I don't know about you, but I'm better off Now than in 2008

[Cigar]

To say you're not better off today than time frame between July 2008 and July 2010 is ridiculous.

http://s6.postimg.org/j6o7ietip/10170923_986580744700941_783714292085925715_n.png
http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/obama-gop.jpg


Yes, he goes it alone.

He does not get much help from Congress

He seldom gets praised yet he gets plenty of criticism.

All by April 12 2012

1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems.
2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.

3. Passed Wall Street Reform: Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The new law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, requires derivatives to be sold on clearinghouses and exchanges, mandates that large banks provide “living wills” to avoid chaotic bankruptcies, limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Richard Cordray) to crack down on abusive lending products and companies.4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011.
5. Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan: From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000, with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year.
6. Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.
7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry: In 2009, injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans from the Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added more than 100,000 jobs. In 2011, the Big Three automakers all gained market share for the first time in two decades. The government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of the GM stock it still owns increases.
8. Recapitalized Banks: In the midst of financial crisis, approved controversial Treasury Department plan to lure private capital into the country’s largest banks via “stress tests” of their balance sheets and a public-private fund to buy their “toxic” assets. Got banks back on their feet at essentially zero cost to the government.
9. Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Ended 1990s-era restriction and formalized new policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.
10. Toppled Moammar Gaddafi: In March 2011, joined a coalition of European and Arab governments in military action, including air power and naval blockade, against Gaddafi regime to defend Libyan civilians and support rebel troops. Gaddafi’s forty-two-year rule ended when the dictator was overthrown and killed by rebels on October 20, 2011. No American lives were lost.
11. Told Mubarak to Go: On February 1, 2011, publicly called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to accept reform or step down, thus weakening the dictator’s position and putting America on the right side of the Arab Spring. Mubarak ended thirty-year rule when overthrown on February 11.
12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies: Two days after taking office, nullified Bush-era rulings that had allowed detainees in U.S. custody to undergo certain “enhanced” interrogation techniques considered inhumane under the Geneva Conventions. Also released the secret Bush legal rulings supporting the use of these techniques.
13. Improved America’s Image Abroad: With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years. From 2008 to 2011, favorable opinion toward the United States rose in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent.
14. Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program, Expanded Pell Grant Spending: As part of the 2010 health care reform bill, signed measure ending the wasteful decades-old practice of subsidizing banks to provide college loans. Starting July 2010 all students began getting their federal student loans directly from the federal government. Treasury will save $67 billion over ten years, $36 billion of which will go to expanding Pell Grants to lower-income students.

Plenty more ---> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all

Come on .. admit it ... as Joe would say ... this is a Big Fucking Deal :grin:

[Cigar]

Ok here's an easier question ...

Who ... on this Forum is worse off now that they were between 7/2008 and 7/2010?

Easy Question

[Matty]

All of us. We pay more for energy, food, shelter,,and health care. we've been force fed one lie right after another, been needlessly exposed to ebola, and our borders are wide open, we are in no way protected or safe. Yes, that was an easy question to answer! Oh, and did I mention the greatest divide ever?

[del]

who believes obama had shit to do with it?

easier question

[Matty]

who believes obama had $#@! to do with it?

easier question
All of it.

[Matty]

His policies are on the ballot, his own words not mine. :)

[Chris]

who believes obama had shit to do with it?

easier question


I doubt even cigar believes that.

Still, we would be much better off if it weren't for the bungling meddling of Bushbama.

[Matty]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-my-policies-are-ballot-every-single-one-them_808469.html

[Cigar]

All of us. We pay more for energy, food, shelter,,and health care. we've been force fed one lie right after another, been needlessly exposed to ebola, and our borders are wide open, we are in no way protected or safe. Yes, that was an easy question to answer! Oh, and did I mention the greatest divide ever?

That's not the question ... I don't expect to pay the same for Bread 10 years for now ... Everything cost more ... that's a given.

The questions was, are you better off now than between 7/2008 and 7/2010?

[Cigar]

who believes obama had $#@! to do with it?

easier question


If the Stock Market was still at 6624 and we were still losing 80,000 Jobs a month ... you'd bet Obama would be the blame.

So ... the question still is .. are YOU personally better than you were between 7/2008 and 7/2010?

[Cigar]

This isn't a trick question, you either are better off or you're not.

[Chris]

This isn't a trick question, you either are better off or you're not.

The trick is your attempt to associate being better off with Obama.

[Cigar]

The trick is your attempt to associate being better off with Obama.


No trick .. are you better off or not?

You can associate it with Mickey Mouse if it makes you feel better.

[Mister D]

Ok here's an easier question ...

Who ... on this Forum is worse off now that they were between 7/2008 and 7/2010?

Easy Question

Your slavish devotion to this guy is just bizarre.

[Cigar]

Your slavish devotion to this guy is just bizarre.


Your devotion to hating him is just bizarre.

Still doesn't change the question.

[Peter1469]

I am better off. Most of the middle class isn't.

[Cigar]

I am better off. Most of the middle class isn't.


That's understandable ... and there are many reasons

Most people don't have the capacity of bouncing back fast after losing their Job and Home.

[Mister D]

Your devotion to hating him is just bizarre.

Still doesn't change the question.

I don't hate him. I rarely talk about him. Seriously, you have a very limited set of responses and you just pick one regardless of you are talking to.

Really, your devotion to this guy is weird, man. Real weird.

[Cigar]

I don't hate him. I rarely talk about him. Seriously, you have a very limited set of responses and you just pick one regardless of you are talking to.

Really, your devotion to this guy is weird, man. Real weird.


:grin: I like Winners

[Mister D]

:grin: I like Winners

Yeah, it's like you're personally invested in his victory as if it's a victory for you. Dude, that's real weird.

[Cigar]

Yeah, it's like you're personally invested in his victory as if it's a victory for you. Dude, that's real weird.


I didn't have to stand in line long at all ... actual we were allowed early Voting.

Not much investment at all.


I can see you're going to stay away from the question

[Mister D]

I didn't have to stand in line long at all ... actual we were allowed early Voting.

Not much investment at all.


I can see you're going to stay away from the question

As you were already told, it's a question loaded with assumptions. It's just not interesting.

It's perfectly clear to virtually everyone here that you experience some kind of vicarious triumph in Obama. Why? Is it racial?

[Cigar]

As you were already told, it's a question loaded with assumptions. It's just not interesting.

It's perfectly clear to virtually everyone here that you experience some kind of vicarious triumph in Obama. Why? Is it racial?


No one is asking you to split the atom ...

Times were really bad from 07/2008 to 07/2010 ... are you better now or not?

[Redrose]

I'm not poor by any means, but we have less buying power than we did 6 years ago. That is a fact. My bills have increased more than our salary has increased. The biggest increase is food, then medical premiums. Gasoline has gone from 1.87 gal to around 3.00.

I don't know how young families feed their kids. Food prices are awful.

[Mister D]

No one is asking you to split the atom ...

Times were really bad from 07/2008 to 07/2010 ... are you better now or not?

