# Bernie Sanders to run!!!



## QuickSilver (Apr 28, 2015)

At last...  a credible candidate to go against Hillary in the primary..   Thank you Bernie!!!!

http://digital.vpr.net/post/bernie-sanders-announce-presidential-run




> Sanders will release a short statement on that day and then hold a major campaign kickoff in Vermont in several weeks.





> Sanders' entry into the Democratic race ensures that Hillary Clinton will face a challenge to win the support of the liberal wing of the party.
> Sanders' basic message will be that the middle class in America has been decimated in the past two decades while wealthy people and corporations have flourished.
> His opposition to a proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (T.P.P.) shows how he plans to frame this key issue of his campaign.


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 28, 2015)

Berney is the only voice of reason in Congress.  He runs, he has my vote.  I love the guy.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 28, 2015)

I may vote for him too...  What I am happy about is that Hillary is going to have to debate him..  AND the American voter will finally hear true progressive etiology rather than the spin version the Republicans like to distort.   Hillary is going to have to move a little over to the left for sure..


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 28, 2015)

Exactly....Berney is a very articulate debater.


----------



## Josiah (Apr 28, 2015)

I'm happy that Bernie will run, I love Bernie, but if you're serious about electing a Democrat in 2016 you've got to be realistic about how much money it's going to take to mount a credible campaign. Bernie is not going to raise that money. I'll be glad to see Bernie debate Hillary, but I'm deadly serious about my priorities and beating the Republicans is on top of my list.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 28, 2015)

Josiah said:


> I'm happy that Bernie will run, I love Bernie, but if you're serious about electing a Democrat in 2016 you've got to be realistic about how much money it's going to take to mount a credible campaign. Bernie is not going to raise that money. I'll be glad to see Bernie debate Hillary, but I'm deadly serious about my priorities and beating the Republicans is on top of my list.




No He is not.. and no he likely will not beat her in the primary... so she will be our nominiee to run and she will beat the Republican candidate...  BUt at least Bernie will be able to debate her and we can see what she is made of.  If nothing else, It's going to sharpen her game for the General.


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 28, 2015)

Josiah said:


> I'm happy that Bernie will run, I love Bernie, but if you're serious about electing a Democrat in 2016 you've got to be realistic about how much money it's going to take to mount a credible campaign. Bernie is not going to raise that money. I'll be glad to see Bernie debate Hillary, but I'm deadly serious about my priorities and beating the Republicans is on top of my list.



One factor Josh, INDEPENDENT.  These voters can make it  a new ballgame, also warranted or not he is nowhere near as vulnerable as Hillary and the baggage that goes with the position she and Bill  held.


----------



## NancyNGA (Apr 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> If nothing else, It's going to sharpen her game for the General.



How will it sharpen her game if Sanders is coming at her from the left, and the general election candidate is coming from the right?


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 28, 2015)

NancyNGA said:


> How will it sharpen her game if Sanders is coming at her from the left, and the general election candidate is coming from the right?



She will be warmed up for debating...  Yes..  it WILL sharpen her game by having her position solidified.


----------



## Jackie22 (Apr 28, 2015)

Wow.....I've been gone awhile and had not heard about this...I agree with Josiah, I don't think Bernie has a chance but, he will definitely put the word out there along with Hillary....Bernie has always been on top of whats happening.


----------



## NancyNGA (Apr 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> She will be warmed up for debating...  Yes..  it WILL sharpen her game by having her position solidified.



 QS, you are more knowledgeable than me on these things.  Hope you are right on the position thing.


----------



## Josiah (Apr 28, 2015)

Let's face it we're all fed up with the vulgar role that money plays in our political system. Don's recent thread covered this quite well and I thought Don's comments were very well stated. But you can't wish it all away. It's not going to change anytime soon so lamenting Hillary's conflict of interest doings will get us nowhere. Every serious contender for the presidency has to play the big money games. Bernie can drive to the debates in his 15 year old Volvo station wagon (Volvos are very popular in Vermont) and play just the role you want him to play QS. But Hillary knows how to play for all the marbles and I predict if she wins we'll all be proud of her presidency.


----------



## Glinda (Apr 28, 2015)

I think Bernie's candidacy will make the race more interesting, particularly for those undecideds who actually want to look at the issues and determine whose perspective they agree with.


