Rubio’s “Exciting Historic Opportunity”

We (meaning, of course, Democrats) have officially spent fifty years fighting the War on Poverty. Today’s GOP has decided to drop all pretense and call for a war on the poor — and they’re letting the Token Brown Guy lead the charge. From the Washington Post:

Among the changes to the system Rubio proposed was a plan to consolidate federal funding for anti-poverty programs into the one agency and give those funds to the states. The key to addressing poverty, Rubio emphasized in his high-profile speech, is decentralizing.

“These Flex Funds would be transferred to the states so they can design and fund creative initiatives that address the factors behind inequality of opportunity” closer to home, Rubio said.

Rubio said his staff was still working through the details of what would be a part of the “Flex Funds” but said programs like food stamps could potentially be included.

He also said he would introduce legislation to replace the earned income tax credit with a “federal wage enhancement for qualifying low-wage jobs.”

Rubio said the federal wage enhancement could serve as a supplement to a lower paying job and deter low-income workers from turning to unemployment insurance to make ends meet…

Because right now we, the taxpayers, are only subsidizing WalMart’s profits indirectly, providing food stamps and medical care to its underpaid workers. Why not live the GOP dream and pay WalMart right up front for their civic generosity in providing three-fifths of a living wage to its serfs? Hey, it’s not as though governors like Scott Walker or Rick Scott would find ways to divert those federal funds into nepotistic boondoggles for their personal fiefdoms…

Complete video of Rubio’s speech at the link, if you’re a glutton for punishment. He may be trying to look earnest, but he comes across as embarrassed — as though he can’t belief even a roomful of Repub syncophants are going to let him finish without throwing their notepads at him.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

133 replies
  1. 1
    RaflW says:

    “Raising the minimum wage may poll well, but having a job that pays $10 an hour is not the American Dream”

    Having a $7/hr job is???

  2. 2
    Baud says:

    … Among the changes to the system Rubio proposed was a plan to consolidate federal funding for anti-poverty programs into the one agency and give those funds to the states.

    Who will then reject them because they are opposed to Obamacare.

    Wait…

  3. 3
    jl says:

    Unless you promise me something at least as good as the furtive water slurp, I’m not watching the vid.

  4. 4
    RaflW says:

    “These Flex Funds would be transferred to the states so they can design and fund creative initiatives that address the factors behind inequality of opportunity giveaways to corporate privatizers and for-profit college scams” Rubio said.

  5. 5
    kc says:

    Wow, I can’t wait to see the ways Governor Nikki Haley (Tea Bag SC) would use the money to help SC’s legions of underpaid workers.

  6. 6
    kc says:

    @RaflW:

    Bingo.

  7. 7
    Corner Stone says:

    Jesus fucking Christ. We’re now going to pay Wal-Mart to indenture their employees?

  8. 8
    Jim, Foolish LIteralist says:

    Rubio said the federal wage enhancement could serve as a supplement to a lower paying job and deter low-income workers from turning to unemployment insurance to make ends meet…

    Um…. what? Also, too, isn’t Young Marco, as he continues his quest for relevance, proposing a tax increase (eliminating EITC) and gov’t spending (those enhancements)?

  9. 9
    BGinCHI says:

    Shorter Rubio:

    Helping people doesn’t work. It would be better to let rich people get richer in the hope that they will help people by taking all the resources and occasionally letting some of them slip out of their grasp.

  10. 10
    RaflW says:

    I mean, seriously, when the CEO:line worker is at least 204:1, the factors behind inequality of opportunity have little to do with UI insurance or even access to basic college courses.

    The rich have totally gamed the system. We’re beyond gilded age here. No GOP twiddling around the edges, while gutting the safety net, will in fact ameliorate the factors behind inequality of opportunity.

    The rich have lost any sight of how they are fomenting the revolution. And the GOP are twice-blinkered: they fawn over the rich, and they believe their own useless, 30 year out of date “policy” prescriptions.

  11. 11
    Corner Stone says:

    @RaflW:

    Having a $7/hr job is???

    No, the American Dream is to have absolutely no floor on wages.
    For that is the only way we can truly be free.

  12. 12
    srv says:

    We (meaning, of course, Democrats) have officially spent fifty years fighting the War on Poverty.

