This Is Rocket Science, Guys

I agree with your last lines. As for spending cuts, I have literally only heard military spending on one side and any type of social security, medicare, and medicaid cuts for the other side. Those are the main cuts that either party wants it seems. Smaller cuts that wouldn't impact either our defense or the poorest citizens come up but aren't as largely covered by people in either party. Still no real talks on either side about ending or drastically decreasing foreign aid or cutting the amount of government funds some (not all) some corporations get every year. Whatever happened to being responsible for your own business and if it fails you lose your business. I mean it is terrible but that is the risk you take when you create your own business. It is just like getting stocks. You risk losing your investment if the market changes or the company is losing money/shutting down. Yes people would lose jobs and some person waiting for an opening/opportunity could and probably would rise up. I am in full support of ALL politicians - President, Vice-President, Senators, the House, Mayors, Governors, etc. - taking basic mathematics, accounting, economy, and so on at least once a year or once every two years. If they don't pass or they are found to have cheated, not show up, or anything of the sort - then they are automatically fired. The people will need to vote in someone else.

Even if they raised minimum wage to $9/hr or whatever number they are using now, you can't possibly believe that Walmart can't afford it. I am not saying the national minimum wage should be $9/hr just that some of the huge companies complaining about it can easily afford to pay it and still make a very nice profit. Walmart is a back and forth topic though. They could afford to treat employees better. Most of the employees I talked to, when I was job searching a couple years ago, complain about not getting paid enough to make ends meet for bills and more and having to get on public assistance just to make sure they can eat. I wouldn't want a full-time job where I need to be on some type of assistance to make ends meet personally. Minimum wage should have kept up with inflation. That is a fact. Prices go up with inflation but people's paychecks not going up with inflation means they have less purchasing power and less ability to buy as much. Ah... the religious section. Yes, it is a lot easier to make people mad there. It is hard to say or just state something against a certain religion or just about faith without someone telling you that you need to follow their god in order to have morals or go to heaven or be saved or have a good life, etc. I post there when I am bored and want to argue with people. lol. Unless someone is interested in actually discussing things there in which I will more than happily discuss things with them.

"Even if they raised minimum wage to $9/hr or whatever number they are using now, you can't possibly believe that Walmart can't afford it." Can they afford it? Yes. Will they pay for it? Not if the labor isn't worth it. They're a retail store, so the big people who make these decisions have to decide if a $9/hour employee equals more than $9 in revenue. I've been to enough Walmarts to tell you that most employees who work there pass the pulse test and that's about it. Perhaps you've noticed that many Walmarts have started replacing human operated checkout aisle with self checkouts with 1 employee supervising 4 or more at a time. That's because they realized that the cost of purchasing, installing, and maintaining those machines was a better value than a paid employee at each register. Raise minimum wage again and you'll see more automation because the machine's costs aren't increasing with minimum wage. "Minimum wage should have kept up with inflation. That is a fact." No. That's your opinion. Please don't state your opinions as fact. People are paid based on the value of their skills and experience in the free market. Artificially assigning people with no skills or experience a value is what minimum wage does. That's why even employers who could theoretically afford to pay minimum wage increases won't because paying the same person more money with a minimum wage increase doesn't increase productivity. Only 20% of minimum wage earners are full time. The majority are teens and early 20's. These are people without the skills and experience to command higher wages. At my last job I supervised 16 minimum wage employees. All of them were under 24 and all of them were in school or college and living with their parents. The job was just for spending money, not to pay rent or utilities. Less than half of them still work there and, of those who still do, only 2 of them have stayed at the same minimum wage position while the others have been promoted. Anyone who stays at a minimum wage job for longer than a few years is either content with that wage and position, or doing something wrong that is keeping them at that level. Wages in general don't even go up at the same pace as inflation so I don't see why minimum wage would be an exception. I think it's simply a supply and demand issue and there is a much larger supply of workers, skilled and unskilled, than there is demand.

