Bernie the "bum" who just wants your money.

[trappincoyotes39]

Tmen you wanted facts and then you won't read them ok?

I am for anyone who is not a socialist and not looking to deny freedoms from people. I want smaller govt not bigger, I want less federal spending and more state spending. People in states have more control at the state level than the federal one. So the Feds can give states money and allow them to use it for the people of that state. The Feds govt roll is to over see things, not make up ne laws and executive orders to push a party agenda. If I have to pick an agenda, No surprise I am for the republicans and independents not the left.

I sure do not want to live in a socialist country and pay taxes to the "king" at 90 percent so they can choose who gets what, free trade and free markets.

[trappincoyotes39]

Bryce where do you get the republicans are looking to take away social security? Changes yes they need to be made, if they want to start a program of either or I am fine with that. Offering more opportunity for people. Not everyone pays SS benefits.

Bryce many people where born,raised and worked physical labor all of their lives, you have choices in the US work right after HS, trade school, online classes, community college, 4 years,6 or 8 years. Lots of options to have. Many other countries they tell you what your going to do the rest of your life!

If they made that much they should have stuck 5-7 percent away in an IRA on top of SS and they would rely less on SS. Again people makes lots of money, they tend to spend lots of money and worry about tomorrow next year.

It is not the federal govt who should be worrying about our retirement years, if we want to pay in some to SS great, but we also need people to start putting back for themselves, again we rob peter to pay Paul. If the program is not self sustaining what good is it in the form it is? We keep borrowing to make things stay the same? We need better ideas, we need more choices not less. Meaning no one should think of SS as the end all.

My dad busted his butt all his life never made a big wage, did have a retirement plan and SS and still works 22-24 hrs a week at age 73. Does he need to work to survive? Nope but more and more people have less and less interest so many work because that is what they know. These are the hard working types, my dad retired sat around and did some things for 2 years and then said I need a job, self worth I wish many young people would have such.

No one is guaranteed a happy life, where does it state in the life hand book that we all get a happy life? We work and produce and the more we want the more we find ways to produce such, again I do not want a "happy life" if my happiness is dependent on our govt to provide that for me.

life is not all happy and no govt will ever make such, that is a fantasy. Life at times sucks and it is hard, but that is the price we pay, the times we can have pride and accomplishment make up for that or should. I do not want the govt to enact programs to ensure my happiness, as my idea of happiness and others is far different.

We have safety nets for people in place, fund some of these and many of it should be weened a way. Elderly care, vet care, those with a true hardship great, the rest needs to be weaned away and people taught how to work or get back to work doing something. Again look at the Indian reservations why do you think they all have 70 percent unemployment or more? They do not NEED to work all of life's needs are fulfilled through the BIA and the federal govt. talk about an unhappy life! My lord. Who would want to wake up each day not looking forward to anything or going out and accomplishing things or learning things? That is a sad life Bryce.

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman because Wall Street makes a lot of money has nothing to do with you or I unless we are smart investors then we make money as well. Plenty of people do it. If you do not like the portfolio then change investment companies or run the stock market with that money.

If you complain that they make too much working on Wall Street I say give it a try and see how long you last! A good friend very smart guy thought he would try that, he interned at the Chicago stock exchange after HS and a summer of college, he thought this could be a great way to make a living, 5 weeks into it, he said forget that I will get my engineering degree. I asked him why? He said if he had to do that 5 days a week he would be dead by age 50 the stress and hectic pase you work at is unlike anything he has ever done. Even if your great at it, the stress is there all of the time. Not an easy job.


Besides Hillary took plenty of their money for speaking engagements at the cost of 625.000 per speech! So the common folk are getting back at the man!

[bblwi]

Do you feel SSI will continue as it has been for several more generations? Remember it was the GOP that ran hard on privatizing a portion of SSI. This is the same type of policy change that came about with 401Ks versus pension funds. The employers (huge GOP lobby group here) advocated for this as this allowed many companies to stop pension funds and contribute small amounts to 401Ks knowing that most will not put enough in to retire. There was a major change from a defined benefit philosophy to a defined contribution policy. Privatizing portions our all of SSI is a way to change the compensation received as well. Also with serious wage stagnation do we really feel that SSI will be able to provide even 20-30% of a person's retirement with living costs going up as they are and especially medical costs.