As you were already told, it's a question loaded with assumptions. It's just not interesting. Seriously, I'm not interested.

I am interested in trying to understand your devotion to Obama. Like most here, I'm under the impression that you're as shallow as a puddle but is that really it? Or is there a underlying emotional issue? You defend this guy and sing his praises like you have a connection with him. There almost seems to be a quasi religious element to it. Is it just race?

[Mister D]

I'm not poor by any means, but we have less buying power than we did 6 years ago. That is a fact. My bills have increased more than our salary has increased. The biggest increase is food, then medical premiums. Gasoline has gone from 1.87 gal to around 3.00.

I don't know how young families feed their kids. Food prices are awful.

Like most folks, you're actually rational about this. The OP is not.

[Cigar]

I'm not poor by any means, but we have less buying power than we did 6 years ago. That is a fact. My bills have increased more than our salary has increased. The biggest increase is food, then medical premiums. Gasoline has gone from 1.87 gal to around 3.00.

I don't know how young families feed their kids. Food prices are awful.


No shit ...

Are you actually expecting a Car to cost the same 6 years from now ... or a Sunglasses?

Geezzzz

This is some really deep hate ... when people can't even admit the obvious and actually think they are still in the Great Depression :laugh:

OMG ... you people are really sad ... your world really is Gloomy and Doomy :laugh:

[Mister D]

No $#@! ...

Are you actually expecting a Car to cost the same 6 years from now ... or a Sunglasses?

Geezzzz

This is some really deep hate ... when people can't even admit the obvious and actually think they are still in the Great Depression :laugh:

OMG ... you people are really sad ... your world really is Gloomy and Doomy :laugh:

:huh:

[Mister D]

I'm not poor by any means, but we have less buying power than we did 6 years ago. That is a fact. My bills have increased more than our salary has increased. The biggest increase is food, then medical premiums. Gasoline has gone from 1.87 gal to around 3.00.

I don't know how young families feed their kids. Food prices are awful.

Did you see how bizarre his response was? What drives him to that? It's really strange.

[Cigar]

:smiley_ROFLMAO: Quick, Run before you get any on you :laugh:

This was Hilarious

[Mister D]

:smiley_ROFLMAO: Quick, Run before you get any on you :laugh:

This was Hilarious

:huh:

[Mister D]

Is he mentally ill?

[Cigar]

Is he mentally ill?


Odd that you feel you need to attack me over a simple question.

It wasn't a really difficult question.

I don't understand where your anger is coming from.

Most people are happy to admit they are doing better or completely angry if they are not.

So I guess we know which one you are.

Thanks for participation in the discussion.

Have a nice night ...

I have to go make sure Seattle holds on to this lead ... for a payoff. :laugh:

[Matty]

That's not the question ... I don't expect to pay the same for Bread 10 years for now ... Everything cost more ... that's a given.

The questions was, are you better off now than between 7/2008 and 7/2010?
What part of NO don't you understand?

[texan]

I would say I am worse off..........My fixed costs are up, my taxes are up and I am saving less due to these issues. In adition, middle income is down and people feel we are on the wrong track. I say this and we make 200 plus so how do the less fortunate feel? Can't be great or he wouldn't have lost the house in 2 years and will not likely keep the senate.

So I am glad to have you celebrate the items listed but, it isn't all that good for the regular people.

[Refugee]

To answer the question directly, yes, I’m better off, but not in financial terms. Did any politician make me better off? No. Do I feel safer in the world? No. Do I have grave misgivings about the future? Yes. The middle classes throughout the western world are taking a hammering. Unemployment rates are scandelous. Mass immigration, crime, disease, collapsing infrastructure . . . right across the western world. The $ and £ have fallen by about a third since 2008. World terrorism is on the increase . . . but apart from that, yes, it’s not too bad! Classical progressive argument – don’t look at what is, listen to what we’re telling you. It’s the same in Europe, it’s all going to get better tomorrow, trust us.

[Peter1469]

That's understandable ... and there are many reasons

Most people don't have the capacity of bouncing back fast after losing their Job and Home.

Sucks to be average.

[Professor Peabody]

Of course you are welfare pays a lot better these days

[Refugee]

You don't have to look far to find stuff like the following.

September 2014.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/this-is-about-as-good-as-things-are-going-to-get-for-the-middle-class-and-its-not-that-good (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/this-is-about-as-good-as-things-are-going-to-get-for-the-middle-class-and-its-not-that-good)

“1. The U.S. economy has had six full years to bounce back since the financial collapse of 2008, and it simply has not happened.

2. The U.S. Census Bureau has just released some brand new numbers, and they are quite sobering. For example, after accounting for inflation median household income in the United States has declined a total of 8 percent from where it was back in 2007.

3. According to the New York Times, the "typical American household" is now worth 36 percent less than it was worth a decade ago.

4. At the moment, we still have 1.4 million fewer full-time jobs than we did in 2008 even though more than 100,000 people are added to the U.S. population each month.

5. Small-cap stocks are already starting to show signs of real weakness. In fact, the Russell 2000 just hit a "death cross" for the first time in more than 2 years...

6. In recent years we have seen large numbers of small businesses fail, and at this point the rate of small business ownership in the United States is at an all-time low.”

[Captain Obvious]

Cigar is a mindless robot, the OP can be wholly ignored for the most part.

We were way better off with Clinton in office btw, that was a sort of mini golden age for American prosperity.

After that it's been a bumpy road generally downhill. Sitting POTUS's have less to do with failures and successes than what is generally reported/understood.

[Mister D]

Cigar is a mindless robot, the OP can be wholly ignored for the most part.

We were way better off with Clinton in office btw, that was a sort of mini golden age for American prosperity.

After that it's been a bumpy road generally downhill. Sitting POTUS's have less to do with failures and successes than what is generally reported/understood.

Yes, that appears to be the case. I was just trying to see if he could explain his devotion to Obama.

Anyway, you're right. The POTUS often just happens to be in office.

[Ransom]

Elections often come down to this question and we have one in less than a month. A referendum on many issues, certainly this economy is one of them. If the majority feel "better off" they give a vote of confidence to the Party in charge. If not, if our country doesn't feel like they're better off, the'll reveal that as well. Time will tell.

[Chris]

Elections often come down to this question and we have one in less than a month. A referendum on many issues, certainly this economy is one of them. If the majority feel "better off" they give a vote of confidence to the Party in charge. If not, if our country doesn't feel like they're better off, the'll reveal that as well. Time will tell.

Yea, it's a real hot potato when the economy is not doing well as expected.

[The Xl]

No shit ...

Are you actually expecting a Car to cost the same 6 years from now ... or a Sunglasses?

Geezzzz

This is some really deep hate ... when people can't even admit the obvious and actually think they are still in the Great Depression :laugh:

OMG ... you people are really sad ... your world really is Gloomy and Doomy :laugh:

When wages haven't caught up with salary increases and the price of goods has shot up, why would that be considered a good thing, one to get those pom poms of yours working?