----------



## BobF (Apr 28, 2015)

For me, Hillary will be better than what we have and likely so will Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Glinda (Apr 28, 2015)

This is totally hypothetical and premature but just suppose Hillary gets the nomination but Bernie gains enough support that Hillary asks him to run with her for VP.  Would he accept?  Would it be a wise move?  Would they win together?


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 29, 2015)

Glinda said:


> This is totally hypothetical and premature but just suppose Hillary gets the nomination but Bernie gains enough support that Hillary asks him to run with her for VP.  Would he accept?  Would it be a wise move?  Would they win together?




I don't think he would..  I believe he feels he would be more valuable in the Senate than as VP...  The office of VP doesn't have that much influence IMO..   I think Bernie understands his roll in this primary very well..   Get the issues out there, and get Hillary to talk about them..


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 29, 2015)

NancyNGA said:


> QS, you are more knowledgeable than me on these things.  Hope you are right on the position thing.



Here's the theory..    Remember when President Obama ran in 2012.. without a primary?   Remember how crappy he did in his first debate against Romney?   He was unprepared and rusty... He had not been in a debate since 2008.   I think it's got to be daunting to jump into debating a candidate of the opposite party, when you have not had the opportunity to take your debating skills out for a test drive in a primary against members of your own party.  Bernie Sanders is pretty hard left.. He will bring up issues that Hillary is going to have present her position on.   It's going to hone her skills..   Also, the American voter is going to be able to see what the Democratic stance is on what is important to them.  Which will be a good thing considering, that so far the Republicans are not articulating what their positions are.. all they have been presenting so far is to slam and bash Hillary.   It's not going to bode well for them in the General.


----------



## Josiah (Apr 29, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Here's the theory..    Remember when President Obama ran in 2012.. without a primary?   Remember how crappy he did in his first debate against Romney?   He was unprepared and rusty... He had not been in a debate since 2008.   I think it's got to be daunting to jump into debating a candidate of the opposite party, when you have not had the opportunity to take your debating skills out for a test drive in a primary against members of your own party.  Bernie Sanders is pretty hard left.. He will bring up issues that Hillary is going to have present her position on.   It's going to hone her skills..   Also, the American voter is going to be able to see what the Democratic stance is on what is important to them.  Which will be a good thing considering, that so far the Republicans are not articulating what their positions are.. all they have been presenting so far is to slam and bash Hillary.   It's not going to bode well for them in the General.



Good point about Obama's poor debate showing in 2012.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 29, 2015)

Josiah said:


> Good point about Obama's poor debate showing in 2012.



Yeah... and look how articulate the man is..    I think people can get rusty..  Hillary is certainly no exception..  So bring on Bernie.. let him challenge her.   Let's see what she's got..


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 29, 2015)

Think Linc!


----------



## Ameriscot (Apr 29, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Yeah... and look how articulate the man is..    I think people can get rusty..  Hillary is certainly no exception..  So bring on Bernie.. let him challenge her.   Let's see what she's got..



Very good point.  And he's an incredibly sharp, quick thinking and articulate man.  Do you think Bernie would likely run as VP?


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 29, 2015)

I don't know if Hillary would pick him...  BUT he would have more power and influence in the Senate than as VP.  Same with Elizabeth Warren


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 29, 2015)

Think linc!


----------



## Josiah (Apr 29, 2015)

Bernie is not a logical choice for VP. Being right on the issues is last on the list of VP qualifications. Sherrod Brown from the important swing state of Ohio would be a better choice.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 29, 2015)

How many times have I got to say it, THINK LINC!


----------



## Josiah (Apr 29, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Think linc!



Ralphy, Lincoln Chafee, coming from the inconsequential very blue state of Rhode Island isn't a very good choice either, although his former status as a Republican would help the ticket from the right. His WASPier than the G.H.W.Bush pedigree certainly won't help project a populist image.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 29, 2015)

Josiah said:


> Bernie is not a logical choice for VP. Being right on the issues is last on the list of VP qualifications. Sherrod Brown from the important swing state of Ohio would be a better choice.




Absolutely!!   In fact I wish Brown would take a shot at the #1 position..  But you are right..  He is very popular in Ohio, and that being a swing state would help Hillary.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 29, 2015)

You have ruled him out without hearing him, and he is more to the left than any of these senior citizens chirping their progressive agendas...Listen to Linc!