A large portion of the GOP do not need SSI to live well they really like Medicare however as one can have earned no income during one's life (say all capital gain income or inheritance) and enjoy the benefits that 100s of millions have had to pay into to get.

Bryce

[trappincoyotes39]

Bryce of course many of those pensions had to go, the economy has changed we are in a world economy now. If many of these places had to cover higher than avg wages, health care,dental, and a high rate of pension something has to give or prices would rise. A 401K can be a good deal depending on employer match. When we as a country have to compete with other countries on as many products as we do today and keep investors happy, which sorry that is the part of being publicly traded.

i sat on a city council, we gave each year 2-3 percent wage increase and also offered very good health insurance to the city employees, while,the rates kept going up the city was eating the cost of the premium increas, as those increases went up 8-12 percent annually and figuring in the 2-3 percent in wage increases it stared to add up to 10-15 percent annually, we could not keep doing that with the cities tax dollars and expect to remain with a positive cash flow for any period of time. So we gave them a choice you can either take the wage increase or take the premium increase your choice, younger ones too the wage increase others took the health care premiums. We could afford to do one or the other not both annually, no different than any business without raising cost, competing against other countries that offer much lower wages than the US.

We also where honest and told those city employees thst at some point we would have to look at other health care options as the cost for the top tier plane rose at rates 30-40 percent more than other plans. Not 30-40 on its own but 30/40 more than other options for healthcare. The rates where still 9-11 percent higher than the previous year. All based on how much was used and the age bracket of the people we covered.

SSI can be solvent for a period of time, but we have to quit taking money from it for other things! I see no problem with SSI and another option provided for private investing of retirement money. To think a Program like SSI can remain solvent for 30-50 years in its present state and take care of people 30-50 years down the road? Heck NO! If we want to raise everyone tax rate on SSI by a lot sure, but why allow the federal got to play with our money at a crappy rate of return and borrowing funds from such versus a portion that we pay in going into a private investment the govt cannot touch I am all for that.

[trappincoyotes39]

I want less govt not more of the Feds in my life. So far they have managed to put us 20 trillion in the hole for crying out loud. Raised the tax rates, backing the majority of Josue loans with tax payers money, funding all of these programs with tax payer money, sending our country down a dangerous path, inflation is not in play but at some point it has to be, we cannot keep printing moe y with no backing and we cannot continue adding more and more to the debt period. The govt is not going to save us or take care of us, we need to start doing things for ourselves and allowing states to have more control of the tax money.

The federal,govt has become masters at putting mandates on states and wanting the states and locals to foot the bill, then fine allow the states and locals decided what is best for them as it is their money paying for more and more of such mandates. I could name several if you wish that this admin has put into place without funding, silly just silly. Yet we want more socialist thought? How is that going to do anyone any good?

We have states paying a bigger and bigger share of Medicaid because the Feds are out spending that share on some other pet program. Then adding to the debt in top of that! Wow.

[bblwi]

So you are saying that many things had to change but no one and especially the GOP will address changes to SSI? I feel that is a very narrow and naïve view on your part. If pensions "had to change" as you stated then it seems that many other things in life probably need addressing as well. If one is a worker in todays world all aspects of compensation have been pointing to less income now and for the future. With elder care costs now averaging 1-2 grand per week for many, then many 60-75 year olds will make more income carrying for their elderly relatives instead of using purchased services. There is no way that we can continue to have the public and or private sectors cover 1 million in living costs for 8-12 years of elder care life. We also have to remember that with 60 plus million baby boomers that a small percentage of those in the upper 10% of income will be able to afford care without public sector payment. There will need to be changes for sure the reality is when, how and who's ox is being gored.

I also think that article regarding the huge increase in government assistance in education is the root cause of high college costs is very misleading, misleading at best. Right after WW11 the largest GI education bill in history was passed. From a percentage of GNP the that GI Bill was much larger than the recent past public education costs. In fact I would argue that they are low and considered low by many who have worked hard to pass private voucher payments using public tax collections to do so. Taxes must be too low for many to use public funds to send upper middle class kids to private schools at taxpayers expense.