    Well, the democrats Vietnamization of Poverty has clearly worked wonders. If state exchanges are good enough for healthcare, why aren’t they good enough for welfare?

    Republicans are just trying to figure out a program to win over the 47%. What WalMart employee wouldn’t vote Republican for a $3/hr upgrade?

  13. 13
    chopper says:

    @Baud:

    oh, the states will take the money all right. and i’m sure there will be no actual requirement that they spend it on poverty programs.

  14. 14
    AnotherBruce says:

    @Corner Stone: So the only way to be free is have slavery? Yep, rabbit hole, we are going through.

  15. 15
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    and give those funds to the states.

    Ideally with no restrictions on their use, so that like Georgia’s federal TANF funds, they can be kept away from people who actually need them and diverted to whatever the governor and the ALEC-run legislature desire.

    Yeah, we know what Marco wants.

  16. 16
    Kay says:

    @Jim, Foolish LIteralist:

    It’s so grossly patronizing and disempowering, too. Don’t let them agitate and organize and get a better wage through their own efforts. Make them completely passive, waiting for the compassionate conservatives to release the grant.

    Honestly, fuck him. The fact that they’re scared of 2000 low wage workers out in the street is laughable. God forbid “those people” should think they could demand better wages, which was great PR and was working, BTW. They should wait for Marco Rubio to broker a tax deal that lets their employer completely off the hook, because he knows what’s best.

    Also. Any dope in media who pretends this:

    “Flex Funds”

    is different than the “block grants” they’ve been pushing for the last 20 years should be fired.

  17. 17
    russ says:

    The pain caused by pain killers, Oxy etc., is far greater than the aches and pains they numb. The expense of mfg heroin is far greater than the benefits it provides.

  18. 18
    BGinCHI says:

    Did I miss the speech and massive coverage of a prominent Democrat making it clear how the government’s efforts to reduce poverty have worked over the last 50 years?

    Why the fuck didn’t that happen?

  19. 19
    Corner Stone says:

    @AnotherBruce:

    So the only way to be free is have slavery? Yep, rabbit hole, we are going through.

    Of course. For if you will not accept $5 an hour for this job, I am free to find someone else who will take it for $4.75 per hour.
    That, my friend, is true freedom.

  20. 20
    MattF says:

    I’m starting to think that Rubio is one of those people who is wrong about everything all the time. It’s a sort of talent– he tries, he strives, he fails.

  21. 21
    jl says:

    @Jim, Foolish LIteralist:

    ” Um…. what? ”

    Since when does it have to make any sense?

    This clever plan might go something like, subsidize crummy jobs at 50 percent of unemployment compensation so that the companies could work the slobs for free, then abolish unemployment insurance (which as we all know is an irresistible lure that makes certain kinds of those people to turn to unemployment!). It has to work.

  22. 22
    Baud says:

    Warning: Buzzfeed

    A senior scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation was quick to criticize Sen. Marco Rubio’s new anti-poverty proposals in an interview Wednesday — an early sign that the Florida senator’s new push to help the poor could land him in hot water with his party’s right wing again.
    ….
    Reached for comment by BuzzFeed immediately after the speech, senior Heritage scholar Robert Rector trashed Rubio’s proposals, saying the wage subsidy “doesn’t really change much of anything,” and calling the flex fund “an extraordinarily bad idea.”
    ….
    The conservative reviews of Rubio’s speech — like the legislation he has outlined — are still largely unwritten. But Heritage, whose political arm led the charge against Rubio’s immigration proposals last year and helped spark a right-wing revolt, could be a thorn the senator’s side if it mobilizes against him. While it’s highly unlikely Rubio’s anti-poverty measures will get the same legislative traction as his immigration bill, his aides say he plans to spend much of this year working on the issue. And as he looks toward the Republican presidential primaries in 2016, Rubio isn’t eager to make more conservative enemies.

  23. 23
    kc says:

    @AnotherBruce:

    You should have to pay to work.

  24. 24
    KG says:

    Rubio proposed was a plan to consolidate federal funding for anti-poverty programs into the one agency and give those funds to the states.

    Um, if the money is just going to be given to the states, what’s the point of the agency? Why not just directly give the money to the states? Or let the states collect the money themselves? Unless of course, it’s a move to get money from places like California and New York and give it to places like the square states in the middle.