Back in 2007 (I think it was) when Penn & Teller Bullsh1t covered the "Wal-Mart hate" issue, Wal-Mart was paying their employees on average $10/hour. But to a more general point about Wal-Mart, and other Wal-Mart-like mega-marts: The reason they're so profitable is that they're able to offer goods for a lot less money than other stores. In my area--and I'm supremely confident my area is the rule and not the exception--we have a few grocery stores, a few department stores, and a Wal-Mart. Guess which one offers the cheapest prices on most things people need? Target is able to compete. In fact, the stores are only about 200 yards from one another; both stay packed. They operate on similar principles: Offer more to people via one-stop shopping, and offer it for less money. These big stores still manage to offer a lot of jobs for communities. And that would be true if only it were because of the large stories themselves, but it's not only because of that. Where you find a Wal-Mart, even a Super Wal-Mart, you're probably also going to find a slew of other shops and restaurants (fast-food and otherwise) set up around this big store. Most of these types of locations, which are mostly franchises at the least, not only pay the minimum wage but exceed it on average (an outlier here being a non-franchise restaurant where a server may only make like $4/hour or so, but with tips of course; or maybe a small sporting good shop, etc). Wal-Mart, and other stores which bear the same type of criticisms, are usually blamed for not treating their employees well enough. You're probably right that Wal-Mart could afford to pay people more. They have, what, 2 million employees? Okay. Give everyone a $1 bump. And let's say, for the sake of argument, only half of Wal-Mart's employees work 40-hour weeks, so we'll only give it to 1/2. Now, my math might be wrong here, but for $40 extra per week for 1 million people, that's $40,000,000 per week. Giving a $1 raise to 1 million employees for a 52-week year comes to $2,080,000,000. That's only a $1 raise for half of Wal-Mart's employees. A bigger raise for every employee? The $1 raise for all 2 million? A $2.50 raise for half? What? (My calculator just said "DAFUQ?") What do people honestly expect these stores to pay? If anyone is considering that maybe owners or a big shareholders of a huge corporation should give up some of their profit for taking the risk and being liable every time someone tries to extort money, then that's a valid argument. I suppose. I mean, they can "easily" afford to pay it, after all. But if you go paying millions of people more money, that adds up to billions of dollars. Who's going to cover those costs? The consumer. Wal-Mart stops being Wal-Mart. If bread and milk and socks and deodorant are cheaper elsewhere, people will go elsewhere. Of course, for government employees, whom already make exponentially more than Wal-Mart employees, benefits to boot, the taxpayer just picks up the bill. ... I have posed a simple question (or as a statement, depending on the context) to people for years and years here at myLot and elsewhere in my personal life. Could it be that, instead of trying to bring wages UP to this false "living wage" horsedookie people keep talking about, wouldn't it be more feasible to attempt to bring the cost of living DOWN across the board? It's not about the dollar amount. It's about what that dollar buys you. FFS, if our government officials are going to do nothing to bring down the cost of living, only things to ensure it keeps rising, then a $5 raise for every employee across the country is only going to help a very limited few, and only for an incredibly limited time. We might as well spend another $3 trillion in "stimulus" money.

"The republicans should be willing to close the tax cuts for the wealthy." Most aren't, but as I posted above, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner both caved on that and got enough republicans to vote with them to raise taxes on the wealthy. "Both parties should stop catering to their lobbyists." I agree completely. Sadly, I don't think it will every happen and every time a politician like Obama says they'll end it, you know you're dealing with a lying sack of crap. "I do not agree with the tea party at all." So you think everyone should have to pay higher taxes? "They should stop giving themselves pay raises." I agree. Too bad King Obama just signed an executive order giving them raises. "None of these politicians - republican, tea party, libertarian, democrat, etc. seem to know what a real budget is" That's not entirely true. Rand Paul actually cut 20% from his operating budget 2 years in a row. He also proposed a bill early in his term that would cut $500 billion from the deficit in year one. Sadly, the vast majority in the house and senate have absolutely no interest in balancing the budget so his bill was dumped in the trash can without a vote. Really, you have some great ideas there. The problem is that a lot of this needs to come from congress where no one person has the power to vote for or against more than 1 of 435 congressman and 2 of 100 senators. If I campaign for and get the best people running in my state and district elected, it's still only 3 out of 535 people with absolutely no clout.

It isn't rocket science. It is simple math but people are only looking at one side of the math. The republicans should be willing to close the tax cuts for the wealthy. The democrats should be willing to discuss actual welfare reform but not to touch elderly SS or medicare. Both parties should stop catering to their lobbyists. As I've stated before, foreign aid and corporate welfare should be looked at very closely. Does the business need to get government subsidies? What were their numbers before any tax breaks such as business expenses, etc.? And well I just believe we should stop giving money to every darn country in the world since most of them even some of our allies hate us. I do not agree with the tea party at all. I do think they should be more moderate but their loudest speakers come off as extreme right wing. They should stop giving themselves pay raises. The people should vote if they get them or not. They should all budget - a full federal budget from congress/senate/president and then agency budgets and state budgets and so on should be created. None of these politicians - republican, tea party, libertarian, democrat, etc. seem to know what a real budget is or if they do they only want to cater to whomever is paying them more than the American taxpayers. Then in order to make these bills less scary to either side of the political spectrum, they need to stop adding so much pork to the bills and actually READ the bills before debating them. It isn't going to magically fix things but it's a start.