Bryce

[trappincoyotes39]

Bryce we have a poor economy, of course pay is going to be lower,supply and demand. Those jobs with a good demand still pay above avg, many others do not because more people looking for work than jobs. We need job creation by the private sector, not the federal govt. many things in the last 10-15 years has taken a reboot. They have to because of where our economy is. Many forget automation replaced many high paying jobs over the years, technology is great in many ways but it also cost us a lot of jobs people sued to do. We also have a group of young people that have an attitude about busting their butt and what they should be making again not perception fact. When I was 14 and washing dishes I did not complain about the pay being 3.35 per hour, many today complain and think they need 10-12 to do a job for 15-20 hrs a week while living with mom and dad. The market sets the rates and benefits.

Just like our federal govt MUST do,so does business. We cannot be paying people long term for being non productive, it just will not work. It adds nothing back to our economy or society. Job creation and lowering taxes on business will go along ways in helping us keep more jobs in the US.

[trappnman]

again, I just skimmed your posts-

1) what a cop out on what candidate you support- man up and state a name
2) your understanding of what and what isn't socialism, is zero
3) you continue to cry and cry about those on the bottom getting welfare- but you defend to the death the welfare to corrorations
minimum wage- EVEREYH FRAKING TIME IT HAS BEEN RAISED- was done to make a WORKING MAN be above the poverty level. And the FACT is, EVERY TIME WE DID SO- we had prosperity
4) you eagerly drink the koolaid on how much taxes the rich pay- when FACT is, they pay less today, then most of the last 50 years-
and 5) trickle down didn't work, won't work, and is dead in the water

but honestly, I'm glad you and your type of voter keep thinking nonsense- it will, once again, ensure a democrat I nth White House.

we had the same discussion 8 years ago, and the same discussion 4 years ago- and you think that 8 years later- things have changed?

and yes, I understand, you are angry that a black man was your president, and thus want to swing the pendulum back 50 years ago. the GOP, and those same views- are dying, and will be dead,. Interesting speech by Graham yesterday- you should listen to it

[trappincoyotes39]

I support anyone with out a left agenda it seems as they keep getting further left, this go around you cannot say the same with republican nominations, all be it Cruz would be far better than Bernie or Hillairy just a fact. She is a liar and he is a socialists admit those facts.

No I fully comprehend what a socialist is, to thinke everyone should be equal regardless of work ethic and that wealth should be taken from those who have and handed over to those who have less, just because they have less.

Min wage equals prosperity? What ever. Your taking a random number and making an increase and those service and items we have increased continue to go up in price, those are facts. The business people will not eat that increase without passing some of that on to consumers of goods and services. Add in the fact other input cost rising and the working mans newly found gain is gone in No time. Fact! You think McDonalds would have the value meal if everyone was making 15.00 per hr nationwide? Think wal marts prices would stay the same? Not a chance. The govt would take more taxes and the rest eaten up in increased production cost.

That is the dirty secret behind higher min wage more taxes to spend, take 4.00 per hr times the millions of man hours, the fed got just got themselves a big increase off the backs of the working man. Would put many into a higher tax bracket and the govt would benefit. Not the worker, that idea is a scam nothing more.

You reallly drink the kool aid thinking the so called rich will fund a socialist nation here in the US, sorry will not happen. All of Wall Street could be taxed at much higher rates and still wouldn't make a dent in the 20 trillion debt we have amassed. Not to mention you think your wife's 401K goes up and down now, allow Wall Street to get more nervous. We have little consumer confidence , we have slow job growth and exspeness for the working man are higher and higher, then you wonder why the markets are up and down so much? We have China and Russia sitting with far less capital now than 3-5 years ago, you wonder why the markets are shaky? We have the govt backing the majority of loans in this country with US tax payers money, banks getting free money and little return on CD's and other investments.


Global economy Tman you seem to think we are in the 1960's I feel.

Betting you ask the majority of Amercians if they would not take in a heart beat the person and policies Ronald Regan put into place today? He would win in a land slide against anyone the left puts up. Remember he was the last republican to take California. Trump could take NY and then Hillary is in some big trouble, she still has the email deal, the money from Wall Street and Benghazi looming large over her head.