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 29, 2015)

I must admit... I know nothing about "Linc"..   Is he a crackpot?

I'd have to hear him speak... may be a bit too "Republican" for my taste..

Bye the way... Is he running... or not?


----------



## Josiah (Apr 29, 2015)

Ralphy please send us a couple of "Linc" links which show off his newly acquired Democratic ideas.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 29, 2015)

Yeah... the "newly acquired" part concerns me..   Is he a possible Trojan Horse..?


----------



## Josiah (Apr 29, 2015)

No he's not a Trojan Hourse. I take him at his word that he wasn't comfortable as a Republican. Here's a link showing his voting record which you got to admit is pretty liberal.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Lincoln_Chafee.htm


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 29, 2015)

Interesting...  Has he declared he is running?  Or is he "almost" running?  

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...idate-democratic-primary-campaign-117047.html


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 30, 2015)

Our guy is running if he can get financial support, he only has five grand to date.  And you ain't seen liberal until you hear him, liberal but not a socialist like old Bernie, and not half a republican like old Hillary...


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Our guy is running if he can get financial support, he only has five grand to date.  And you ain't seen liberal until you hear him, liberal but not a socialist like old Bernie, and not half a republican like old Hillary...



I was wondering how long before the "socialist" label was puked out..

Have you LISTENED to what Bernie has to say?  

and what is wrong with Socialist?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 30, 2015)

He is with a small s rather than a large S...


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> He is with a small s rather than a large S...



Again.... what is wrong with socialism, with or without a large or small s.       Please don't tell me you are one of those who does not understand the difference between Socialism and Communism..


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 30, 2015)

I do, but I don't want to live under either one...


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> I do, but I don't want to live under either one...



Can you tell me WHY you wouldn't want to live under a Socialist regime?


----------



## Ameriscot (Apr 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Again.... what is wrong with socialism, with or without a large or small s.       Please don't tell me you are one of those who does not understand the difference between Socialism and Communism..



There are many who don't understand the difference.  Socialism is a dirty word in the US for some reason, even with so many socialist programmes.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 30, 2015)

Too much of a temptation for many not to do anything and just live off of the government more than some do in this country now...


----------



## BobF (Apr 30, 2015)

Socialism is social controls while Communism is social controls plus political control.   Both are complete economic disasters.

Notice that communist China was a starving country till they decided to allow much looser and private businesses and industries to operate.   Now at least some folks are able to make a living, to leave China to live elsewhere, to go back to China if they please.   They are living much more like free people now that the Communism part of their government has allowed personal freedom to exist once again.

The Chinese people are real good folks and in spite of the Communist government they try to be good folks.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Too much of a temptation for many not to do anything and just live off of the government more than some do in this country now...



That's not true at all..  Under Socialism... people have to WORK in order to share some of the profits..  Profits are not allowed to be taken and hidden overseas.  The people doing the work are compensated according to the work they have done..  Money is not filtered up to the TOP only. 



From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.

The means of production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.


Social safety nets as we have now... Medicare, Social Security, remain in place.   Assistance to those unable to work due to disabilities remains.. 


But it's not surprising... 











 


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 30, 2015)

China has evolved into an interesting hybrid system of capitalism and communism...


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 30, 2015)

Communes employing that lack of structure were tried in this country in the 1800s and failed when some wouldn't pull their wait.  Also, I believe that the hippie communes of the 60's failed because too many people laid around and got stoned...


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Communes employing that lack of structure were tried in this country in the 1800s and failed when some wouldn't pull their wait.  Also, I believe that the hippie communes of the 60's failed because too many people laid around and got stoned...




So I see you are a proud member of the 70% of Americans who have ZERO clue about what socialism is.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 30, 2015)

How do you consider that little history as making me clueless?


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Are you equating communes with socialism?   If so... then you are clueless,  because communes are more in the line of communism...  Hence the word Ralphy 

*COMMUN*ism


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 30, 2015)

No, communes were not in line with communism and probably failed sooner than they would have if they had been...


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Whatever Ralphy....   My job is to not change your mind or even to educate you...  Believe what you wish...


