor observed, does indeed lift all boats.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11864-the-war-on-poverty-$15-trillion-and-nothing-to-show-for-it

 

[OldRegular]

It is very simple Old, their own words posted show contempt, no concern and hatred toward others. Simple as that.

Crabby, You need to get out of that leftist fog bank you are in and accept the truth that you are wrong on almost everything you post on this Forum about Conservatives.

The following shows that you are also sadly wrong about how the liberal/left cares about people, though I suspect you already know this. The leftists, of which you are one, simply want to keep the poor in bondage to the Federal Government, in other words "slaves to the leftist masters"!

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

 

[Oldtimer]

It is very simple Old, their own words posted show contempt, no concern and hatred toward others. Simple as that.

Brother, it is not that simple.

No matter how strongly I disagree with some of your viewpoints I do not hate you. If I didn't have concern, I wouldn't bother to read or reply to your posts. Because some do show "contempt, no concern, and hatred" your words tend to pick up a broad paintbrush to apply a thick coat of stain to all who may be in disagreement. Intended or not, your implication of "hate" and "lack of concern" splashes into my face, too. Is that your intention?

Think about it, Brother.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Brother, it is not that simple.

And neither is the abortion issue as simply as you like to paint. Isn't your brush very broad there when you continue to directly or indirectly continue to paint someone as supporting abortion who has repeatedly said they are against abortion?

No matter how strongly I disagree with some of your viewpoints I do not hate you. If I didn't have concern, I wouldn't bother to read or reply to your posts. Because some do show "contempt, no concern, and hatred" your words tend to pick up a broad paintbrush to apply a thick coat of stain to all who may be in disagreement. Intended or not, your implication of "hate" and "lack of concern" splashes into my face, too. Is that your intention?

Think about it, Brother.

Old, I was not responding to your post or posts when I made the comment you responded to. I was not attempting to paint you, but an attitude that others seem to have. It was to another on the board who seems to hold people in great contempt that I was responding to. To me that poster's words convict him/her.

Also, isn't using the word the word "liberal" used often with a very broad brush also?

 

[Revmitchell]

Anyone who supports PP supports abortion. Period.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Old, I was not responding to your post or posts when I made the comment you responded to. I was not attempting to paint you, but an attitude that others seem to have. It was to another on the board who seems to hold people in great contempt that I was responding to. To me that poster's words convict him/her.

Nope. What you did was run out of intelligent things to say, so you made up a fairy tale in your own polluted liberal mind, that because we disagree with you that we hate the poor. It is stupid to debate you when you take that stance, and any rational discussion is over at that point.

I ask if it's an employer's responsibility to lift people out of poverty. You attack my walk with Christ. Webdog asks you an EXCELLENT question and you utterly ignore him. After telling dirty lies about the people challenging you.

You are a disgrace.

 

[just-want-peace]

Nope. What you did was run out of intelligent things to say, so you made up a fairy tale in your own polluted liberal mind, that because we disagree with you that we hate the poor. It is stupid to debate you when you take that stance, and any rational discussion is over at that point.

I ask if it's an employer's responsibility to lift people out of poverty. You attack my walk with Christ. Webdog asks you an EXCELLENT question and you utterly ignore him. After telling dirty lies about the people challenging you.

You are a disgrace.

I asked Crabby a couple of questions (that based on his posts he should readily comprehend) that I have yet to see an answer to - unless I have just overlooked it some way! (Post # 12).

Anxiously awaiting, but not holding my breath!:laugh:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The Pharisees, who judged what others gave, looked down on people based on their own prejudices towards the poor.

To claim we hate the poor is a personal attack and I have no idea how he keeps getting away with it.

The old personal attack and disappear routine.

 

[Oldtimer]

And neither is the abortion issue as simply as you like to paint. Isn't your brush very broad there when you continue to directly or indirectly continue to paint someone as supporting abortion who has repeatedly said they are against abortion?

Old, I was not responding to your post or posts when I made the comment you responded to. I was not attempting to paint you, but an attitude that others seem to have. It was to another on the board who seems to hold people in great contempt that I was responding to. To me that poster's words convict him/her.

Also, isn't using the word the word "liberal" used often with a very broad brush also?

IMO, abortion is a simple issue, regardless of how words about it are phrased. Either the baby is murdered or he/she isn't. I am opposed to abortion. Period. Mankind cannot breathe life into dust and create a human being. Both the OT and the NT make it plain with regards to murder.

Please reference any posts that I have made with regards to you, specifically, on this subject. I will review. If an apology is due, I will apologize.

Next: Please re-read the thread. You were responding directly to a post that I made. Your Post in full:

Originally Posted by Oldtimer
Why is it that everyone who disagrees with liberal politics "HATES" other people?

It is very simple Old, their own words posted show contempt, no concern and hatred toward others. Simple as that.

Once again, it appears that you do use a wide paint brush when you omit the reference to particular people or posts. You said:

And do you conservatives hate people so much you want to keep them in poverty? .

I am a conservative. Thus, you accused me of hating people so much that I want to keep them in poverty.

Finally,

Also, isn't using the word the word "liberal" used often with a very broad brush also?

Yes, it is a broad brush.

One that should be understood by people just as the broad brushes of "Christian" and "Muslim" or "Buddist". The use of "liberal" is within the same context as your use of "conservatives" above. A broad understanding of a particular viewpoint, whether religious or political. A general understanding that does not dive into the fine differences between the different types of Baptists within the context of Christianity when compared to Hindu beliefs.

BTW, I read your post this AM when it only contained the second paragraph. Didn't have time to respond then. FWIW, I'm glad I waited until you had completed your edit of same.