[trappincoyotes39]

Question how much taxation is enough? When do we cut some of the pork from govt?

The left always wants to cut things in this day and age we need, security and defense, that has been proven, they want to increase taxes on the so called rich and increase them some more, the montra is always the same more from the rich, that effects middle class people that is a FACT! To think your going to take more from those that employ people and stick their necks out and invest money and have the govt take 60-65 percent and things will be great in the US? That is massive kool aid drinking.

Look at the socialist countries and see how they are doing, not well not well at all. We could look at Canada and say boy they have it pretty good, in reality they do not. Housing is super expensive, health care is on a waiting list, except for the rich who will pay to come to the US to have procedure done with no waiting line. They pay upwards of 60 percent taxation and the key is they have a much lower population than us, imagine the back log in the USA if we went to socialized medicine, but boy it would be free, the AHCA has enough of its own problems let alone taking it to that extreme. We are not a science experiment.

The only good points to come from AHCA is 2 things, no limits and no pre existing conditions. The rest needs to be redone in a big way. The cost need to be some higher and allowing free market healthcare just like other insurance as well. I pay less getting my auto from progressive direct than dealing with a middle man.

Choices is what our country should be all about, not mandates.

If we have another democratic president come this fall, I am willing to bet our country will be worse off in 4 years than now. Why do I make such a bold claim? Easy look at the 2 running for the left? If history repeats itself we should have a republican president after 2 term democrats. If not watch out the hinges are going to break in a big way. Inflation will become a major issue, along with others.

[trappnman]

just saw another speech by Bernie- reinforces my opinion he is our only hope-

cruz. Rubio and trump looked like imbeciles last night

[trappincoyotes39]

You keep talking on how the right is against a flat tax, the fact is the left would have nothing to run on with such, the sock it to the rich and ever expanding programs would be gone.........

Trump could very well be your next POTUS Tman.

Bernie has as much of a chance as Dr Ben Carson.

[trappincoyotes39]

Trump will eat Hillary alive in a national debate for POTUS, why? He won't care and the gloves will be off the entire time. He will bring up issues others would not and she knows it. They used to be friends ?

[trappincoyotes39]

Here is what is predicted with trying to get to 15.00 per hr as Bernie states he would do.

In some parts of the country, many employers will be very reluctant to pay high wages to workers with modest skills.

When labor unions and activists began calling for an increase in America’s minimum wage to $15 an hour, many thought it was a typical bargaining ploy, and that they would be pleased to receive much more modest increases. In 2013, the Obama Administration proposed a modest increase, whereby the federal minimum wage would rise to $9 an hour from $7.25 an hour. They increased the proposal to $10 an hour the following year, and also called for indexing it to inflation.

Like many labor economists, I supported both of these proposals, and I continue to support the latter one.

Lately, however, minimum wages have risen too high to $15 an hour in some cities. Seattle was the first major jurisdiction to do so in 2014; San Francisco and Los Angeles followed. Earlier this month, New York raised its minimum wage to $15 for its fast-food workers, while the University of California plans to do the same for its low-wage employees. Now, the Washington, D.C. City Council will be considering such an increase.

Many economists worry minimum wage increases tend to reduce employment, hurting young and less-educated workers the most. And they have analyzed the effects of state and federal increases in the U.S. and other countries in hundreds of statistical studies. Some credible studies find moderate negative effects while others find none; our best guess is that moderate minimum wage increases will lead to modest job losses. In a Congressional Budget Office report last year, policy analysts predicted that Obama’s proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $10 an hour would raise wages for 16 to 24 million people while eliminating about half a million jobs – a reasonable tradeoff worth embracing, in my view.

But I have much more serious worries about a $15 an hour minimum wage, which constitutes a wage increase of 50% to 100% in most places (even after adjusting for inflation). In cities like Seattle, with a relatively more educated workforce and dynamic labor market, it might be a gamble worth taking. But in other cities, such as L.A. and Washington, D.C. – with their large populations of less-educated workers, including unskilled immigrants – such increases are extremely risky.