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 30, 2015)

Thanks, but you have to admit that this is fun, and one student of this type of forum concluded that no minds are changed,  just arguments honed...:love_heart:


----------



## BobF (Apr 30, 2015)

And that comment goes both ways.   There is nothing wrong with the freedom and ways of the US type of government as it is described in our Constitution.   Expecting all to have to work their way into prosperity is not a bad thing.   Expecting folks to go after their fortunes on their own is not bad at all.   Allowing them to gain profit has done many in this world much good and they in turn have given their wealth back to the people in various forms that they have chosen, the Gates for example.

Many of our current ways are built on the ideas of some very intelligent folks.   Lots of ideas from the US but unable to afford to build them here and sell to the public at prices affordable.    So the ideas get developed here, shipped to other countries around the world where the people are happy to have a job that pays little rather than the US elevated wage expectations.  Bring those jobs back to the US and pay the wages the US folks think they deserve and few of us could afford them anymore.   Depression once again.  

We need less government control, not more.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> And that comment goes both ways.   There is nothing wrong with the freedom and ways of the US type of government as it is described in our Constitution.   Expecting all to have to work their way into prosperity is not a bad thing.   Expecting folks to go after their fortunes on their own is not bad at all.   Allowing them to gain profit has done many in this world much good and they in turn have given their wealth back to the people in various forms that they have chosen, the Gates for example.
> 
> Many of our current ways are built on the ideas of some very intelligent folks.   Lots of ideas from the US but unable to afford to build them here and sell to the public at prices affordable.    So the ideas get developed here, shipped to other countries around the world where the people are happy to have a job that pays little rather than the US elevated wage expectations.  Bring those jobs back to the US and pay the wages the US folks think they deserve and few of us could afford them anymore.   Depression once again.
> 
> We need less government control, not more.



Again Bob.... the Philosophy of socialism DOES expect people to work.. all it does is allow some of the profits to go to the workers rather than to offshore bank accounts.  Do you see something wrong with that..?  Or do you think American workers should continue to see a decline in their wages while being asked to work more. This is exactly what has been happening over the last 30 years.   Do you not have a problem with all the money... especially money made off the sweat of workers backs to be siphoned away from the economy? 

You REALLY must take a breath and learn that socialism is NOT communism..


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Remember back in the 60's or even early 70's when Employers offered their employee's a little something called "Profit Sharing"?   Workers were able to build up quite a nice little nest egg for retirement.  (and that was socialism)   THEN Corporations, decided.. what the hell!!?  WHY should we give these people any of the profits THEY worked to help us earn? Legislation and tax laws were changed to allow companies to pull all the profits and squirrel them away in overseas accounts....  To make the stupid people think they were still getting something... a little thing like the 401K was added..  Let the Worker contribute THEIR money to this and put it at the risk of the stock market... oh sure.. we will add a few pennies on the dollar of "matching funds"... but not too much mind you.. We can't short ourselves or our shareholders the profits..


----------



## BobF (Apr 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Remember back in the 60's or even early 70's when Employers offered their employee's a little something called "Profit Sharing"?   Workers were able to build up quite a nice little nest egg for retirement.  (and that was socialism)   THEN Corporations, decided.. what the hell!!?  WHY should we give these people any of the profits THEY worked to help us earn? Legislation and tax laws were changed to allow companies to pull all the profits and squirrel them away in overseas accounts....  To make the stupid people think they were still getting something... a little thing like the 401K was added..  Let the Worker contribute THEIR money to this and put it at the risk of the stock market... oh sure.. we will add a few pennies on the dollar of "matching funds"... but not too much mind you.. We can't short ourselves or our shareholders the profits..



The above is somewhat twisted from actual.    Many of the changes you speak of were employees choices, not employers demands.

Well, you sure have put your socialist ideas to work here.   Profit sharing could still happen but paying the current wages means no profits, and that is what I was posting above.   Far too much is demanded by the workers from our employers so they send much of the work overseas to where things we want can be built at a cost we can afford.   When that is gone, so will be our ability to pay for these over-cost items being built with far too high wages.   Higher and higher wages and we see higher and higher cost of items.   Looked around in the store lately.   We are in another inflation of prices for just about everything.   Had  many of these items been built in the US we would never be able to buy them at all.   And our food cost are also rising rapidly due to the cost of the machinery, wages, and fertilizers.