    Also, what the fuck (it needed to be spelled out in this case) is a federal wage enhancement? Why should the government enhance wages instead of requiring businesses to pay decent wages? That confuses me.

  25. 25
    Corner Stone says:

    We (meaning, of course, Democrats) have officially spent fifty years fighting the War on Poverty.

    I think it’s more accurate to say we’ve been fighting a rear guard action for the last 15+ years.

  26. 26
    jl says:

    ” Rubio said the federal wage enhancement could serve as a supplement to a lower paying job and deter low-income workers from turning to unemployment insurance to make ends meet…”

    I guess I have to watch that video later, when I can face up to it, in order to fine out who came up with that lame brain phrasing (‘deter low-income workers from turning to unemployment insurance’). If Rubio said anything like that, he would be a hoot on the presidential campaign trail, at least the primary trail.

  27. 27
    Kay says:

    I think it’s funny in that they actually do believe they have a problem with white low wage and working poor coming out to vote for them, so to me it’s a little different than the ordinary conservative line. This is actually an affirmative campaign strategy, where they’re trying to directly appeal to a group of voters, rather than using a group of people to gin up their voters with anger and resentment.

    They do have a genuine problem with getting white working class and poor people out to vote for them, or that’s what they have decided is the problem. Obviously they’ve given up on anyone other than white voters, nationally.

  28. 28
    Josie says:

    Raising the minimum wage may poll well, but having a job that pays $10 an hour is not the American Dream.

    That is the most mindblowingly stupid statement ever. Whoever wrote that for him is not his friend.

  29. 29
    Corner Stone says:

    It’s hard to hold a lot of American Dreams in your head when you can’t feed your child on a consistent basis.

  30. 30
    Corner Stone says:

    @BGinCHI: Do you mean why wasn’t there a speech, or why wasn’t there coverage of some major speech?

  31. 31
    Judge Crater says:

    Truly Dickensian. The private sector will dole out taxpayer dollars to the people it refuses to pay a living wage. Like charter schools, government control of public funds will be ceded to corporations to take care of the poors. Work houses and poor farms are not much beyond the horizon.

  32. 32
    burnspbesq says:

    The astonishing part is that Rubio thinks the American people are just too damn stupid to figure out what he’s doing.

  33. 33
    Baud says:

    Some detail from CNN:

    Rubio also proposed rolling back the Earned Income Tax Credit – a tax credit that provides a rebate to the low and moderate income individuals with jobs. In its place, Rubio said he plans to propose legislation with “a federal wage enhancement for qualifying low-wage jobs.”

    “This would allow an unemployed individual to take a job that pays, say, $18,000 a year – which on its own is not enough to make ends meet – but then receive a federal enhancement to make the job a more enticing alternative to collecting unemployment insurance,” Rubio said.

    I know. Huh?

    ETA: Awesome.

    Rubio did not only use economic policy to bolster his stance on economic policy. The Florida Republican also said marriage is the “greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty.”

  34. 34
    gian says:

    So recycling Nixon “block grants”
    And some sort of “work makes freedom” recycled off of some rather infamous gate?

  35. 35
    Kay says:

    @KG:

    Why should the government enhance wages instead of requiring businesses to pay decent wages?

    I think it’s two-fold. It takes the burden off the employer (obviously) but it also makes the employee completely passive and dissipates any collective action energy or agency.

    It’s hard to believe, because it’s so small (in terms of how big the US is) but they were really rattled by the 2000 or so low wage workers. Can’t have the little people joining together with demands on employers! Better that Marco Rubio brokers a deal in the Senate and maybe gets them a nice, civilized subsidy. I think it creates distance between “worker” and “wage” that is really not good for workers, but is very good for employers.

  36. 36
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Baud: Get rid of EITC and “replace” it with something very like EITC? My guess is the second part of the plan would never happen. Intentionally.

  37. 37
    FormerSwingVoter says:

    He also said he would introduce legislation to replace the earned income tax credit with a “federal wage enhancement for qualifying low-wage jobs.

    This is actually an idea with some merit, sorta. Assuming that the EITC would still be the exact same amount annually, and that the qualifications are the exact same, and that this isn’t used as a way to stealth-cut the program (which is what Rubio is certainly trying here), then this could be a big help to the program.

