Shame how when someone whines about income inequality they never mention stuff like this. It seems Democrats pay minority campaign staff three fifths of a white guy's salary.


http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/racism-...s-than-whites/

If you posted a comparison of what both parties paid staff then you would have a good argument, and not a bash the dems statement. So where is the link to what repubs pay their minority staffers?

The source was linked and quoted so read for yourself, I hid nothing.

Quote:

---

The study finds that although Republican campaign staffs hire a disproportionately high number of white men, the income disparities between racial groups are not nearly as pronounced as on Democratic campaigns

---

I took that to mean while their was less pay disparity, a disparity nonetheless, and minorities are hired a lot less, by repubs.

Conclusion- Both parties could do better.

If you recall the regime also got called out for paying female White House staffers less than their male counterparts. So here's my thing, if you're going to not only make such things a centerpiece of your agenda but hammer the other side over it you should lead by example. Kind of hypocritical not to mention embarrassing when they prove to be better at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Nahh.. I made the money on the OTHER end. So MY labor wasn't included in the labor costs.
excon

---

What do you do now? What business?

Hello A:

Quote:

---

What do you do now? What business?

---

These days, I'm in the pot business.

excon

so making decorative pots eh? do you grow large green plants in them?

Great news, not only might half a million or so people not have to worry about "job lock" if they raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, but a whopping 19 percent of that increase will benefit poor families, according to the CBO!

Quote:

---

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers…


The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.


Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices.

---

how generous they have to wait to 2016 for a wage increase

Before heading out to billionaire donor Tom Steyer's house for a fundraiser, Dingy Harry Reid had this to say:

Quote:

---

The Koch bros made over $18 billion last year, but middle-class families have watched their incomes stagnate for decades. #RaiseTheWage

---

Dingy Harry Attacks Koch Brothers Before Heading to Fundraiser With Democrat Billionaire Sugar Daddy | Jammie Wearing Fools

Steyer plans on spending $100 million this year on behalf of Democrats and the cause, I'm sure with no IRS scrutiny.

We have already acknowledged its done on both sides. One side does nothing for poor people and people who have lost jobs, houses and their lives through no fault of their own.

Wonder which side that is?

Quote:

---

One side does nothing for poor people and people who have lost jobs, houses and their lives through no fault of their own.

---

Yes, we hate blacks, women, the poor, illegal aliens, the hungry, gays, lesbians, transgendered, jobless and we kick puppies every chance we get.

Quote:

---

We have already acknowledged its done on both sides. One side does nothing for poor people and people who have lost jobs, houses and their lives through no fault of their own.

Wonder which side that is?

---

That would be the side that plays lip service to their problems and craft polices that do nothing to solve it . But if good intentions without results makes you feel good then surely that's enough.

And what about doing nothing at all for anyone but a rich guy makes your side happy? I believe what you said about hate, Speech, except the puppy part. But Tom I am realizing that if the policy doesn't comport with your own model of success your side always says it doesn't work. Even though it does for some but obviously not for the ones YOU want them too.

I suspect it's a cover up for the failed economic policies republicans have espoused that HAVE failed, and led to global economic collapse, as part of an enrichment program for the few. I know, you will never admit to enrich the few and NOT the many, but that's where your broken economical capitalistic policy ideas lead.

So of course you further propagated the lie that rich people are "job creators" in a consumer driven economy that has exported good paying job to countries where slave labor and no rules is welcome. My greatest knock on this administration are the trade agreements that further that end though the need for uniform global rule and standards is what's needed.

However lowering American standards to bring up international standards is not my idea of a solution in my view, and certainly not at the huge profits extracted at the expense of both American and foreign labor.

The CBO just said that increasing the min wage will result in job losses . So if anyone is lowering standards it's your side.
But that doesn't suprise me from the side that says being unemployed is a good thing because you can persue your hobbies on someone elses dime.

Not only result in job loss but only 19% of the increase will benefit poor families, but like you said "if good intentions without results makes you feel good then surely that's enough' for them.

That's 19% better than your plan. So I guess your intention is 0,nada, zip. Your mission was accomplished.

Quote:

---

Yes, we hate blacks, women, the poor, illegal aliens, the hungry, gays, lesbians, transgendered, jobless and we kick puppies every chance we get.

---

Well there you have it but you know speech sarcasm is considered the lowest form of wit. You keep arguing that you should do nothing becuase doing nothing will maintain the status quo as if the status quo is the desirable position for at least 50% of your population. A change in the minimum wage has a flow on effect in various ways. If there are industries that are unable to pass this cost though then how viable are they. Instead of looking at the worst case scenario you should be looking at the positive outcome, those who benefit will be less dependent on welfare

Quote:

---

Well there you have it but you know speech sarcasm is considered the lowest form of wit. You keep arguing that you should do nothing becuase doing nothing will maintain the status quo as if the status quo is the desirable position for at least 50% of your population. A change in the minimum wage has a flow on effect in various ways. If there are industries that are unable to pass this cost though then how viable are they. Instead of looking at the worst case scenario you should be looking at the positive outcome, those who benefit will be less dependent on welfare

---

I have never argued for doing nothing, you've been listening to Tal too long. Why should we be satisfied with extremely inefficient, wasteful government solutions to everything?