In job markets where young or less-educated workers already have difficulty finding jobs and gaining important work experience, such mandates will likely make it much harder.

In a city like Washington D.C. where unemployment among those with a high school education or less is at a worrisome 15%, jobless rates will almost certainly rise. Many employers will be very reluctant to pay high wages to workers whose skills – including the ability to speak English, in the case of many immigrants – are so modest. A likely result would be not only increases in unemployment but also drops in formal labor force activity (where workers work or search for legal jobs) and perhaps some growth in undocumented work among immigrants.

Three additional points reinforce these concerns for me. First, the increases up to $15 are much greater in magnitude than anything we have studied in the past; because of this, it’s hard to say if the previous research that found modest negative effects on employment would hold true, and a reasonable guess is that the effects now will be much more negative.

Second, state and especially local increases of this magnitude will generate big incentives for employers to move across local borders, especially from central cities to suburbs. For instance, if Washington, D.C. raises its minimum to $15 (after it is already scheduled to rise to $11.50 in 2016) while Arlington, Virginia remains at $7.25, the incentives for employers with many low-wage workers to shift places of business from the former to the latter will be quite strong. This wage increase might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for many D.C. businesses, who are now also faced with new hiring regulations, such as mandated paid leave and prohibitions on criminal record checking in applications, or marijuana screening, and perhaps on credit checks.

Third, it might take time for employers of many low-skill workers to learn how to economize on their labor costs, but they will over time, since the incentives to do so are much larger – and that would be bad news for the very low-skill workers the higher minimum wage is designed to help. For instance, fast-food workers might be more easily replaced by robots. Hotels may reduce their tendency to automatically clean the rooms of their guests, and may charge extra for doing so. In the state of New York, fast-food franchises will probably be replaced by other kinds of restaurants and food services. Employers in these industries will also likely demand better education, skills and experience among those whom they hire.

None of this suggests that the crisis of low wages for American workers isn’t serious. But there is no silver bullet — raising the minimum wage alone won’t solve it. Our toolkit should contain a range of sensible approaches. Congress should pass a sensible and moderate Federal increase in the minimum wage. We should also expand the Earned Income Tax Credits for childless adults, paid parental leave (funded by payroll taxes rather than mandates on employers), and education and training efforts for workers with low skills to better prepare them for good-paying jobs. We should work with employers to help them expand apprenticeships and other opportunities for workers to “learn while they earn,” and to generate better pathways from high school and community colleges into high-paying jobs.

Trying to accomplish this by simply making 15 the new 10, in terms of minimum wage increases, could potentially generate more harm than good.

Just so we know who wrote this he has more I site than Bernie for sure. I am sure he is even a democrat .


Over most of his career, Professor Holzer's research has focused primarily on the low-wage labor market, and particularly the problems of minority workers in urban areas. In recent years he has worked on the quality of jobs as well as workers in the labor market, and how job quality affects the employment prospects of the disadvantaged as well as worker inequality and insecurity more broadly. He has also written extensively about the employment problems of disadvantaged men, advancement prospects for the working poor, and workforce policy more broadly.

His research on urban poverty and social policy has been funded by grants from the Gates Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, Joyce Foundation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the Russell Sage Foundation, the Institute for Research on Poverty, the Upjohn Institute, the U.S. Department of Labor, the National Science Foundation, Ford Foundation, Mott Foundation, the MacArthur foundation and the Public Policy Institute of California.

[trappnman]

that's just bullshit!

the SAME bullshit has been bandied about EVERY TIME THE MINIMUM WAGE has ben raised-

and EVERY TIME- it has been shown that your views, simply were false

EVERY TIME-

so save the same recycled bullshit for those unable to read or understand history

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman not BS this guy has held very high jobs in dealing with the vary issue you raised once again, I would trust his information as a democrat even versus some person with little to no real experience or education on such matters, easy to call BS but not as easy to dismiss the qualifications the person has for making his statements known.


Tman he must have been knowledgable as he worked for Bill Clinton in the whitehouse...........


In the Clinton Administration, Holzer served as the Chief Economist for the U.S. Department of Labor.


He tells you 10.00 is do able in his economist mind, but 15 would be too much of a change and would cause more harm than good. I will take his numbers and experience over that of Bernie Sanders any day.