    Right now, folks get their EITC in one big lump sum when they do their taxes. It would likely be far more effective as an actual anti-poverty tool if it were provided in the same increments as paychecks (or other government transfers), so it could be used to actually pay bills instead of trying to dig out from debt.

  38. 38
    Trollhattan says:

    ¿no hay casas de trabajo?

  39. 39
    Betty Cracker says:

    Christ, I’m so embarrassed to be represented in the Senate by that shitbag. And he’ll probably be Senator for Life since the FL Dems are so moribund.

  40. 40
    kc says:

    @Baud:

    Fuck, this really is just welfare for Wal Mart.

  41. 41
    srv says:

    @Corner Stone: School lunches should just be outsourced to McDonalds and Walmart could bid on being the only market for welfare cards.

    Employees could just get their welfare in their paycheck and then deducted automatically for their food. It’s briliant, cuts out the middle-man! Direct Welfare, Free Market!

    @burnspbesq: The People aren’t so bright.

  42. 42
    Hunter Gathers says:

    @Kay:

    They do have a genuine problem with getting white working class and poor people out to vote for them, or that’s what they have decided is the problem.

    The voters that Rubio is talking to have no fucking clue what he’s talking about. It’s word salad to them. Sarah Palin make more sense than Rubio talking about the EITC and ‘flex funds’. He might as well have given the speech in Spanish. And it’s pretty hard to pull off ‘caring about the poor’ and revive the Welfare Queen at the same time.

  43. 43
    scav says:

    @Baud: So long as those parents have one tab and one slot. Other families and children of same can rot in hunger and deprivation.

  44. 44
    max says:

    He may be trying to look earnest, but he comes across as embarrassed — as though he can’t belief even a roomful of Repub syncophants are going to let him finish without throwing their notepads at him.

    He’s trying to figure out how this ‘Get to be anointed President’ thing works.

    max
    [‘It involves minimal competence, Marco.’]

  45. 45
    piratedan says:

    gotta love all of the GOP rebranding going on, first with Christie showing his nixonian side and now Rubio indicating that if poor people would simply marry up and stay heterosexual, why we’d have poverty on the run. What’s next? Krauthammer stating that OBL wasn’t such a bad guy? McConnel stating that women and children should be seen and not heard?

  46. 46
    Cassidy says:

    Rubio wasn’t trying to talk to anyone other than the money people, nor is he serious about any proposals. He’s trying to make himself look Reaganesque in the eyes of the pre-primary donors.

  47. 47
    Mike G says:

    “Having a job that pays $10 an hour is not the American Dream.
    Paying someone $2 an hour is the Republican Dream.”

  48. 48
    danimal says:

    @KG: So, basically eliminate the EITC and mandate federal wage enhancements. Then block grant er, ‘flex fund’ entitilements, and then spend the next 30 years chipping away at the flex fund via funding freezes and bitch about the federal wage support mandates. I think we know how this proposal would play out.

    This just shuffles the deck, and does nothing for the poor.

  49. 49
    jl says:

    It’s not at all clear to me that whoever wrote up this plan understands that unemployed people do not, in fact, have jobs, and not having a job is the source of their income problem.

    Am I missing something, or is this PR stunt exactly that stupid and fail?

  50. 50

    @kc: Exactly, why should the taxpayers put more money into the pockets of the Wal Mart heirs?

  51. 51
    TriassicSands says:

    Flex Funds.

    What an inspirational name. It’s hard to imagine any problem a visionary governor like Scott Walker or Rick Scott couldn’t solve if only Flex Funds were a reality and could be used without any interference by the federal government or Democrats.

  52. 52
    mainsailset says:

    Anytime the R’s open their mouths about the inequality of wages or unemployment insurance it always reminds me of a domestic violence case where the abuser screams ‘I only beat them because I love them”

  53. 53
    Baud says:

    Rubio called instead for building on welfare reforms in the mid-1990s that he said empowered states to take a larger role in tailoring solutions that produced better results. He cited programs in Utah and Mississippi that require workers collecting unemployment benefits to enroll in online training programs.

    Hmm.

    Romney’s ad says, “Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.”

    That’s a drastic distortion of the planned changes to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. By granting waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. What’s more, the waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs — HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.

