Republican food stamp cuts hurt corporate retailers profit

[arandomuser]

The wealthy are more wealthier in comparison the poorest debatably more so than an other time in history. And yet conservatives still go on to accuse obama of being an "socialist" or "communist", if obama was a socialist i do not think we would have seen more american billionaires and millionaires than any other presidency, republican or democrat, in fact if obama was a socialist and adopted many of the policies used by modern socialist countries such as subsidized housing and health insurance for all we would actually be much better off as a consumer based society.

[Froggi]

This escalated quickly. Only two things that have already been eluded to but need reinforcement.

1 - Raising the minimum wage is a double edged sword that really only serves to cause inflation. Using simplified numbers, if the minimum wage goes from $1 to $2, the affected businesses have two realistic options. Either raise prices or cut employees. It's a simple thing really, yet some people refuse to admit it. See, wages count towards how much a manufacturer spends to create it's product. Then it double dips at the distributor, and triple dips at the merchant selling it.

Even if you consider that example as an exaggeration (which you should) the effect is still there. If you pay the minimum wage bracket more, the products they are involved in will go up in price, causing a domino effect of the income brackets above them. Suddenly, a job that was in bracket two becomes very hard to find a qualified employee for, because all the bracket two employees want bracket three jobs to keep their quality of life going. So the employer ups it's prices to pay at bracket three levels to fill a position it desperately needs to continue functioning. So forth and so on.

I'm not saying it's ideal, because it's the opposite of ideal, but it is realistic. On the other hand, minimum wages do need adjusting from time to time to account for natural inflation. Back to the double edged sword. I think the biggest issue with Obama's proposed hike is it's size, if he does it right (haha) he'll end up taking a deal to raise the wage by a lesser amount. But compromise and passing anything that is not overly polarized these days is a no no it would seem.

2) Obamacare is not a health care bill. It is a health insurance bill. As some have already said, we would be a lot better off if the parties had worked together to pass something that actually reduced the cost of health care instead of just demanding that we all have insurance. Both parties are to blame for the stupidity that landed us where we are. The universal health care systems out there that are seeing some success did exactly that, but no, we have to have a showdown for the media so we get one side or the other. When (as always) the best situation for the country was found somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

For the record, I am a centrist, and I hate both of our parties equally. Usually I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, hence the conservative leanings of this post.

[Aktillum]

And this will be the case until our tax system is revamped. Unfortunately this will not happen without Democrats attaining full control of the legislative branch and the presidency.

Is it really a matter of Dems and Republicans? Is there not just ONE corporate agenda behind both parties? I think on social issues the two parties may have some minute differences but on any major decision I think it's all about big business and following the money.

- - - Updated - - -

To bring a little personal experience. I'm trying to buy a house. I can say in Seattle, the economy has improved by huge leaps for house owners. A house I was emailed just yesterday, is going for 250k, while being last sold 3 years ago for 130k. It is now a sellers market and an extremely competitive one.

Wealth disparity, isn't a measure of the economy I'm responding to... Just sayin'...

After all the foreclosures it sounds like it was a firesale because of all the vacant houses. Is this not just the housing market catching up?

- - - Updated - - -

I am done with you. I would tell someone making 7.75 an hour to go find a new job. 1.6% of the jobs pay minimum wage. Minimum wage is meant to be a starting wage not a wage to have a wife and 2 kids with.

My 401k is fine becuase I invest. An 80 year old will most likely only have about 10-20% in the stock market because you can not have investments in something that is volataile.

And again you didnt ask me - I just "referenced" to your point. My point was basically that both sides are terrible.

You are right minimum wage is meant to be a starting wage or a stepping stone to bigger and better things but it isn't enough to properly prepare someone to get to the next step. I am a firm believer that one can not properly support even themselves on anything less than 15 dollars/hour in this country.

[Froggi]

Is it really a matter of Dems and Republicans? Is there not just ONE corporate agenda behind both parties? I think on social issues the two parties may have some minute differences but on any major decision I think it's all about big business and following the money.

Agree with you wholeheartedly.

You are right minimum wage is meant to be a starting wage or a stepping stone to bigger and better things but it isn't enough to properly prepare someone to get to the next step. I am a firm believer that one can not properly support even themselves on anything less than 15 dollars/hour in this country.

Only recently did I top $15 an hour. And I've been living on my own for years now, with very little outside help. Was a homeowner (admittedly a foreclosure) at $11.50 an hour. I will give you that cost of living varies greatly depending on your location, however it is possible to support a single person for less than $15 an hour.

[Laize]

As things change, you change the program, I do not see an issue with this. Fix the programs that are broken, stop spending so much on the military–industrial complex. The debt would be gone. Instead, we are cutting programs that are like 1% of the total debt... its just dumb.

No one wants to get rid of the MIC.

No one wants to have that level of job loss on their hands.

- - - Updated - - -

Unions in Europe don't have to dicker over medical and retirement benefits because most European countries have socialized healthcare and retirement systems that they can depend on. That's largely what unions in the US have to fight for, preserving benefits and retirement systems.

Conditions for the average worker/wage earner between Europe and the US are largely non-comparable because of the vast disparity in government programs.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Not a bit.

[Wells]

No one wants to get rid of the MIC.

No one wants to have that level of job loss on their hands.

The arms manufacturers have been clever in spreading out their industry wider than would otherwise be efficient.

[Flutterguy]

So Republicans are limiting subsidies to big business?


I thought Democrats ate this kind of shit up all the time.