I wil take his knowledge on the history of the economy versus Bernie Sanders and no offense yours any day of the week, as he has worked with this subject matter far,far more than you, I or Bernie. Put together.

[trappnman]

very easy to call it bullshit-

I don't care what jobs he or anyone has- the same argument was made many times in the past, and all those times it was WRONG.

from the day a minimum wage was established at 73 cents an hour- the same vested interests always proclaim the economy will collapse.

it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now.

and its even more brown than before- when the wealth of the country is concentrated in the hands of a few, and the real wages keep going down, down, down- all the while corporations making record profits-

if you were a billionaire wanting to keep his profits high by screwing workers I could see you having that view to protect your interests- but wake up man!

[trappincoyotes39]

No one said minimum wage would collapse the economy, but it surely as pointed out with a man of high credentials not have the positive effects as some on the left like to claim. I am woke up and see that not only this guy who again read below has far more history working with the economy than many others, states 15.00 would be too much for business. He explains why and he deals with this on a daily basis.

A billionaire is going to keep his profits where he choose regardless of what you do to minimum wage, that is where you think changing such will knock down the billionaire a peg or two, not going to happen the working man will feel the brunt of such a decision easy to see and explained by the chief economist under Bill Clinton as such. You claim BS because it goes against your thoughts and beliefs. This would not have a positive effect on the working man, any increase In cost gets passed on down the line that is how business works. It may take months or a year or two but the cost gets passed down the line. That is just 100 percent FACT. No debating or arguing such. If wages and benefits get too high then business has sought out automation and that alone since the 70's has cut into many,many jobs. Have seen McDonald's now has kiosk at some of their bigger stores? You order yourself at the kiosk and then they bring food to your table, why do you think they are doing such?

If I own a lawn care business and my fertilizer and herbicide cost increase 2-4 percent annually, then I am going to have to add that cost somewhere or loose money each time an increase is made. When gas was high how many had to add on additional cost to cover that increase? Why would you think wages as just another input cost would not force increases to the consumer and working man? Wages going up 75-100 percent would certainly add cost and most of the min wage jobs come in the food sector and 48 percent of these jobs are held by people under the age of 22. Either that or do more volume, but the volume ideal is not a 1-1 trade off and not as easy to accomplish. Basic business principles at play Tman.

Job supply and deman have always fought off minimum wage pay for a large sector of the working man, when we have more jobs than workers in a sector wages go up, when we have higher unemployment wages and benefits go down. We have been in a down cycle for many years and many reasons as to why, but the free market is at play, again just 100 percent fact.

Again this guy has the qualifications to make his statements Bernie has no background in such period.

Harry Holzer’s research focuses primarily on the labor market problems of low-wage workers and other disadvantaged groups, particularly minority workers. He has long been interested in the question of how employer characteristics and hiring practices, as well as the quality of jobs they generate, have affected job opportunities for less-skilled workers—especially when they create “mismatches” between worker skills and those sought by employers, as well as between their geographic locations (or “spatial mismatch”). He has studied employer data very extensively, and implemented surveys of about 7000 firms during the 1990s on their hiring practices, skill needs, and workforce characteristics. In recent years, he has analyzed trends in job quality and their effects on upward mobility for low-wage workers as well as worker inequality using the LEHD data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Holzer's current work focuses on the challenges low-income youth and adults face in American higher education and afterwards in the job market. He has written extensively about the employment problems of disadvantaged men (especially those with criminal records), the advancement prospects for the working poor, and workforce development policy broadly.[2] He has also written about welfare reform, discrimination, Affirmative Action, job training programs, and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Holzer’s research on employment issues and policy has been funded by grants from the Joyce Foundation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, the Institute for Research on Poverty, the Upjohn Institute, the U.S. Department of Labor, the National Science Foundation, Ford Foundation, Mott Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the Public Policy Institute of California.

[trappincoyotes39]

Where does the billionaire screw his workers? 10,12,15,19,22,28,33 per hour? What number is justified and what number isn't?

Where is profit obscene and where is it just the correct amount? Should business be forced to do X,Y and Z with money other than leave it in profits?