  54. 54
    jl says:

    But then I guess if part of the plan is to shovel money to businesses like Walmart to work people at close to zero net money cost, then it will obvious that if someone doesn’t have a job its because they don’t want one.

    Do the business have to promise that the subsidized jobs will be crummy to get the money? I think they should add that, since it will signal that the GOP wants to give poor people the incentive to strive.

  55. 55
    TriassicSands says:

    Would anyone be surprised if a Republican governor used his or her Flex Fund to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, since that would instantly result in a job creation explosion? And that is obviously the best way to help the poor and unemployed.

  56. 56
    jl says:

    @TriassicSands: Well, that sound pretty ‘flexible’ to me. I don’t see a problem with it.

  57. 57
    Gex says:

    IOW, Rubio’s found an exciting new way to make blue states pay for red states’ stuff, with the provision that the blue states get zero say in how the money is spent.

  58. 58
    IowaOldLady says:

    Who knew that “Let them eat cake” would come back as a campaign slogan?

  59. 59
    IdahoFlaneuse says:

    @FormerSwingVoter:

    Are you sure your can’t get the EITC with your regular pay? It seems to me there was a way to get that through your payroll then it was reported at year end on the W-2 so you couldn’t double dip.

  60. 60
    feebog says:

    Rubio comes across as weak and bland. Sure, he has a Hispanic last name, but really, who could get excited about this loser? He is as exciting as week old fish wrap. Give it a couple more years and the combover will be Trumpesque. Really, who gives a shit about his proposals? They are DOA in the Senate, so BFD.

  61. 61
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @KG:

    Um, if the money is just going to be given to the states, what’s the point of the agency?

    Marco’s cousin Julio needs a job, he’ll head up the agency.

  62. 62
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:

    tell it, Kay.

    TELL IT!!

  63. 63
    TriassicSands says:

    @jl:

    Tax cuts for the wealthy are what puts the FUN in Fund.

  64. 64
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Baud: so your new low wage job is subsidized but your current low wage job isn’t? How long before companies start laying off their workers to get these new cheaper workers?

    In the past, they didn’t want you applying for “welfare” so they changed it to workfare. Now they don’t want you applying for unemployment benefits that were taken out of your paycheck in the event that you were unemployed?

  65. 65
    aimai says:

    @Jim, Foolish LIteralist: Such an odd concept “deter low wage workers from using unemployment”–you can’t always get unimployment in the first place. Is he really arguing that low wage workers who lose their jobs would somehow be able to hang onto those jobs but for Unemployment INsurance which they get because they lost a job? If you throw up your job and quit you don’t get the UI in the first place.

  66. 66
    jl says:

    @aimai: Yeah, like I said, whoever wrote this up seem unclear on relationship between unemployment and not having a job. The proposal seems to say that if we give business some many to hire some suckers at near zero net money cost, then only people who want to be unemployed will be unemployed.

    Either it’s not supposed to make any sense, but be a nice wall of sound to occupy the corrupt nitwits in the news media, or it is one of their calliope dgowhistles to their deluded bitter white base, and soon to be their sole means of support.

  67. 67
    👾 Martin says:

    @Corner Stone: Not just WalMart. They’ll probably give a lot of it to churches to help poor people protest abortion clinics.

  68. 68
    BGinCHI says:

    @Corner Stone: It just seems odd that we’re letting fucking Rubio hold the floor while someone could be demonstrating that constructive things have been done.

  69. 69
    Suffern ACE says:

    @aimai: rather than collecting unemployment while you look for a job, your job will collect unemployment and look for you.

  70. 70
    Violet says:

    Does he drink water during the speech?

  71. 71
    Corner Stone says:

    @BGinCHI: Where’s Patty Murray when you need her? I’m sure she could give an eloquent..rebuttal..on.. behalf of..
    Oh, wait.

  72. 72
    Corner Stone says:

    @👾 Martin: If we can’t empower the corporate employer, then who the hell can we empower?!

  73. 73
    mainmata says:

    @BGinCHI: In fact, multiple Congress Critters did give speeches about the WOP but the coverage was completely overwhelmed by the right-wing media’s scorn over the WOP and so the sheepish media followed them as usual. The exception being PBS’ NewsHour (and I know you guys consider them a big fail but most liberals/progressives like them) and NPR.

