HuskerShark

Why do workers need to be citizens.Is this a serious question? Or are you being sarcastic?Honestly... we let companies have their stuff made by 6 year olds in other countries. Is having illegal immigrant adults as employees really worse than that? IMO it's a lot less bad, but neither happening would be ideal. Here's a good article on non-citizen workers: http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/ Correct, which is why we are able to impose tariffs so our industries don't get dominated.

Why do workers need to be citizens.Is this a serious question? Or are you being sarcastic?It is. Answer it. A pretty logical question at that. Ok. Here's my answer. Why would we allow pre-citizenship immigrants to be employed in the US, unless they have a green card?

Why do workers need to be citizens. Is this a serious question? Or are you being sarcastic?

When i think regulation, i think very minimal. For example, make sure all workers are citizens. I'm sure various industries have a need for some regulation so they don't end up corrupted but that's what I'm thinking about.

Free markets have to be regulated within reason, or people simply are allowed to abuse the system. That i agree with you on. I think we just disagree on where the line should be drawn on what is too much government intervention.

The answer to the "wage gap" issue is not in government intervention to regulate the top or bottom income earners through taxation or otherwise. Instead, the true solution is in actually teaching our young people the things that would actually be useful to know. So instead of memorizing dates and other useless info, students should be learning how to budget, balance checkbooks, keep financial records, and then receive hands on experience in a variety of industries, including pairing students with successful entrepreneurs if that's even remotely in their interests. That will have a WAY more lasting effect than government mandates and regulations.

Moraine, I definitely agree with your last sentence 100% so +1 on that. On the rest of it, minimum wage jobs are not, should not, and were never meant to be worked by people who are trying to support families on that wage or even just themselves. It's not the employer's responsibility to make sure all of its employees are able to make ends meet. That responsibility lies with each individual to get more skills, invest in their own personal development (notice I said personal development, not professional development), and go out and become more marketable for higher paying jobs - or to go a better route in entrepreneurship. I know that sounds ruthless and heartless to a lot of "progressives" but it's not. It's the most genuine and ethical way of going about the employer/employee situation. Employee and employer should be able to freely negotiate the agreed-upon wage that both meets the needs/wants of the employee while providing the employer with value as well. That way there isn't a 3rd party that isn't even involved in the situation (the gov't) pointing a gun at the employer's head demanding that they HAVE to pay $___ to the employee, OR ELSE. There is no reason if 2 parties agree on terms for the employee to work for $5/hr on a certain job - both parties willing - that they should not be able to make that agreement.

There is no reason Gary Johnson shouldn't be on the debate stage. He's seriously a good guy.

People who work full-time are entitled to a living wage whether you agree with it or not. People are entitled to nothing. You get paid according to the value that you bring to the marketplace. That's capitalism. Sorry for the reality check. It's when people like Bernie get ahold of policies that things get out of balance. If McDonald's employees want $15 per hour, that's more incentive for employers to automate. There are already fast food and non-fast food restaurants implementing digital ordering systems. That's not caused by employers being greedy - it's caused by employees who provide little value being greedy and entitled.

No person should be forced to invest in SS. It should be completely optional. That would be a capitalist program. Having a gun put to our heads (figuratively of course) and ordered to throw money into it when it's going to dry up and people from my generation will never see a dime of our own money that we were forced to pay into it. If people didn't get 30% of their paycheck deducted through tax, SS, etc every month, we would not hear near as much about raising minimum wage. Of course there would be a few entitled individuals who would still push for it but would be way less.

Absolutely 100% completely and totally untrue. That is all. No, CM Husker is pretty much spot on, there. And since we're in the Brexit thread, it's really handy to note how voters there went for the populist and nationalist rhetoric, then woke up to find out they'd voted against their own self interest. The facts had always been there for the taking, but they chose to ignore them. Winners & Losers indeed. I was mostly referring to his interpretation of Trump, saying he wants big government, when it's in fact the complete opposite. He's the only candidate in favor of a true capitalism. I think he'd honestly do the right thing and cut social security, but it would be a highly unpopular thing to say. Yeah, the funny thing about these successful businessmen who claim to hate the federal government is how often they accept government subsidies, profit from government contracts, take advantage of government funded R&D, petition the government for trade protection and come crying to the Justice Department to take anti-trust action against their competitors. While hiding their money on Caribbean islands, f'ing over the American labor force, and generally using their big government influence to create private profit at taxpayer risk. Oh yeah, and hiring low paid immigrants to run their gaudy hotels and casinos, then decrying the flow of immigrants as a threat to all that is America. True capitalism would put your mother on an ice flow and your kids on the assembly line, so let's not over-romanticize its glory. And cutting Social Security would be unpopular only because it's so incredibly stupid. Holy sh*t... So incentivizing people to achieve, create wealth, and create opportunities for others to earn money to feed their families is a bad thing? And continuing to take people's hard earned money when they're likely never to see it again (aka ponzi scheme) is a good thing? If this truly is a growing sentiment in America, we're all screwed...