She answered your question. Wages have flatlined and prices have gone up. Their is no logical reason to fellate Obama unless you're a blind mark

[Mister D]

When wages haven't caught up with salary increases and the price of goods has shot up, why would that be considered a good thing, one to get those pom poms of yours working?

She answered your question. Wages have flatlined and prices have gone up. Their is no logical reason to fellate Obama unless you're a blind mark

His response was so...odd.

[Venus]

No $#@! ...

Are you actually expecting a Car to cost the same 6 years from now ... or a Sunglasses?

Geezzzz

This is some really deep hate ... when people can't even admit the obvious and actually think they are still in the Great Depression :laugh:

OMG ... you people are really sad ... your world really is Gloomy and Doomy :laugh:

And this is exactly why no one can have a conversation with you.

You asked a question, Redrose answered it. You mock.

[Chris]

And this is exactly why no one can have a conversation with you.

You asked a question, Redrose answered it. You mock.


It's not all that uncommon a self-defensive reaction to hearing what one doesn't like but can't argue with.

[Cigar]

Sucks to be average.


My Wife and I never extend Credit past 30 days, pay cash for stuff like cars and Vacations, and one of us working can easily sustain any debt.

In addition, our rental investments sustains itself.

[Cigar]

And this is exactly why no one can have a conversation with you.

You asked a question, Redrose answered it. You mock.


This is what Redrose wrote ...


I'm not poor by any means, but we have less buying power than we did 6 years ago. That is a fact. My bills have increased more than our salary has increased. The biggest increase is food, then medical premiums. Gasoline has gone from 1.87 gal to around 3.00.

I don't know how young families feed their kids. Food prices are awful.

Name ONE time in your entire existence on this earth that basic living expenses "didn't" go up. Any Adult who's ever maintained a household would know this and plan for it in both good and bad times. Do you really expect to be paying the same about for Healthcare, Gas, Bread, Milk and Housing as you did 10 years ago or as your Parents did decades ago.

Are you actually saying that's the answer to the question; are you doing better today than between 07/2008 through 07/2010?


Well then that type of financial ignorance and stupidity would explain why you're not doing better. :rollseyes:

[Amazon]

I think the country is a lot better off now than in 2008, when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was adopted to salvage what was left of the economy under Bush.

But the question has always sort of bothered me. I think the question is "are we better off now than we would have been if McCain had been elected?"

[Captain Obvious]

I think the country is a lot better off now than in 2008, when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was adopted to salvage what was left of the economy under Bush.

But the question has always sort of bothered me. I think the question is "are we better off now than we would have been if McCain had been elected?"

Some things may have been better, some things would have been worse.

McCain is not the answer either way, or Robomney.

[Amazon]

I thought the Republican Party had a few good prospects in the 2012 primary, but they ignored them in favor of Romney- who had almost no chance.

[Captain Obvious]

I thought the Republican Party had a few good prospects in the 2012 primary, but they ignored them in favor of Romney- who had almost no chance.

Who specifically?

I thought all the primary GOP front runners were less than desirable.

[PolWatch]

its beginning to look like they are gonna run romney again....no idea of why, except they can't find anyone else willing to???

[Redrose]

I thought the Republican Party had a few good freeloaders in the 2012 primary, but they ignored them in favor of Romney- who had almost no chance.


Obama got approx. 66 million, Romney got approx. 61 million votes. That is not considered a "no chance" by any means. Almost half country did not want Obama. Now 70% plus does not want him. The information challenged voter didn't "wake up" until Obama's bad policies directly affected them. Screw everybody else, but when it hit them, then they complained. Obama is a poison to our nation. His only fans now are the freeloaders taking, taking, taking and those who see only his color.

Romney could not overcome the media bombardment attacking him and the glorification of Obama and the vote manipulation by ACORN.

[Bob]

Ok here's an easier question ...

Who ... on this Forum is worse off now that they were between 7/2008 and 7/2010?

Easy Question

I still could do mortgage loans for clients in 2008. But not today. Thank you Obama.

Study how large by percentage the labor force was when he took office. Compare it to now?

I am not using the negative figure aka unemployment, because of it's rules. I mean the real number actually working.

How does it feel to worship a narcissist who really believes he single handedly created 10 million jobs and by himself put people to work, when he keeps telling us all that the republicans won't allow him to?

I think it is time for a word to be added to the dictionary.
Demolying.

[Bob]

its beginning to look like they are gonna run romney again....no idea of why, except they can't find anyone else willing to???

What is wrong with electing Romney?

The way Obama blames Romney for Obama-care one would think the Democrats would flat out love Romney.

[Bob]

Who specifically?

I thought all the primary GOP front runners were less than desirable.

What does that 7.5" er think?

[Amazon]

The 2 that I remember were John Huntsman and Gary Johnson.

[Bob]

I thought the Republican Party had a few good prospects in the 2012 primary, but they ignored them in favor of Romney- who had almost no chance.

Let's be candid. This is who voted for Obama.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

[Amazon]

Obama got approx. 66 million, Romney got approx. 61 million votes. That is not considered a "no chance" by any means. Almost half country did not want Obama. Now 70% plus does not want him. The information challenged voter didn't "wake up" until Obama's bad policies directly affected them. Screw everybody else, but when it hit them, then they complained. Obama is a poison to our nation. His only fans now are the freeloaders taking, taking, taking and those who see only his color.

Romney could not overcome the media bombardment attacking him and the glorification of Obama and the vote manipulation by ACORN. I don't think you understand- it's not just the numbers, but the states that they carried. Early on, it was predicted that Romney could not get enough electoral college votes.

332 to 206 is a royal butt-kicking.

[Bob]

The 2 that I remember were John Huntsman and Gary Johnson.

Jon is still talking it up. I have not heard Johnson give his story.

What is the difference in Jon and Mitt?

Actually almost nothing. Jon's father produced enormous wealth and is a super fine human being as is Jon.

Romney produced his own wealth and put more people to work by far than the narcissist Obama ever has.

Each of those we discuss ran states. Can Hillary claim she ever ran a state? Nope.

[Chris]

its beginning to look like they are gonna run romney again....no idea of why, except they can't find anyone else willing to???

They just can't find anyone more middleroad milquetoast mediocre than Mitt.

(Where's sage, he'd love that alliteration!)

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Redrose http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=788825#post788825)
Obama got approx. 66 million, Romney got approx. 61 million votes. That is not considered a "no chance" by any means. Almost half country did not want Obama. Now 70% plus does not want him. The information challenged voter didn't "wake up" until Obama's bad policies directly affected them. Screw everybody else, but when it hit them, then they complained. Obama is a poison to our nation. His only fans now are the freeloaders taking, taking, taking and those who see only his color.

Romney could not overcome the media bombardment attacking him and the glorification of Obama and the vote manipulation by ACORN.


I don't think you understand- it's not just the numbers, but the states that they carried. Early on, it was predicted that Romney could not get enough electoral college votes.

332 to 206 is a royal butt-kicking.

The rest of your post is irrational whining, in my opinion.

Why do Democrats always run down posters on forums?