  74. 74
    Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader says:

    I’m pretty sure this would be just one more thing Florida would fuckallup.

  75. 75
    Suffern ACE says:

    I guess he could put it this way. The long term unemployed, especially those in their 50s and 60s, have a tough time getting work. So we would like a government subsidized affirmative action program to hire unemployed people at low wages funded by the unemployment income that will no longer be going to unemployed people.

    The problem is that businesses do not hire employees that way. In employment conditions like we had in 2008/09 workers would not have been hired back any faster under this program than they were.

  76. 76
    Corner Stone says:

    @Suffern ACE: I say we give corporate employers an incentive to drive down wages for desperate people. What could possibly go wrong?

  77. 77
    Corner Stone says:

    I’m sorry, Just Some Fuckhead. But if Rubio doesn’t make your list of most punchablefaces in politics then I think you’re doing it wrong.

  78. 78
    mclaren says:

    No, having a job helping plunge millions of people into poverty while paying $174,000 a year is the American Dream. And Rubio’s living the dream.

    Meanwhile, one in three Americans slipped below the poverty level between 2009 and 2011.

    “America — the greatest country in the history of the world.” What a sick joke.

  79. 79
    raven says:

    @mclaren: Hey shit head, how ya doin?

  80. 80
    Mike in NC says:

    Rubio said “Flex Funds” but was actually thinking “Slush Funds”.

  81. 81
    Suffern ACE says:

    Well it does solve the problem of manufacturers being unable to find qualified mechanics who’ll work for 8.00 an hour.

  82. 82
    aimai says:

    @Suffern ACE: Bravo! Bravo!

    On a more serious note I wanted to add that after the major cock up that was the Republican attack on Medicaid and on the Exchanges I really don’t see any reason to pretend that the States can or should be given any duties they can’t perform. Instead of block grants and state administered Medicaid or Education funds I think we should move to federal control and a “federal bill of rights” format–its morally wrong that someone should be eligible for health care in a blue state and not in a red state simply because of red state incompetence. Ditto for Disability or Medicaid or Medicare. I wish people in red states could sue for their medicaid under equal protection (for the local self proclaimed lawyers please don’t log in to explain to me that IANAL. I know that, actually, I’m expressing a wish.)

  83. 83
    Baud says:

    Did you know that the Chinese use the same word for “exciting historic opportunity” and “crushing poverty”?

  84. 84
    GregB says:

    i am looking forward to the rightwing Heritage clowns drubbing Rubio so severely that he will be forced to climb back down and advocate slavery in his mea-culpa speech.

  85. 85
    Mike in NC says:

    @Baud: Another famous Chinese proverb: “May you live in interesting times”.

  86. 86
    Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937 says:

    Hey Rubio, I got your ‘federal wage enhancement’ right here.

  87. 87
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @raven: Hey Raven, O/T but Karen in GA and I want to get together with a couple of other Juicers in the ATL and come over to Athens to meet you.

  88. 88
    Nutella says:

    How fresh and innovative to propose a refried Speenhamland system. No one’s ever thought of that before!

    Poor Law Commissioners’ Report of 1834 called the Speenhamland System a “universal system of pauperism”.

    Known for bad incentives since at least 1834 and it’s the best the Republicans can do.

  89. 89
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @Baud: “Rubio did not only use economic policy to bolster his stance on economic policy. The Florida Republican also said marriage is the “greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty.”

    And what happens if your husband walks out on you and the kids? These people are so delusional.

  90. 90
    raven says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: I saw that you had met up. Let me know and I’ll figure something out. Dolly Lama, Fluke Bucket, JPL, who am I missing?

    Library lady?

  91. 91
    Baud says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    And what happens if your husband walks out on you and the kids?

    Depends on whether the things she did to drive him away are excusable under state law.

    Duh.

  92. 92
    Corner Stone says:

    @Patricia Kayden: What happens if the woman walks out on you and the kid?

  93. 93
    Violet says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    And what happens if your husband walks out on you and the kids?

    Obviously you are a slut and a harlot if that happens. Everyone knows the husband, or any man, can’t do anything wrong.

  94. 94
    Violet says:

    @Corner Stone: Then she is obviously a slut and a harlot and deserves nothing.

  95. 95
    Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader says:

    I didn’t see his groundbreaking speech. Are we finally going to remove the regulations on poor people and give them vouchers?