I started my working career at 25 cents per hour.   My last wages job of my profession was at about $30.00 per hour in 1975.   These days we see demands of $10 per hour in many places and well up in the dollars for professional jobs in the tech industries.   It is a shame the way we demand and demand but now we want to bring back to the US what we have sent away to low pay countries so we could afford them.

And yes, socialism is just a control point away from communism.   If we put away a lot of these tears about those that have no incentive to do anything but sit on their butts, then maybe they would start to work out of fear of starving to death.   Motivation is what keeps many working.   Motivation is what brings many to the states from where ever they grew up hungry and unemployed.   Socialism is just a big way for some power crazed folks to want to be leaders and directors.   Since they take away incentive when leaders they get stuck with lots of folks sitting on their butts rather than lots of folks out doing things for themselves.


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 30, 2015)

How old are you Bob?


----------



## BobF (Apr 30, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> How old are you Bob?



Does it really matter?


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 30, 2015)

Yes it gives context to your statements.  How old are you?


----------



## Shalimar (Apr 30, 2015)

Yikes! I have never been so glad in my life to be part of the Great Northern Socialist Horde, at least I won't starve to death on the street without medical should my financial situation tank. Yikes!


----------



## BobF (Apr 30, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Yes it gives context to your statements.  How old are you?



Born 1933 on July 4th.   How does this make my statements better.    I started my first payroll job in A&P for 25 cents per hour.  Out of high school in 1951 and took a construction job, unionized, at $1.25 per hour.   When cold weather approached I went into a draftsman job in a local industry for $1.00 per hour.   Military paid me about $350 per month with rank.   My latest job was started at $3.50 and many years later it was more about $40.00 per hour in a electronics company with full benefits and 5 weeks vacation with ongoing health plans.   It was a pretty good deal for me.   I am still receiving retirements from that company and now they no longer carry me in their health plan but with a bit of cash, from the former employer, I am able to buy my own insurance to carry on with the left over problems that Medicare will not cover.

OK, now just what good is all this for the other readers.   Likely many of them can say they do better with their medical insurance.   Really  none of my information is any good to others for any reason.   Just don't want to see you crying about something with no merit at all on this or any forum.

Have a good day Jim.


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 30, 2015)

The reason I asked is your .25 per hour statement.  I worked in '52 for a $1.65.  I couldn't believe anyone alive worked for  a quarter per hour.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> The above is somewhat twisted from actual.    Many of the changes you speak of were employees choices, not employers demands.
> 
> Well, you sure have put your socialist ideas to work here.   Profit sharing could still happen but paying the current wages means no profits, and that is what I was posting above.   Far too much is demanded by the workers from our employers so they send much of the work overseas to where things we want can be built at a cost we can afford.   When that is gone, so will be our ability to pay for these over-cost items being built with far too high wages.   Higher and higher wages and we see higher and higher cost of items.   Looked around in the store lately.   We are in another inflation of prices for just about everything.   Had  many of these items been built in the US we would never be able to buy them at all.   And our food cost are also rising rapidly due to the cost of the machinery, wages, and fertilizers.
> 
> ...




That's really interesting Bob..   According to this. http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm. The minimum wage was 25 cents an hour back in 1938..  So you REALLY began your career early... like at the age of five?    So let's do some math... if you started working at age 16.. that would have been 1949..  and the minimum wage was 75 cents an hour which was up from the previous of 40 cents an hour.... SO.. either you are lying, or your company was breaking the Federal law...  which is it Bob?


----------



## BobF (Apr 30, 2015)

Jim, you and your not so smart female friend need to realize that where I worked for .25 cents per hour was a union run place.

It is not my problem Mrs Smart Mouth.   You are the problem on this forum, not me.   I worked part time for A&P as a student from high school.   UNION rate of that time.   Probably 1949 or 1950, both years could have been involved.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> Jim, you and your not so smart female friend need to realize that where I worked for .25 cents per hour was a union run place.
> 
> It is not my problem Mrs Smart Mouth.   You are the problem on this forum, not me.   I worked part time for A&P as a student from high school.   UNION rate of that time.   Probably 1949 or 1950, both years could have been involved.



Name calling again BOB?