Redrose said no unkind words to you to cause that kind of attack on her person.

You support Obama do you?

[Amazon]

Why do Democrats always run down posters on forums?

@Redrose (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1123) said no unkind words to you to cause that kind of attack on her person.

You support Obama do you?
You're quite right, and thank you for being my moral compass.

I've edited it out.

:smiley:

[Bob]

They just can't find anyone more middleroad milquetoast mediocre than Mitt.

(Where's sage, he'd love that alliteration!)

To this day, though you do understand economics, you still do not understand what it takes to win the national election.

Romney has to appeal even to democrats. Once in office, his management of the country is vastly more important and he beats the hell out of the narcissist Obama in that department.

We might love somebody else. But will that person have a genuine chance? The public at large is who has to believe in a president. Romney proved he appeals to a lot. Think they can pull that trick on him again over the 47 percent which is easy to demonstrate as pure truth.

Romney was leading the polls to a point over Obama. Then Obama pulled out that 47 percent trick and it did in Romney.

[Common Sense]

Yes, revealing what someone actually said is now a "trick".

[texan]

I will answer for most everyone that is like us on the board, no they are not better off.

Yes their retirements came back in the market.

Yes we finally hit bottom on job loss, you have to eventially.

People most likely took a cut in pay / an increase in hours / lower raises or no raise conditions / taxes are up / energy expenses are up / food costs are up / middle class and most salaries are down.......

This is a realistic look at life right now folks. Why do you think the polls indicate pretty much an unhappiness with things right now?

[Bob]

You're quite right, and thank you for being my moral compass.

I've edited it out.

:smiley:
Redrose is a sweet lady. She deserves respect and i thank you for the edit. That took class. I admire class.

[Amazon]

Jon is still talking it up. I have not heard Johnson give his story.

What is the difference in Jon and Mitt?

Actually almost nothing. Jon's father produced enormous wealth and is a super fine human being as is Jon.

Romney produced his own wealth and put more people to work by far than the narcissist Obama ever has.

Each of those we discuss ran states. Can Hillary claim she ever ran a state? Nope.It is not the president's responsibility to create jobs.

[Bob]

Yes, revealing what someone actually said is now a "trick".

It became a trick when used by the Democrats. It became a trick because it was revealed at the last instant.

It became a trick when it was fed to the media who gladly used it against Romney.

The fact is, Romney told the truth but Democrats made it appear a bad thing. Classical definition of a Democrat dirty trick.

[Amazon]

@Redrose (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1123) is a sweet lady. She deserves respect and i thank you for the edit. That took class. I admire class.
Amazon <------ embarrassed

[Bob]

It is not the president's responsibility to create jobs.

You are correct. That is not found in the Constitution as any of his administrative duties. But he sure loves taking credit as if he had. Obama is plainly a narcissist.

[del]

obama is the first president to take credit for creating jobs

this is a well known fact

[Amazon]

You are correct. That is not found in the Constitution as any of his administrative duties. But he sure loves taking credit as if he had. Obama is plainly a narcissist.I can't remember a president who didn't take responsibility for creating jobs, LOL.

[Common Sense]

It became a trick when used by the Democrats. It became a trick because it was revealed at the last instant.

It became a trick when it was fed to the media who gladly used it against Romney.

The fact is, Romney told the truth but Democrats made it appear a bad thing. Classical definition of a Democrat dirty trick.

That's not a trick. He said what he said. He even went as far to deny that's what he had said.

I know you adore the man, but he said it. Shoved his foot right in there because he thought only the right people were listening.

[Chris]

I can't remember a president who didn't take responsibility for creating jobs, LOL.

Or one who actually created any other than in the government.

[Amazon]

Or one who actually created any other than in the government.It's a tough thing to gauge, there are just too many factors.

President Obama was president when we saw 48 straight months of job growth, and that's about all he can say.

[Chris]

It's a tough thing to gauge, there are just too many factors.

President Obama was president when we saw 48 straight months of job growth, and that's about all he can say.

Are you even claiming he was causative in that?

Why ignore the labor force participation rate?

http://i.snag.gy/2w7Hp.jpg

Source: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

[Captain Obvious]

Are you even claiming he was causative in that?

Why ignore the labor force participation rate?

http://i.snag.gy/2w7Hp.jpg

Source: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

I agree, but to be fair, comparatively we would need to see the trend from years back that calculated the labor force adjusted unemployment rate because the active labor force (those in and excluding those not in) isn't a new concept.

[Common Sense]

The vast majority of people leaving the labor pool (or the drop in the participation rate) are retiring baby boomers.

[Bob]

The vast majority of people leaving the labor pool (or the drop in the participation rate) are retiring baby boomers.

That has merit but for the people of little education unable to locate decent jobs and just gave up to live off family.

[Chris]

I agree, but to be fair, comparatively we would need to see the trend from years back that calculated the labor force adjusted unemployment rate because the active labor force (those in and excluding those not in) isn't a new concept.

http://i.snag.gy/rQf7Y.jpg

Wikipedia but think original source same as above.


To me, compared to a generally rising rate makes a downward trend look worse.

[Common Sense]

That has merit but for the people of little education unable to locate decent jobs and just gave up to live off family.

Well the numbers don't really add up. There are people like that, but they make up a small portion. The numbers also reflect people who have gone back to school and funnily enough the increasing incarceration rates.

[Bob]

Labor Force participation rate

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2004_2014_all_period_M0 9_data.gif

[Matty]

Roflmao!

[Matty]

Let me know when the corresponding food stamps, welfare checks, and unemployments checks go down with the so called " decreasing unemployment rates" otherwise continue to believe the rigged numbers.

[Chris]

Are you even claiming he was causative in that?

Why ignore the labor force participation rate?

http://i.snag.gy/2w7Hp.jpg

Source: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000


http://i.snag.gy/rQf7Y.jpg

Wikipedia but think original source same as above.


To me, compared to a generally rising rate makes a downward trend look worse.


Attempt to combine charts:

http://i.snag.gy/cIrZR.jpg

[Common Sense]

Boom, bust, echo...

[Cigar]

The vast majority of people leaving the labor pool (or the drop in the participation rate) are retiring baby boomers.


I'm counting the years :grin:

I'm not far behold them :wink:

[Peter1469]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by and large was a gift to Wall Street and the big banks. It hit the Middle Class especially hard.


I think the country is a lot better off now than in 2008, when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was adopted to salvage what was left of the economy under Bush.

But the question has always sort of bothered me. I think the question is "are we better off now than we would have been if McCain had been elected?"

[Cigar]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by and large was a gift to Wall Street and the big banks. It hit the Middle Class especially hard.


I agree ... but my personal bank account is better NOW than in 2008

Ate the end of the day, when it's all over ... it's how people are personally doing .. and in the real world that's all the counts.

I'd love for all the Bank Crooks to go to Jail ... but at the end of the day, my personal wealth counts more.

[Chris]

I agree ... but my personal bank account is better NOW than in 2008

Ate the end of the day, when it's all over ... it's how people are personally doing .. and in the real world that's all the counts.