I didn't mean raise the taxes but just close tax loopholes. I don't like tax loopholes as it is, but that is just a personal preference. They are there and people would be stupid NOT to take advantage of them as they are offered. I believe closing the loopholes would have generated more revenue than raises taxes. What is the point of raising taxes if you still have a bunch of loopholes to exploit? Yeah, the lobbyist thing is out of control. I wanted to intern at my state's house and at the end you have to present a bill. I wanted to present one to end lobbying BUT they have top prominent lobbyist come and speak to you and well they aren't as open. I always said if I ran for president (both sides would hate me) I would make lobbying illegal. Morally speaking, I don't believe in saying I am representing people and then getting extra on the side. I find it terribly dishonest. It is going to make it really hard to run for the House in my district when I get to that point but it is not a true victory without being honest and neither side gets that. So you think everyone should have to pay higher taxes? That was something that went into consideration when I voted and so my answer is yes. An example, I am supporter of marriage equality and one of the points I bring up is that married people pay higher taxes than single people as most file together which meant more tax revenue for the government. Does the tax code need fixed in my opinion? Yes! [i]They should stop giving themselves pay raises. I agree. Too bad King Obama just signed an executive order giving them raises.[/i] Minus the jab at the president, I believe the pay raise was only for the house and senate not necessarily him or his administration or more. I could be wrong but both the house and senate voted to add in their pay raise or at least seen it hopefully. I wouldn't blame that all on him. He signed it yes but I am sure they debated it or well unanimously decided to add a pay raise into the bill. Unfortunately that guy you mentioned is 1 out of so many congressmen and senators and there may be a few more like them. To fix my statement, I will say the vast majority of all politicians don't know what a real budget is. I question whether they know what budget means. I hope they do but you know... Thank you and I know it needs to come from them. I should be surprised that they haven't thought of some of it or more than likely they don't care but I am not. The sad thing is that we really need to get the career politicians out of there but with lobbying, super PACs, smear campaigns and much more it is hard to get an honest American who just wants the country to prosper again into office let alone listened to.

Andy, Your point would work better if not for one thing. Both sides aren't necessarily talking about not spending. They have different things they want to spend it on. Please don't believe that your party or her party truly care about not spending. They just have different ideas on what to spend all the money on. Both sides have talked about spending cuts but to departments and agencies the other doesn't want to cut them on. It is a fact which you can research that these agencies want to increase on things they want some of which include what their lobbyists are paying for and want to decrease on what they don't want. Both parties are at fault. I think we need higher taxes and some spending cuts. Nothing that would cripple our military or our elderly and disabled who can't just go get a job. Nothing that would increase the crime rate either. Both parties have yet to discuss cutting government funding to corporations but that is because most of them get their extra incentives from the lobbyists. Cutting foreign aid and corporate welfare is a start. I have yet to hear either side speaking on that point. Other countries need to deal with their own problems. Businesses are only as successful as their owners make them to be and it should rest on their owners. None of our politicians republican or democrat should be paid what they are paid. Welfare needs to be reformed not gotten rid of. Social security needs to be only for people who need it like people who can't talk or function due to autism or other disabilities. Some people with mental disorders shouldn't be out on the streets or working with other people especially since some meds can increase violence. The tax code needs to be fixed and other things. They should start with the first two however

All you've ever done is state left wing talking points with nothing to back it up Bluebell. If you actually choose to do your own research at some point, I recommend pasting the links here so people can see where you get your information. That's what I did above when you tried to claim that labor statistics were my opinion and not fact.

The government is not spending over a trillion dollars into debt. What research is need for this. Everyone knows this, except for the some of the less informed. And do you have a problem with this?

Now, since I'm the only left one here, let me give you all some advice. Just because I'm on the left does not mean I don't do my research. But since you all assume that, maybe you should take a piece of your own advice. You all need to do research and think logically before you all start these conspiracy theories.

"I want to read it but It sure it take so much time for me so better not to." You'll fit right in here.

Don't worry LoKo, you either have to be a conservative or rich to know what your talking about. I'm neither, obviously.