  96. 96
    Corner Stone says:

    @Violet: I agree.

  97. 97
    Corner Stone says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: Yes. Finally, they will be free. Free to fight each other to the death to apply for the 25 hour per week job at Subway, earning $2.75 an hour.
    Freedom! Come get a taste!

  98. 98
    efgoldman says:

    @GregB:

    ….he will be forced to climb back down and advocate slavery in his mea-culpa speech.

    Never happen. Slavery is too damned expensive. Ya’ gotta’ provide room, board, food, clothes. Plus the price of chains is going out of sight, and a decent overseer isn’t gonnna’ work for any damned minimum wage, subsidized or not.
    Makes much more economic sense to let the gummint underwrite subsistence wages, and let the workers go home to wherever they go at night.

    They must work for those goals before the majestic equality of the laws, which forbids rich and poor alike to
    sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.”

  99. 99
    some guy says:

    -40% tax rate on all capital gains above $1 million, 50% rate on all above $5 million
    -10 cent transaction tax on each and every stock sale. 10 cents per share.
    -Carbon tax of $100 on each ton of CO2 emitted into the air
    -all income subject to Social Security tax, no cap.

    make it clear to the parasites and leeches of the Village that the Class War has begun, and the 90% have every intention of seeing the 10% pay their fair share.

  100. 100
    Belafon says:

    @Corner Stone: The only thing keeping Wal-Mart from building barracks on top of their stores is a lack of federal funds.

  101. 101
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @raven:

    SIA. Haven’t seen her around much recently. Hey SIA, you there??

  102. 102
    Rusty says:

    Bad speeches by Rubio, bad staff for Christie. All good news for Jeb! Get ready folks, a new round of Jeb-mania is coming to a news outlet near you.

  103. 103
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @raven:

    Prolly wouldn’t be for at least a few weeks yet. As a retiree, my schedule is more flexible than others’ but I can put out the bat-signal and work with you offline to set something up. I think all of us in metro are agreed that you are high on the list of Juicers We’d Like to Meet in Real Life.

  104. 104
    Corner Stone says:

    @Belafon: And a fence to keep people who really want a job out, right?

  105. 105
    Corner Stone says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: *sobbing gently*

  106. 106
    Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader says:

    Is it too early to speculate Republicans may be moving away from their “borrow twenty thousand dollars from your parents and start a business” anti-poverty program?

  107. 107
    Yatsuno says:

    @some guy: I like it. Got a plan to get Congress to pass it?

  108. 108
    raven says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: Yikes! They must not read my posts!

  109. 109
    danielx says:

    @Judge Crater:

    Was just thinking that the next step is for Walmart to provide company housing and cafeterias to its workers, in exchange for a slight wage reduction. They already have…wait for it…the company store.

    Because this has worked out so well for migrant workers harvesting the fruits and vegetables that Walmart sells.

  110. 110
    JoyfulA says:

    @kc: Governor Nikki would improve the port of Savannah.

    Or put a heliport on the roof of Governor Corbett’s Hilton Head condo.

  111. 111

    @SiubhanDuinne: @raven: Indeed. This must happen.

    ETA: I wonder if my new nym is working.

  112. 112
    Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader says:

    @Yatsuno: He’s setting the other negotiating position, you fucking twit.

  113. 113
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    And what happens if your husband walks out on you and the kids?

    And his name is Joe Walsh (not the rock star), teahadi activist?

  114. 114

    Attempted to edit my comment, and found that my comment was marked for moderation. Is there no end to this heartbreak?

  115. 115
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Rusty:

    Rusty, channeling our favorite shill for Rmoney is dangerous. You might be infected by the stupid.

  116. 116
    raven says:

    Flannery, you got something funky goin on, it way be the link embedded in your handle. You live close to the Classic City?

  117. 117

    @raven: FYWP prefers my former Karen in GA nym. I find it dull, but i guess I’m stuck with it.

  118. 118
    Kareninininin, courtesy of Flannery "Tolstoy" O'Connor says:

    Trying without the link.

    ETA: No luck. I am sad.

  119. 119
    Chris T. says:

    @some guy: Well, that will kill the market for penny stocks. :-)

    Seriously, a .25% (which comes to 10 cents/share for a $40 stock, more for higher priced stocks) tax would probably work wonders.