I'd love for all the Bank Crooks to go to Jail ... but at the end of the day, my personal wealth counts more.

I agree, it how people, generally, not just you, feel, or how Obama thinks people should feel.

[Cigar]

I agree, it how people, generally, not just you, feel, or how Obama thinks people should feel.


I'm sure you wouldn't expect a Black Man to want President Obama to do something for me ... correct?

[Mister D]

I'm sure you wouldn't expect a Black Man to want President Obama to do something for me ... correct?

The way you've devoted yourself to the guy you'd think he does a lot for you.

[Cigar]

The way you've devoted yourself to the guy you'd think he does a lot for you.


Apparently you're not going to engage in the disussion in the Thread and just obsess your attacks on me.

I'm so proud :laugh:

[Chris]

I'm sure you wouldn't expect a Black Man to want President Obama to do something for me ... correct?

Irrelevant. I'd say I'm better off, but like you, I'm just one individual. It's what people in general feel.

[Mister D]

Apparently you're not going to engage in the disussion in the Thread and just obsess your attacks on me.

I'm so proud :laugh:

That's an attack? lol

Well, yeah, you're proud of Obama as if his presidency is some kind of vicarious triumph for you. It's weird. In any case, you brought yourself into this when you asked that question.

[Peter1469]

I agree ... but my personal bank account is better NOW than in 2008

Ate the end of the day, when it's all over ... it's how people are personally doing .. and in the real world that's all the counts.

I'd love for all the Bank Crooks to go to Jail ... but at the end of the day, my personal wealth counts more.

The problem is, letting the bank crooks slide - as well as bailing them out, will create a bigger bubble and the next crash will be much worse.

[Chris]

That's an attack? lol

Well, yeah, you're proud of Obama as if his presidency is some kind of vicarious triumph for you. It's weird. In any case, you brought yourself into this when you asked that question.

Some have had Obamagasms...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no9fpKVXxCc

[Cigar]

To all those experts who still think they can buy things at decades ill prices :rollseyes:

If you're making less or the same amount of money you made 8 years ago, how the Fork do you think you could do better?

Magic? :laugh:

http://i.imgur.com/Djpb1TV.jpg

[Chris]

To all those experts who still think they can buy things at decades ill prices :rollseyes:

If you're making less or the same amount of money you made 8 years ago, how the Fork do you think you could do better?

Magic? :laugh:

http://i.imgur.com/Djpb1TV.jpg

The cost of government caused inflation lowering the purchasing power of the dollar.

[Matty]

Printing money non stop! Bad!

[Mister D]

To all those experts who still think they can buy things at decades ill prices :rollseyes:

If you're making less or the same amount of money you made 8 years ago, how the Fork do you think you could do better?

Magic? :laugh:

http://i.imgur.com/Djpb1TV.jpg

Who are these "experts"? Do they live with the $6 gas guy? Who says you can live o the minimum wage? Does this guy rent a flat from the $6 gas guy?

[Redrose]

To all those experts who still think they can buy things at decades ill prices :rollseyes:

If you're making less or the same amount of money you made 8 years ago, how the Fork do you think you could do better?

Magic? :laugh:

http://i.imgur.com/Djpb1TV.jpg

No. The minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. It's an entry level wage. We are supposed to get experience, training and education under our belts and move up, not stay in Burger King saying, "Ding, fries are done....."

[kilgram]

No. The minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. It's an entry level wage. We are supposed to get experience, training and education under our belts and move up, not stay in Burger King saying, "Ding, fries are done....."
And how do you expect to progress having a shitty wage and being forced to work many works in that shitty job? By magic? Happening a miracle?

[Matty]

The new generation are whiners. We all started in low paying jobs and worked our selves up. Stop whining and start working. Do not have a family until you can afford a family. Gee! Figure it out.

[Cigar]

No. The minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. It's an entry level wage. We are supposed to get experience, training and education under our belts and move up, not stay in Burger King saying, "Ding, fries are done....."


Riddle Me this ...

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2FFacebook_min_wage.jpg


Actually it's been raised 6 or 7 times and the world didn't end and no one lost Jobs either ... but you get the point. :laugh:

[Cigar]

The new generation are whiners. We all started in low paying jobs and worked our selves up. Stop whining and start working. Do not have a family until you can afford a family. Gee! Figure it out.


It must be frustrating living in a world that's changing under you :laugh:

Just think ... less than 6 years ago there wasn't Gay Marriage and no Obamacare :grin:

[Chris]

And how do you expect to progress having a shitty wage and being forced to work many works in that shitty job? By magic? Happening a miracle?

Depends on if you think "Progress" is a good thing.

[Peter1469]

And how do you expect to progress having a shitty wage and being forced to work many works in that shitty job? By magic? Happening a miracle?

What are these jobs and the people who take them? Why don't they look for a job that will pay them what they think that they are worth? At least in the US, minimum wage is entry level. If a person finds themselves working at that wage year after year it is time for a serious self assessment. 90% of the time, the cause stares at them in the mirror. :shocked:

[Peter1469]

Riddle Me this ...



Actually it's been raised 6 or 7 times and the world didn't end and no one lost Jobs either ... but you get the point. :laugh:

How many people in DC work at the federal minimum wage, do you think?

[Cigar]

How many people in DC work at the federal minimum wage, do you think?


All the DC staffers

[kilgram]

What are these jobs and the people who take them? Why don't they look for a job that will pay them what they think that they are worth? At least in the US, minimum wage is entry level. If a person finds themselves working at that wage year after year it is time for a serious self assessment. 90% of the time, the cause stares at them in the mirror. :shocked:
Circunstances. Many circunstances. And even not earning a minimium wage is an "entry level". And even in entry level I should be able to live. It means I should be able to afford a rent and the daily expenses. If I cannot afford it, there is a fucking problem of the system because even I cannot subsist.

[Peter1469]

All the DC staffers

They don't get paid much considering how expensive it is to live in DC- they tend to pile into apartments!

But they get more than the federal minimum wage, considering they are not considered hourly workers. Here (http://www.legistorm.com/salaries.html)you can see the salary of any person who works for the legislative branch. Anyway a low paying staffer job is a serious platform to big money jobs so they really ought not count in the minimum wage debate. Remember, minimum wage long term flunkies have no future. That is why they make the minimum wage year after year.

I was thinking more private sector when I made my statement.

[Matty]

It must be frustrating living in a world that's changing under you :laugh:

Just think ... less than 6 years ago there wasn't Gay Marriage and no Obamacare :grin:
Yes I know. His policies are on the ballot. :) Not a fucking democrat wants him anywhere near them! What a legacy!

[Peter1469]

Circunstances. Many circunstances. And even not earning a minimium wage is an "entry level". And even in entry level I should be able to live. It means I should be able to afford a rent and the daily expenses. If I cannot afford it, there is a fucking problem of the system because even I cannot subsist.

Why?