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> Jim, you and your not so smart female friend need to realize that where I worked for .25 cents per hour was a union run place.
> 
> It is not my problem Mrs Smart Mouth.   You are the problem on this forum, not me.   I worked part time for A&P as a student from high school.   UNION rate of that time.   Probably 1949 or 1950, both years could have been involved.



Sorry... minimum wage in 1949 and 1950 was 75 cents an hour  ...  you are probabley "misremembering"  because I doubt if A&P would break Federal law.


----------



## BobF (Apr 30, 2015)

Well you for sure have not convinced me of anything at all.    I read that entire chart and saw nothing supporting your claims either.

I sure did not work for a union shop for over two years and forgot those years.

You call my post a name calling post?   Try to read your own snotty posts a few times.   Why can't you just let others post as they see fit without trying to make everyone agree with the way you think.   Now that is a bit of name calling from you.   Live and let live for a while.  But you can't do that as all you far far left socialists think you really do control the earth and its fortunes.    One small  step further left and you will truly be a communist.   There now I am doing some name calling.   Won't do any good though as you head is too hard.

I have heard from a couple others that say they will not post much any more as you have really ticked them off with your attacks.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Sorry... minimum wage in 1949 and 1950 was 75 cents an hour  ...  you are probabley "misremembering"  because I doubt if A&P would break Federal law.



By the way.... 75 cents an hour was pretty good money in 1949....  66 years later... $10 an hour is not a living wage... We need to have the minimum wage somewhere around $15


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 30, 2015)

1949 .75 per hour per Dept. of labor. as QS stated. http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/coverage.htm


----------



## BobF (Apr 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> By the way.... 75 cents an hour was pretty good money in 1949....  66 years later... $10 an hour is not a living wage... We need to have the minimum wage somewhere around $15



Minimum wages is not supposed to be a living wage anyway.   That is a definition created by some.   Minimum wage is just that, the least expected to be paid for a certain job, depending on different states rules.   I believe $10 would be sufficient and even good wages for some areas and $15 would be obnoxious for beginners in jobs.   All these so called raises being demanded are just going to drive the US cost of living out of sight and that is the first step to a major can't afford is to I won't buy it situation.   Called a recession.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> Well you for sure have not convinced me of anything at all.    I read that entire chart and saw nothing supporting your claims either.
> 
> I sure did not work for a union shop for over two years and forgot those years.
> 
> ...



Really.... would you care to show some of my "Attacks"... or my "Name Calling"..   Please... PLEASE repost them..  I'd be interested in seeing them..


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 30, 2015)

You are missing the point Bob.  You said you were earning .25 per hour in a retail store in 1949.  By law, that is impossible.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> You are missing the point Bob.  You said you were earning .25 per hour in a retail store in 1949.  By law, that is impossible.



Yeah.... maybe we should report A&P for breaking Federal law..   lol!!   Oh bob... why can't you just admit you "Misspoke"


----------



## BobF (Apr 30, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> 1949 .75 per hour per Dept. of labor. as QS stated. http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/coverage.htm



I believe you are right for full time employees.   What I am trying to find, and so far not finding, is for subsets of workers.   Like part time, less that 30 hours, or only for certain times, or for juvenile ages such as mine would have been.   I did find one for tipped employees and still think others must exist also.

_*Definition: *The hourly federal minimum wage  rate for employees who receive tips is currently $2.13 an hour. The  amount is higher in some states. The hourly rate plus the tips received  must equal the federal minimum wage if the employee keeps all the tips  and regularly earns more than $30 a month in tips. _


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> I believe you are right for full time employees.   What I am trying to find, and so far not finding, is for subsets of workers.   Like part time, less that 30 hours, or only for certain times, or for juvenile ages such as mine would have been.   I did find one for tipped employees and still think others must exist also.
> 
> _*Definition: *The hourly federal minimum wage  rate for employees who receive tips is currently $2.13 an hour. The  amount is higher in some states. The hourly rate plus the tips received  must equal the federal minimum wage if the employee keeps all the tips  and regularly earns more than $30 a month in tips. _




NO Bob... no different for Part time...   Minimum wage is minimum wage... Part time or full time...   SO.... Still wanna claim you were paid 25 cents an hour in 1949??