  120. 120
    raven says:

    Karen,

    I cannot reply to either of your posts!

  121. 121
    some guy says:

    @Yatsuno:

    elect more and better Democrats.

  122. 122
    Petorado says:

    Flex Funds would be transferred to the states so they can design and fund creative initiatives

    Yeah, ’cause it’s not like Republican governors would be vengeful pricks and use these funds in a punitive manner to punish those communities that don’t support them at the ballot box, causing mayhem and misery for all the innocent people caught up in the politicking.

  123. 123
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Petorado:

    That would never happen. Especially not in Fort Lee, NJ.

  124. 124
    Ripley says:

    Will no one think of the Bitcoin?

  125. 125
    efgoldman says:

    @some guy:

    make it clear to the parasites and leeches of the Village that the Class War has begun

    Sure, all good ideas (really, no snark.) But what Congress is going to even consider them.
    [Although if I were King of the Dem world, I’d be introducing these bills every week in both houses, and flogging the hell out of them. There’s no damned reason why we shouldn’t have our own noise machine.]

  126. 126
    Yatsuno says:

    @some guy: Good plan. Let’s get to work on it.

  127. 127

    Raising the minimum wage may poll well, but having a job that pays $10 an hour is not the American Dream.

    “So let’s punish the motherfucking lazy bastards! Er, uh…”

    @Petorado: Like so.

  128. 128

    @TriassicSands:

    I think (but I could be wrong) the idea is that people currently on unemployment aren’t taking shitty fast food jobs because they make more from unemployment, so his proposal is to boost the wages of shitty fast food jobs to make them more attractive to people on unemployment.

    The fact that many people are on unemployment because THERE ARE NO GODDAMNED JOBS FOR THEM, EVEN SHITTY FAST-FOOD JOBS is not on his radar.

  129. 129
    ...now I try to be amused says:

    Why not live the GOP dream and pay WalMart right up front for their civic generosity in providing three-fifths of a living wage to its serfs?

    I see what you did there.

  130. 130
    jonas says:

    Democrats need to make an effort to remind the public that the reason these programs were federalized in the first place is that a lot of states, particularly certain meridional states with large minority populations, did not do jack squat about poverty or joblessness. When the governors of places like Louisiana and Texas get their hands on this money, it will go straight into the pockets of well-connected grifters running “faith based” programs and there will be a raft full of cases working their way to the SCOTUS trying to allow aid agencies to not serve certain populations like transgender people because it would violate their “religious freedom”.

  131. 131
    RobinDC says:

    While Rubio is definitely a r4tfcker the wage subsidy is indeed the best reform I have heard proposed in America to deal with the growing income gap and more importantly the lack of employment in this country. If it is structured to amount to a guaranteed income than I don’t care if it net zeros the cost of employees for mega corporations, its a guaranteed income to EVERYBODY in this nation because by net zeroing employer costs, or bringing them down sufficiently, it drives down unemployment to nill. This would be a brilliant reform if done right, and its a hell of a lot better than anything I have heard from the Democratic side of aisle.

  132. 132
    Corner Stone says:

    @RobinDC: I’m not sure how that would give Wal-Mart any reason to hire more employees? Or a Subway chain hiring more people?
    And frankly, I am not comfortable giving the money to the corporation, to be handed down in their largesse, instead of actually helping people.

  133. 133
    RobinDC says:

    @Corner Stone: The assumption being at net zero cost the employers will hire the full population that wishes and needs to work. At that point it is only if the employee brings negative value that the company loses. I am aware there are people that bring negative value, and they too ultimately need to be subsidized so they don’t starve, but as I said the wage supplement is a large, liberal step forward in our economic policy. Much better than either welfare, unemployment insurance or the EITC. Letting your hatred of corporations blind you to that is foolish. Of course all of this is an unrealistic dream since if the repubs ever have to think through what Rubio is proposing they will recoil in a heartbeat, but Dems should be jumping on this.

    Also my understanding of the wage subsidies proposed was that the money would be directly distributed from government to employee using a calculation pegged to living wage or whatever. Please correct me if I am wrong (although I wouldn’t really care if the money goes to the Corp. as long as a good oversight system is in place for downward distribution to employee).

Comments are closed.