Say you take a job in high school sweeping floors in a locally owned restaurant. You live at home and have little to no bills. Maybe car insurance. I imagine that floor sweeping isn't worth more than minimum wage, and if that goes up the owner just might fire you and sweep his own floors. Now you can't pay for your car insurance.

[Cigar]

Yes I know. His policies are on the ballot. :) Not a $#@!ing democrat wants him anywhere near them! What a legacy!


The previous President Policies have alway been on the ballot ... so what's new?

[Matty]

The previous President Policies have alway been on the ballot ... so what's new?
Ask his wimpy axel rod!

[Cigar]

Ask his wimpy axel rod!


Now we go backwards ... ?

[Matty]

Now we go backwards ... ?
No, we don't axel rod said it was a mistake for nimrod to utter that phrase. How come no democrat wants to be seen with his highness?

[texan]

I love Obama's answer last week, "yes we are but I can't understand why know one gets it but me."

[Cigar]

No, we don't axel rod said it was a mistake for nimrod to utter that phrase. How come no democrat wants to be seen with his highness?


Is that Paper-Cut hurting you again? :laugh:

[Matty]

Is that Paper-Cut hurting you again? :laugh:



Poor baby, him cannonts buy him any respect! Losers!

[Cigar]

Poor baby, him cannonts buy him any respect! Losers!


... and what did I lose? :laugh:

[Professor Peabody]

No, we don't axel rod said it was a mistake for nimrod to utter that phrase. How come no democrat wants to be seen with his highness?

It's why they call him Typhoid Barry. Of course we could call him Ebola Obama too.

[Amazon]

No. The minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. It's an entry level wage. We are supposed to get experience, training and education under our belts and move up, not stay in Burger King saying, "Ding, fries are done....."

Wrong, but it's a lie that is being repeated for political gain all over the country.

When FDR signed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, he justified the minimum wage, saying ""No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country... By living wages, I mean more than the bare subsistence level - I mean the wages of a decent living." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage)

So you see, the minimum wage is indeed supposed to be a living wage.

[Matty]

Wrong, but it's a lie that is being repeated for political gain all over the country.

When FDR signed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, he justified the minimum wage, saying ""No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country... By living wages, I mean more than the bare subsistence level - I mean the wages of a decent living." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage)

So you see, the minimum wage is indeed supposed to be a living wage.
So if I owned a business and was forced to pay a " livivg wage" I would more than likely let go 1/2 my employees? You like that solution?

[Mac-7]

Wrong, but it's a lie that is being repeated for political gain all over the country.

When FDR signed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, he justified the minimum wage, saying ""No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country... By living wages, I mean more than the bare subsistence level - I mean the wages of a decent living." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage)

So you see, the minimum wage is indeed supposed to be a living wage.

That was FDR's opinion.

but he's been dead a long time.

[Amazon]

So if I owned a business and was forced to pay a " livivg wage" I would more than likely let go 1/2 my employees? You like that solution?

No you wouldn't let go of half of your people, no savvy business owner would.

Businesses hire exactly as many people as they need, no more and no less. Letting half your workers go would probably destroy your company (unless you happen to be one of those businesses that just hire people and let them stand around out of the goodness of their heart).

At the very least, firing half your workers would cut your production in half.

Raising your prices through the roof won't work either- people will simply refuse to patronize your business.

No, what is expected is that you, as a business owner, reduce your own take of the business enough to cover the higher wage.

[Amazon]

That was FDR's opinion.

but he's been dead a long time.The idea is still as valid as ever, but that was not the point of the post- the point of the post is to correct the lie that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.

Minimum wage was indeed intended to be a living wage.

[Mac-7]

No you wouldn't let go of half of your people, no savvy business owner would.

Businesses hire exactly as many people as they need, no more and no less. Letting half your workers go would probably destroy your company (unless you happen to be one of those businesses that just hire people and let them stand around out of the goodness of their heart).

At the very least, firing half your workers would cut your production in half.

Raising your prices through the roof won't work either- people will simply refuse to patronize your business.

No, what is expected is that you, as a business owner, reduce your own take of the business enough to cover the higher wage.

Business probably would not lay off half the workers.

but they might ask the workers to do more for the same pay.

and they might hire fewer new workers in the future.

[Matty]

No you wouldn't let go of half of your people, no savvy business owner would.

Businesses hire exactly as many people as they need, no more and no less. Letting half your workers go would probably destroy your company (unless you happen to be one of those businesses that just hire people and let them stand around out of the goodness of their heart).

At the very least, firing half your workers would cut your production in half.

Raising your prices through the roof won't work either- people will simply refuse to patronize your business.

No, what is expected is that you, as a business owner, reduce your own take of the business enough to cover the higher wage.
That ain't gonna happen. I built the business, invested in the business, grew the business, you force me to pay more than I can afford and I guarantee you people will be laid off or paid vacations will be slashed or some other benefit lost. I don't do all the investing and growing just so I can take a loss. No sire Babbitt Bob.

[Mac-7]

The idea is still as valid as ever, but that was not the point of the post- the point of the post is to correct the lie that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.

Minimum wage was indeed intended to be a living wage.

"Living wage" is a very ambiguous term that can mean different things to different people.

A person with a 6th grade education and limited or no English may think they deserve $20 and hour flipping hamburgers but even that may not meet their standard of a living wage.

and it is not economically possible anyway.

[Amazon]

That ain't gonna happen. I built the business, . . . with the help of the employees.
invested in the business, . . . along with the employees.
grew the business, . . . because of the productivity of the employees.
you force me to pay more than I can afford what- you can't afford to live on minimum wage?
and I guarantee you people will be laid off or paid vacations will be slashed or some other benefit lost.Spoken like a true robber baron.
I don't do all the investing and growing just so I can take a loss. No sire Babbitt Bob.You should have stopped at "I don't do all the growing and investing," then I could have agreed with you.

[Amazon]

Business probably would not lay off half the workers.

but they might ask the workers to do more for the same pay.

and they might hire fewer new workers in the future.I agree- they would ask more of the workers. But it would eventually get so bad that they would leave their employer for a better one.

[Matty]

. . . with the help of the employees. . . . along with the employees. . . . because of the productivity of the employees. what- you can't afford to live on minimum wage? Spoken like a true robber baron.You should have stopped at "I don't do all the growing and investing," then I could have agreed with you.
Go build your own damn business. You don't work for me. You're fired. See? I'm the boss and I don't hire communists.

[Amazon]

"Living wage" is a very ambiguous term that can mean different things to different people.

A person with a 6th grade education and limited or no English may think they deserve $20 and hour flipping hamburgers but even that may not meet their standard of a living wage.

and it is not economically possible anyway.And how does "a person with a 6th grade education expecting $20 an hour" differ from a CEO with an MBA expecting $160 million a year?

Both are unreasonable, in my opinion. The biggest differences are that the CEO has enough money to buy congress; can afford to live on less than half his current compensation; and ignores the contributions of his employees to the success of the company.

[Amazon]

Go build your own damn business. You don't work for me. You're fired. See? I'm the boss and I don't hire communists.

I suppose, lacking a coherent reply, this is the best you can do. No surprise.