Oh.. by the way... still waiting for you to post all the examples of my calling people names..  AND will accept your apology for calling me names... Will that be forthcoming??   Yeah... won't hold my breath..


----------



## AZ Jim (Apr 30, 2015)

deleted.


----------



## BobF (Apr 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Really.... would you care to show some of my "Attacks"... or my "Name Calling"..   Please... PLEASE repost them..  I'd be interested in seeing them..



Just for you to read as anything I post you will reject and toss more trash my way.   You are the poison problem on this forum.   Not me.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> Just for you to read as anything I post you will reject and toss more trash my way.   You are the poison problem on this forum.   Not me.



All you have to do is  QUOTE any post of mine that has name calling... and It cannot be refuted...  Since you claim I am doing this... You should be able to back it up... Right?    If you cannot do this.. then you owe me an apology... Right?


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Come on BOB.... show me my "Poison"..... and I will post 10 posts of yours.  I am going to hold you to this.... because I am getting sick of your accusations....  when YOU are the only one posting poison.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Let's go BOB.... You are trying my patience....  let's see all my name calling and poison... If you cannot produce it.. .then I suggest you STFU.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Got Nothing... huh BOB......


----------



## BobF (Apr 30, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> You are missing the point Bob.  You said you were earning .25 per hour in a retail store in 1949.  By law, that is impossible.



OK Jim, I admit that what I was saying might be wrong.   What I have been looking for I am not finding.   I did work for .25 cents for two years but I was actually holding down two jobs at the time.   I also worked in an old water powered flour mill after school.   But my mornings and week ends I was working the grocery store.   I suppose then that I was making the minimum.   In the summer time I was working in root beer stand as a car order taker and deliverer.   Not a fun job at all.   I don't remember that wage rate either, but we did get to keep the tips, if any.

Sorry about my outburst, but it was not intended for you at all.

And yes there are some lower limits of employees where no minimum is required.   But that would  not include my grocery store times.    So I guess I was on the .75 cent wage then. 

I know that when I worked there was a minimum start wage for some number of days and then you could get raises.   That was on most jobs I have held over the years.   So this minimum wage was just that, the least you can get for certain jobs.   Some states do try to make the minimum wages higher than federal, but I think most just go with the federal minimum.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> OK Jim, I admit that what I was saying might be wrong.   What I have been looking for I am not finding.   I did work for .25 cents for two years but I was actually holding down two jobs at the time.   I also worked in an old water powered flour mill after school.   But my mornings and week ends I was working the grocery store.   I suppose then that I was making the minimum.   In the summer time I was working in root beer stand as a car order taker and deliverer.   Not a fun job at all.   I don't remember that wage rate either, but we did get to keep the tips, if any.
> 
> Sorry about my outburst, but it was not intended for you at all.
> 
> ...



That's all well and good BOB... but where is your apology to ME....  or at least prove that I have called you or anyone names...  Sorry...you are not getting off easy... I will continue to ask.


----------



## BobF (Apr 30, 2015)

Read your own posts back to yourself and tell my I owe you an apology.    I don't as your attitude and the way you write are repulsive to say the least.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> Read your own post back to yourself and tell my I owe you and apology.    I don't as your attitude and the way you write are repulsive to say the least.



I'm repulsive?    YOU made the accusation... YOU prove it... and if you cannot... then you should apologize...as any MAN would do.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Where did ya go Bob... You accuse me of calling you names... Yet you cannot come up with any example... However, I have shown where you have called me names over and over... You accuse me of being repulsive... when all I have done is prove my point... As far as I can see, you are completely and totally out of line here....If you refuse to give me an apology... I will understand... It takes a real MAN to admit they are wrong.. not every male can do that.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Ya know bob... I don't mean to be a pest.. or to harrass you... BUT you have stated that I have called you names and have posted "Poison"... If that's true... then I would really like to see where I have so I can avoid it in the future... Please... show me... K?


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 30, 2015)

Well.... I guess we've got crickets here.... I'm going to bed....


----------



## Warrigal (Apr 30, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> China has evolved into an interesting hybrid system of capitalism and communism...



You can have a hybrid system of capitalism and socialism too. Australia has worked very well that way since the early days od the colonies.


----------



## Warrigal (Apr 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Sorry... minimum wage in 1949 and 1950 was 75 cents an hour  ...  you are probabley "misremembering"  because I doubt if A&P would break Federal law.



