0
0

You might be a Liberal... (i.imgur.com)

chabanaisStronger than derp. が 投稿

全 49 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Deriksson 30ポイント31ポイント  (43子コメント)

Oh come on, think of a better argument than that, there are plenty. Yes, Lincoln was a republican, but the values of the republican party has essentially flip flopped since then.

[–]Aegisx5 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not a chance. Just like the progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR didn't switch sides - they believed in big government as the solution to every problem. The Democrats have just changed strategies when it comes to treating people differently based on skin color.

[–]Malishious -1ポイント0ポイント  (11子コメント)

At least we are not the ones currently enslaving most African Americans in a welfare trap.

[–]lutello 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

You mean Wal-Mart telling their employees to go on welfare because they pay them slave wages.

[–]Malishious 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Walmart is a job not a career. It is a stepping stone to start from. Not intended to be a living wage.

[–]super_ag 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

This has to be one of the most annoying bullshit arguments I constantly hear repeated by the Left.

Wal-Mart pays people what their labor is worth. It's called supply and demand. If you have very few marketable skills, guess what? The supply for your few skills is extremely high and the demand is low. Therefore price is low. Why do you expect Wal-Mart to pay entry-level employees more than what their labor is worth? Is it Wal-Mart's fault these people have little marketable skills and can't find better paying employment? If Wal-Mart went out of business tomorrow, do you think there would be more or fewer people drawing government assistance? The fact is Wal-Mart hires the otherwise unhirable. If these people didn't have jobs at Wal-Mart, they wouldn't have jobs. If they could get paid higher salaries elsewhere, they wouldn't stay at Wal-Mart, or at least Wal-Mart would be forced to match that salary if they wanted to keep that employee. What you want is for Wal-Mart to be a charity instead of a business and simply give people money they didn't earn out of some misguided sense of philanthropy. Wal-Mart is not a charity, and they're not obligated to pay people more than what their work is worth.

As for "slave wages." Who abducted these people from their homes an forced them to work at Wal-Mart? You don't become a Wal-Mart employee unless you go to a Wal-Mart, sit at that kiosk, fill out an application, agree to meet with a hiring manager, to to an interview or two and agree to work a certain job for a certain salary. Every part of the job application process is voluntary, whereas slavery is not. If you don't like what they offer to pay you, don't accept the job. If you don't like the working conditions, salary or whatever, you are free to quit and seek employment elsewhere. The fact that you think working at Wal-Mart or any entry-level position is equivalent to slavery really shows how much you don't understand or appreciate how evil slavery was. It demeans all those who have had to endure slavery to compare their plight to those working at an "evil" corporate chain like Wal-Mart.

[–]snakebaconer 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

So the government should be forced to supplement Wal-Mart's wages with food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.? Low wages aren't conservative, they are part of the big-government machine.

[–]super_ag 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Why is it Wal-Mart's responsibility to make sure its employees do not need government assistance? Again, if Wal-Mart did not hire the otherwise unhirable, would the amount these people require from the government be greater or smaller?

Low wages aren't Conservative? So the government forcing companies to pay people more than their labor is worth (which is your position) is a Conservative position? The free market principles of supply and demand are Conservative. . .your solution is part of the big-government machine.

[–]snakebaconer 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

Why is it Wal-Mart's responsibility

Because they make us foot the bill. They aren't very conservative in principle, they depend on the socialist system to make up for what they aren't paying their employees.

Children can't starve (in a Christian nation), and Walmart knows that. That's just a fact. The supply and demand things people always talk about (as if they are conservative in any way...heh), don't apply when we don't let people starve (because it's un-Christian).

Walmart makes society pick up their slack, because they aren't willing to carry their own weight in society (i.e. pay just enough for people to live). If we really want a smaller government we need corporations like Walmart to quit socializing their wages - that is to say off loading them on the rest of society.

Also, the big government machine isn't higher wages, it's welfare, food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, WIC, etc. Things Walmart makes money off (both taking in revenue from those programs, and using those programs to supplement their wages).

[–]super_ag 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

They don't make us do shit. They simply pay people what their labor is worth. The people making you "foot the bill" are the people who have no job skills that are valuable to the market. Wal-Mart is a business, not a charity.

You don't want people starving? Give to charities and the church to feed people. It is not a company's job to act as a charity to keep people from starving.

You make it sound like Wal-Mart is the sole reason people are in poverty. So answer this. If Wal-Mart closed their doors tomorrow and they stopped "making society pick up the slack" would there be more or fewer people drawing from the social safety net? If Wal-Mart disappeared tomorrow, by your logic, all those people would no longer be be a drain on the system. After all, Wal-Mart is the problem and it's not the people Wal-Mart is generous enough to give jobs to.

[–]snakebaconer 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

If Wal-Mart closed their doors tomorrow and they stopped "making society pick up the slack" would there be more or fewer people drawing from the social safety net?

Initially more, certainly. Eventually, however, fewer because it would open room for Mom and Pop stores to return. Finally more again, as another Walmart rose to fill the void.

[–]super_ag 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

So if, in the absence of Wal-Mart, more people would need government assistance, how can you claim that Wal-Mart is responsible for people on government assistance? You're blaming the wrong party as being responsible. If someone needs government assistance, the fault (if there is fault to be found) lies with them, not their employer. If Wal-Mart is obligated to pay people more than their labor is worth, then you're also forcing people on welfare because you (most likely) make more than you absolutely need and you're not giving all of your excess to help the poor. You're not supporting a family of four make ends meet, so by your logic, you're forcing them on welfare just as much as Wal-Mart is. That's the insane destination you arrive at when you have this "an employer is responsibility for the financial situation of it's employees" mentality. Wal-Mart is responsible for providing a service while making a profit. So unless they're breaking the law, they are not obligated to make sure their employees don't need government assistance.

[–]pumpyourstillskin -3ポイント-2ポイント  (28子コメント)

Abraham Lincoln believed all men should be equal under the law. We haven't waivered from that at all.

[–]mvs5191 14ポイント15ポイント  (27子コメント)

Except, until recently, homosexuals.

Some candidates even still are arguing against them.

[–]voyle 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

If you think Abe Lincoln would be a modern day neo con, you might be a redneck.

[–]cfmonkey45 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Most Rednecks, and most Republicans aren't Neocons.

[–]chabanaisStronger than derp.[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

And Obama is more Conservative than Reagan and FDR was a Republican.