PS: I do own my own business, so go "fire" yourself.

:-)

[Mac-7]

I agree- they would ask more of the workers. But it would eventually get so bad that they would leave their employer for a better one.

I don't object to that.

but most of the people in the min wage pool are not very sought after since there are so many chasing the available jobs.

[Matty]

I suppose, lacking a coherent reply, this is the best you can do. No surprise.

PS: I do own my own business, so go "fire" yourself.

:-)
It was very coherent, and I'm lucky I don't work at your " business"

[Amazon]

It was very coherent, and I'm lucky I don't work at your " business"Being an employee at my business is probably a lot better than being an employee at yours . . . I do pay a living wage.

:rollseyes:

[Mac-7]

And how does "a person with a 6th grade education expecting $20 an hour" differ from a CEO with an MBA expecting $160 million a year?



12 years of high school and college for one thing.

a real resume instead of written directions to the new job site from the unemployment office.

in most cases years of experience in the business world at a level far above sweeping the floor.

are you starting to get the idea?

[Matty]

Being an employee at my business is probably a lot better than being an employee at yours . . . I do pay a living wage.

:rollseyes:
I'm retired! What do you pay your employees? And what do they do? I earned a good living by getting a good education and a skill set, I made far above a " living wage."



oh! And what do you pay them?

[Amazon]

I don't object to that.

but most of the people in the min wage pool are not very sought after since there are so many chasing the available jobs.True!

Still, I can't help but feel that a higher minimum wage would counter that: when people have more to spend, jobs are created. More jobs equals less competition for those minimum wage jobs.

[Matty]

I'd be embarrassed to say I started flipping burgers at 16 and am still doing it at 49.

[Peter1469]

A livable minimum wage is largely a non-issue in the US. A large portion of the minimum wage crowd are students who live at home.

Anyway 4.3% of the hourly wage earning population makes minimum wage. We should not g (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/)et so wrapped up over such a tiny part of the population. In other words it is a wedge issue that makes both sides expend a lot of energy over something that ultimately don't matter in the big picture.

[Amazon]

12 years of high school and college for one thing. a real resume instead of written directions to the new job site from the unemployment office. in most cases years of experience in the business world at a level far above sweeping the floor. are you starting to get the idea?

So you have explained the difference between a CEO and some minimum wage employees (many of them do have college degrees), but you still have not answered the question: Why does a CEO deserve $160 million a year, but an employee does not deserve a wage he can live on?

[Amazon]

A livable minimum wage is largely a non-issue in the US. A large portion of the minimum wage crowd are students who live at home.

Anyway 4.3% of the hourly wage earning population makes minimum wage. We should not g (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/)et so wrapped up over such a tiny part of the population. In other words it is a wedge issue that makes both sides expend a lot of energy over something that ultimately don't matter in the big picture. Any raise in the minimum wage results in a raise for almost all wage earners.

Most raises are given on a merit basis, in order to motivate the employee. So when you start with a higher beginning wage, you end up with higher wages across the board.

And finally, 4.3% is wrong- that is a figure manipulated by the Pew Research Center. When you include the 1.8 million people who make LESS than minimum wage, and the 23 states that Pew did not include in their report, the number is a LOT higher than 4.3%

[Amazon]

I'd be embarrassed to say I started flipping burgers at 16 and am still doing it at 49.
1. Don't worry, things will pick up.

2. America no longer has a lot of jobs. Flipping burgers may be the last jobs any of us have.

3. Some people are quite happy flipping burgers. That does not mean they should starve.

[Peter1469]

Any raise in the minimum wage results in a raise for almost all wage earners.

Most raises are given on a merit basis, in order to motivate the employee. So when you start with a higher beginning wage, you end up with higher wages across the board.

Only to a certain extent. This effect likely wouldn't continue very high in wage levels.

If it did, inflation would wipe out any benefit from the minimum wage increase. The standard of living at say $20 an hour will be equal to what it was at $7.50 an hour.

The bottom of the barrel is always going to be disadvantaged.

[Matty]

1. Don't worry, things will pick up.

2. America no longer has a lot of jobs. Flipping burgers may be the last jobs any of us have.

3. Some people are quite happy flipping burgers. That does not mean they should starve.



Flippin butrgers is not a twenty dollar an hour job.

[Amazon]

Only to a certain extent. This effect likely wouldn't continue very high in wage levels.

If it did, inflation would wipe out any benefit from the minimum wage increase. The standard of living at say $20 an hour will be equal to what it was at $7.50 an hour.

The bottom of the barrel is always going to be disadvantaged.Not so.

The minimum wage should be tied to inflation, but even if it wasn't it could always be adjusted. And in the years before inflation "wiped out" the raise, many things would happen:

People could afford higher education
We could afford to rebuild our failing infrastructure
Children would have enough to eat
Domestic violence would drop
Property crime would be reduced
Disease could be prevented

. . . and . . .

Our political environment would be stabilized by a lower gini coefficient.

[Amazon]

Flippin butrgers is not a twenty dollar an hour job.

Playing golf is not a $160 million job either.

[Matty]

Playing golf is not a $160 million job either.
You make no sense. If the ceo in fact plays golf and makes the company no money he is replaced,,,,,,ER wait,,,were you speaking of the obummer?

[Matty]

Not so.

The minimum wage should be tied to inflation, but even if it wasn't it could always be adjusted. And in the years before inflation "wiped out" the raise, many things would happen:

People could afford higher education
We could afford to rebuild our failing infrastructure
Children would have enough to eat
Domestic violence would drop
Property crime would be reduced
Disease could be prevented

. . . and . . .

Our political environment would be stabilized by a lower gini coefficient.
That's a new one! Disease could be prevented? Roflmao.

[Amazon]

I'm retired! What do you pay your employees? And what do they do? I earned a good living by getting a good education and a skill set, I made far above a " living wage."



oh! And what do you pay them?You're retired? Well, that explains a lot!

You grew up in a time when the wages and benefits of a job were much better than they are now. And now that you've gotten your share, you say "screw everyone."

Nice.

[Amazon]

That's a new one! Disease could be prevented? Roflmao.Yes.

I can think of at least 4 reasons why disease is more prevalent among lower wage earners and the unemployed:

1. A lack of education regarding the causes and prevention of disease.
2. Higher levels of tobacco and alcohol use.
3. A lack of physical activity.
4. Unhealthy eating habits.

In your answer, I would appreciate it if you could address what I've just posted.

[Matty]

You're retired? Well, that explains a lot!

You grew up in a time when the wages and benefits of a job were much better than they are now. And now that you've gotten your share, you say "screw everyone."

Nice.
Oh fuck that shit. I worked my ass off, you just want yours handed to you!

[Matty]

Yes.

I can think of at least 4 reasons why disease is more prevalent among lower wage earners and the unemployed:

1. A lack of education regarding the causes and prevention of disease.
2. Higher levels of tobacco and alcohol use.
3. A lack of physical activity.
4. Unhealthy eating habits.

