Originally Posted by Oedipus Rex

Merry X-mas to you too. My point was that people are worth than a minimum wage. No one should be able to survive on such a low wage. A minimum wage is a stepping stone to a higher wage. Those (the 'poor') who want a higher minimum wage are typically those who have absolutely no marketable skills and won't bother to obtain any.

Originally Posted by HootervilleWarrior

In this country, anybody who puts in an honest day's work should be able to survive. And that's the way it would be if Republicans 'honored' work the way they say they do.

Originally Posted by HootervilleWarrior

I don't think anybody's really interested in what a bad-ass employer you are. If you can't afford to pay your employees minimum wage, that's your problem. You can always put in the hours and do the work yourself, eh?

Originally Posted by HootervilleWarrior

In this country, anybody who puts in an honest day's work should be able to survive. And that's the way it would be if Republicans 'honored' work the way they say they do.

Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts

What is the wage that would allow an honest worker to survive?

Originally Posted by RASTAMAN

Corporations believe in entitlements as well, it called Corporate Welfare which cost American tax payers. For years, the U.S. government has been in the business of providing special benefits to individual industries and companies through tax breaks, trade policies, and spending programs.

There are several problems with this approach. The federal government has a poor record of picking industrial winners and losers, so the economic benefits that these programs are purported to create inevitably fail to materialize. Furthermore, corporate welfare programs create an uneven playing field; foster an incestuous relationship between business and government; are anti-consumer, anti-capitalist, and unconstitutional; and create a huge drain on the federal budget.

Corporate welfare is a huge drain on the federal treasury for little economic benefit. Corporate welfare is supposed to offer a positive long-term economic return for taxpayers. But the evidence shows that government "investments" have a low or negative rate of return.

In the late 1960s the federal government spent nearly $1 billion on the Supersonic Transport, which experts in Washington expected would revolutionize air travel. Instead the project went bankrupt and never flew a single passenger. In the late 1970s the federal government spent more than $2 billion of taxpayer money on the Synthetic Fuels Corporation -- a public-private project that Department of Energy officials thought would provide new sources of energy for America in the 1980s. The SFC was closed down in the 1980s, having never produced a single kilowatt of electricity.

Originally Posted by HootervilleWarrior

In this country, anybody who puts in an honest day's work should be able to survive. And that's the way it would be if Republicans 'honored' work the way they say they do.

Originally Posted by Oedipus Rex

I don't think anyone asked what you thought of me either. I certainly haven't. Yet, you feel the need to attack me because of what I believe. So sad. Well, if you're ever in the neighborhood and have the opportunity to come by my business, please continue on without stopping in to say 'Hi'. It'd save me the trouble of throwing you out.

Have a Merry Christmas!