Absolutely 100% completely and totally untrue. That is all. No, CM Husker is pretty much spot on, there. And since we're in the Brexit thread, it's really handy to note how voters there went for the populist and nationalist rhetoric, then woke up to find out they'd voted against their own self interest. The facts had always been there for the taking, but they chose to ignore them. Winners & Losers indeed. I was mostly referring to his interpretation of Trump, saying he wants big government, when it's in fact the complete opposite. He's the only candidate in favor of a true capitalism. I think he'd honestly do the right thing and cut social security, but it would be a highly unpopular thing to say.

What do you mean by this? Of course, he didn't "personally" attack them. The people who "attacked" on 9/11 all died as a result of the attacks. If that is your position, then I will assume you believe suicide-bombings should not be investigated and justice pursued because the attacker is already dead? Or am I not following? No, I'm saying there was never any proof that Bin Laden was involved whatsoever. That's just the direction that Bush wanted to point his finger from the get-go, so that's the message he sold to Americans.

I think he's very perceptive as to what works and what doesn't and follows whichever trend that gives him a favorable response. That's not saying that he changes his stances, as many seem to think. He simply changes the way he presents the information to get the best reaction, like any intelligent sales person would do. On the other hand... Was he in intelligent sales person mode when he was assailing a federal judge as professionally incompetent due to his race? Repeated boldfaced racism does not seem to be bering perceptive to what works to me... He definitely didn't word it right, but he wasn't wrong on that issue, and like everything he does, it was blown WAY out of proportion.

Stick to selling Avon. That's pretty called for huh...

Bush presidency - gets us into a war we didn't belong in, destabilized the middle East, and passed NCLB which was the worst thing for our educational system we've ever seen. That very well may be just scratching the surface. I'd consider that failure.

Your first statement can be said about most President. Reagan had plenty of Democratic detractors back in the day and is now viewed very favorably. Bush 43 was the worst POTUS ever if you listened to Obama and many of his supporters, and history is now judging him better too. I get that every POTUS will be judged more favorably, and what I noted was not all negative either. One item I did not reference as it's not always able to be measured through data, but he has been one of the most polarizing Presidents according to many polls, and racial tensions have increased under his watch. Bush still might be the worst President we've ever had...

Just throwing this out there... Bin Laden didn't attack the world trade centers or Pentagon.

I think he's very perceptive as to what works and what doesn't and follows whichever trend that gives him a favorable response. That's not saying that he changes his stances, as many seem to think. He simply changes the way he presents the information to get the best reaction, like any intelligent sales person would do.

I agree with you for the first time in this 22 page thread.

I agree with you that Bush's presidency was shady and corrupt. I think people are as oblivious to this fact as they are about the $150billion Obama threw at Iran being used to find radical terrorism. The political establishment is beyond corrupt. In both parties. It's not isolated to one side or the other

I'm guessing cost and availability are a couple of them. Holy crap... If someone on here (a woman) ever gets raped, or you know someone who gets raped, please message me and i will out of the goodness of my heart buy the plan B pill for them. How's that? Or do you have more excuses? Not excuses. I have no confirmation, I was just guessing. Thanks for the offer, but I'll bet with just a little effort on your part you could easily be put in contact with those that need/want them. How's that? Or do you have excuses as to why you won't own up to your self-righteousness and bluster? Are you habitually dishonest? I've got a lot of irons in the fire, but I'm always charitable whenever i can be. If i come across someone in need such as this, id be glad to help. Yeah...don't strain yourself ... you gotta save your energy to pat yourself on the back More than I've seen you do, big guy. Of course you haven't seen what I do; how could you? You don't know me and you've never seen me. Are you expecting me to humblebrag on here about my charitable/volunteer endeavors? For some reason you felt the need to attack my character, so why don't you jump off your high horse?

If that's accurate, women ought to look at the candidates' actual history and see the real story. One candidate hired a woman as a project manager for a huge project in a time when that was not commonplace. The other blackmailed and ruined lives of women who had affairs with her husband and pays women executives currently on her staff considerably less than men. But what do i know?... You really want to go there? Trump's treatment of women... You serious Clark?

You couldn't stand it coming from them, so what do you do when it comes from Trump? Just bury your head in the sand? Are you actually under the delusion that Trump is exempt from the exact same thing that you are complaining about from Clinton/Warren, or are you admitting to your tribal, us vs. them mentality where as long as it's your side doing it you're fine with it? I watched every minute of Trump's speech about Hillary Clinton. Not only did he use statistics and actual figures, he cited many other people who worked closely with the Clintons in the White House and witnessed first-hand what she is like.