In your answer, I would appreciate it if you could address what I've just posted.
We educate everyone in the US. The other things on your list are all individual life choices.

[Matty]

You're retired? Well, that explains a lot!

You grew up in a time when the wages and benefits of a job were much better than they are now. And now that you've gotten your share, you say "screw everyone."

Nice.
Hey honey! When I flipped burgers I made $.85 per hour.

[Matty]

I had enough brains to figure out I could not afford a family on those wages, unlike libtards.

[Amazon]

We educate everyone in the US. The other things on your list are all individual life choices.I understand- I posted 6 reasons why a minimum wage increase would help, and you picked the one you THOUGHT you could dispute. But the factors contributing to disease would be much reduced by higher income, a fact recognized by the World Health Organization.

Now, are you going to address the other 5 reasons for raising the minimum wage, or are you going to pretend that unsuccessfully defending one of them wins you the debate?

[Amazon]

I had enough brains to figure out I could not afford a family on those wages, unlike libtards.

Getting frustrated does not help. Let's try to get to the bottom of the topic and arrive at something valuable instead of trying to discourage honest debate.

[Amazon]

I had enough brains to figure out I could not afford a family on those wages, unlike libtards.Excellent!!

You admit that even then, the minimum wage was too low. Good job!

[Matty]

Excellent!!

You admit that even then, the minimum wage was too low. Good job!
I admit that I was smart enough to know that flipping burgers and raising a family don't compute. You aren't owed a living wage. You have to earn it.

[Matty]

You're retired? Well, that explains a lot!

You grew up in a time when the wages and benefits of a job were much better than they are now. And now that you've gotten your share, you say "screw everyone."

Nice.
Why are you dodging the questions I asked you? Could it be that you have no business and no employees? :)

[Peter1469]

I think that is optimistic. As wages rose so would prices of everything. It wouldn't stop. These aggressive market manipulations tend to backfire and cause more problems than they are intended to solve.




Not so.

The minimum wage should be tied to inflation, but even if it wasn't it could always be adjusted. And in the years before inflation "wiped out" the raise, many things would happen:

People could afford higher education
We could afford to rebuild our failing infrastructure
Children would have enough to eat
Domestic violence would drop
Property crime would be reduced
Disease could be prevented

. . . and . . .

Our political environment would be stabilized by a lower gini coefficient.

[Mac-7]

I understand- I posted 6 reasons why a minimum wage increase would help, and you picked the one you THOUGHT you could dispute. But the factors contributing to disease would be much reduced by higher income, a fact recognized by the World Health Organization.

Now, are you going to address the other 5 reasons for raising the minimum wage, or are you going to pretend that unsuccessfully defending one of them wins you the debate?

This?


People could afford higher education
We could afford to rebuild our failing infrastructure
Children would have enough to eat
Domestic violence would drop
Property crime would be reduced
Disease could be prevented


i think your list of 6 hopes are very unlikely.

the problem is that marginal workers will give back what they gain from higher wages to higher prices.

[Green Arrow]

I'm certainly not better off. Not really worse off either. I might suggest, Cigar, that you're better off because you claim to be rich. President Obama has certainly overseen an era in American life where the rich have gotten richer at the further expense of the poor.

[Amazon]

This?



i think your list of 6 hopes are very unlikely.

the problem is that marginal workers will give back what they gain from higher wages to higher prices.

I can see that as a possibility too. But this isn't instantaneous, it takes a long time for the market to adjust to a higher earnings level- companies can't simply double their prices overnight and not expect backlash from the market.

Also, higher wages mean higher taxes (up to a point), and there's no getting by the fact that the government could use some extra revenue.

Finally, a higher minimum wage would mean that fewer people qualify for social programs, which helps salvage the budget.

Why is it that the party who stands against social programs makes no effort to reduce the number of people who qualify for them? Why is the cry always to eliminate them entirely?

Would anyone here feel safer if their town was suddenly full of hungry, desperate former workers with nothing left to lose?

That's not the America that I want for me or my children.

[Peter1469]

The problem is that economics don't support what you want to happen. Simply paying people more will at best change nothing as inflation rises - which can happen quickly; at worse it will cause stagflation and harm everyone.

You also assumes that the government increases revenue when it increases taxes. That is not always true. If taxes cause the economy to contract, revenues can drop. Conversely lower taxes can increase tax revenue.

I admit it sure sounds good to just pay people more. The real world is more complicated though.


I can see that as a possibility too. But this isn't instantaneous, it takes a long time for the market to adjust to a higher earnings level- companies can't simply double their prices overnight and not expect backlash from the market.

Also, higher wages mean higher taxes (up to a point), and there's no getting by the fact that the government could use some extra revenue.

Finally, a higher minimum wage would mean that fewer people qualify for social programs, which helps salvage the budget.

Why is it that the party who stands against social programs makes no effort to reduce the number of people who qualify for them? Why is the cry always to eliminate them entirely?

Would anyone here feel safer if their town was suddenly full of hungry, desperate former workers with nothing left to lose?

That's not the America that I want for me or my children.

[Amazon]

The problem is that economics don't support what you want to happen. Simply paying people more will at best change nothing as inflation rises - which can happen quickly; at worse it will cause stagflation and harm everyone. I disagree with the argument that a growth in spending power is the primary cause for inflation, but there are ways it could happen: Either the person setting prices makes a conscious decision to increase the price of a good or service in response to the increased spending power of the market, or the demand for such goods and services becomes greater than the supply, and there is no evidence that this would be a result of an increase in the minimum wage. In a very interesting article entitled "Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation," Forbes explains why:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/14/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/


You also assumes that the government increases revenue when it increases taxes. That is not always true. If taxes cause the economy to contract, revenues can drop. Conversely lower taxes can increase tax revenue. I'm afraid you misunderstand. You are referring to a higher tax rate. Taxes are calculated as a percentage of income, and so an increase in income will increase the revenue to government without a tax rate increase.

What I'm saying is that an increase in the minimum wage could facilitate a reduction in the tax rate, not an increase.

[Peter1469]

In the first part we are not talking about money growth. We are talking about raising all wages by an arbitrary amount.

Your second paragraph starts correct about tax rates versus a larger income pool to be taxed, however, my point still stands. If raising the base line for all wages has a negative effect on the economy (higher unemployment for example) then tax revenues could drop.

For the sake of those on the lower end of the economic ladder, I really hope society doesn't experiment with your ideas. Ultimately, they will be hit the hardest.


I disagree with the argument that a growth in spending power is the primary cause for inflation, but there are ways it could happen: Either the person setting prices makes a conscious decision to increase the price of a good or service in response to the increased spending power of the market, or the demand for such goods and services becomes greater than the supply, and there is no evidence that this would be a result of an increase in the minimum wage. In a very interesting article entitled "Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation," Forbes explains why:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/14/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/

I'm afraid you misunderstand. You are referring to a higher tax rate. Taxes are calculated as a percentage of income, and so an increase in income will increase the revenue to government without a tax rate increase.

What I'm saying is that an increase in the minimum wage could facilitate a reduction in the tax rate, not an increase.