Is it possible that there was a youth wage that was less than the adult wage back then? This was the case in OZ. You didn't get full basic wage until 21 or 22 years old. The wage at 15 was much less and it rose gradually each year until the full adult rate was achieved. Females did not receive full male basic wage rates because the basic wage was supposed to be enough for a man to support a family but women workers were mostly single and it was considered that they didn't need as much.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 1, 2015)

From what I have read, a youth wage ( people under 20) was implemented in 1996, for $4.25 per hour for a period of 90 days only.. after that, the federal minimum wage of $7.25 must be paid..    The exception is those working for tips.. they can be paid $2.13 an hour..  My research shows no youth wage prior to that...  The minimum wage was implemented in 1933 for $.25 per hour... it was $.75 in 1949.   I believe the history of the mimimum wage in the US is posted up thread.


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 2, 2015)

Bernie Sanders on social security.  http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...ers-plans-dramatically-alter-social-security/




> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) announced his candidacy for the presidency on Thursday with the goal of promoting progressive polices to reduce income inequality, climate change, and the influence of big money in American politics. Sanders hopes to inject his solutions into the national political conversation and shift the Overton window on a host of domestic and international priories.
> 
> Chief among them is Social Security, a program he describes as one of the “most successful government programs in American history.” However, without changes — benefit cuts or tax increases — the fund that maintains Social Security won’t be able to pay-out all of its obligations by 2033, leading lawmakers to propose a series of solutions to extend the program’s solvency.
> 
> Sanders has long warned against prescriptions that would cut benefits or slow their growth, upending Washington’s consensus that government needs to cut entitlement programs to keep them sustainable. Instead, he has proposed legislation to expand the program.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 12, 2015)




----------



## Thx (Jul 12, 2015)

Yeah, I like Bernie Sanders and it's about time someone spoke up for the average American!

He's been on MSNBC for almost two years it seems, I've always enjoyed what he had to say and am so glad he's running and gaining momentum as fast as people hear him speak!

Give 'em hell Bernie! Feel the Bern!

Thx :untroubled:


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jul 13, 2015)

Bernie is too far out for Hillary to risk him for VP.  She will probably go with a moderate Hispanic...


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 13, 2015)

One of my close American friends, himself a Democrat, referred to Bernie as a Communist. At first, I thought he was joking, but apparently not. Here in Canada, where Communism is legal, Mr. Sanders would be viewed as slightly left of Centre Left, but to the right of the Greens, hardly a Communist, unless Socialist and Communist are somehow synonymous?? I don't understand. Do many Americans not distinguish between the two?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jul 13, 2015)

His ideas on government providing free day care and college education for all is just a couple of examples of why he is considered just too far left,  be it what ever you want to call it...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 13, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> One of my close American friends, himself a Democrat, referred to Bernie as a Communist. At first, I thought he was joking, but apparently not. Here in Canada, where Communism is legal, Mr. Sanders would be viewed as slightly left of Centre Left, but to the right of the Greens, hardly a Communist, unless Socialist and Communist are somehow synonymous?? I don't understand. Do many Americans not distinguish between the two?



Obviously your friend had communism and socialism confused...   Not surprising though, many Americans don't know the difference.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 13, 2015)

Thanks, QS. I was taken aback by his vehement response. He seemed to feel as threatened by what he viewed as Socialism/Communism,  as he did by terrorism.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 13, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Thanks, QS. I was taken aback by his vehement response. He seemed to feel as threatened by what he viewed as Socialism/Communism,  as he did by terrorism.



Seriously... there are many that believe Socialism to be synonymous with communism..and I have gotten tired of trying to enlighten them..  They are only showing their ignorance.  Unfortunately they vote their ignorance and we all have to live with it.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jul 13, 2015)

He is just a distraction like Trump is...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 13, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> He is just a distraction like Trump is...




Oh PULEEZE..   Don't compare Sanders with Trump...    Unlike Trump, everything Sanders says is true...   In that respect, they are polar opposites.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 13, 2015)

Trump is a buffoon, Sanders is not.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jul 13, 2015)

They are both on the opposite ends of the political spectrum and neither has a chance,  And regardless of what you think of them, neither has a chance...


----------

