Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!

[Dad2three]

Rent control is a more effective way to destroy a city than strategic bombing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Again, you offer an opinion with no evidence and no examples based solely on your ideology and ignorance.

Santa Clara Co. is the heart of Silicon Valley:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/realestate/creating-housing-for-teachers.html?_r=0

The evidence is all the buildings in New York that look like they're in a war zone. Do you recall all those stories in TV about landlords who wouldn't repair their buildings? Those buildings were rent controlled. Landlords have no incentive to maintain their property when they can't raise rents enough to cover the cost of owning the building.

Because of rent control, construction of rental units in New York came to a complete stop. Now paying $3000/month for a one bedroom apartment is common typical - if you can even find one.

Mea Culpa, I was wrong. I took what I had gleaned from the Santa Clara situation and didn't look beyond it. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/u...control-and-unintended-consequences.html?_r=0

Kudos.
I gather your mea culpa is an admission that gov't meddling in the biz of biz can (and often does) have negative unintended consequences but, as the article illustrates, gov't resists the need to undo the damage they do. Instead of repealing rent control, the pressure is to use a means-test to determine one's ability to pay rent (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). The same unintended consequences are in store when gov't meddles in the labor wage market.

One need go no further to prove your assessment, than the EPA's recent 'Shit happens!' excuse, after they poisoned the water for most of the South West.

Naturally, if anyone BUT the EPA had done so... they'd no be destitute and looking at prison for the rest of their natural life.

EPA CLEANING UP THE "PRIVATE MARKETS" ABANDONED MINE??? lol

EPA Contractor Involved in Colorado Spill Identified as Environmental Restoration
Fenton, Mo., company was tasked with mitigating pollutants from closed mine


The money to fund the Gold King Mine cleanup comes out of EPA’s Superfund budget



NOW WHY IS THERE A SUPERFUND BUDGET AGAIN BUBBA?

The Gold King mine wasn’t a designated Superfund cleanup site, which would have required far more funding. Rather, Environmental Restoration was trying to stop wastewater from escaping the mine at the time of the breach, government documents indicate.


EPA Contractor Involved in Colorado Spill Identified as Environmental Restoration

DAMN GUBERMNT!

 

[SAYIT]

Liberals never ask where the money is going to come from using their plans. They just assume that those involved have this big money tree in their backyards and they just pull bills off of it when needed.

Liberals play checkers and conservatives play chess. You need to think what's going to happen several moves ahead with chess.

If you are not liberal at age 25, you have no heart.
If you are still liberal at age 35, you have no brain.

 

[SAYIT]

Since 4% of workers get min wage, THAT premise MUST be true *shaking head*

Of course it is. That's how we inflated ourselves out of the world market. Of course it wasn't minimum wage, it was unions.

If you make minimum wage $15.00 per hour, the people that were making in the area of $15.00 per hour are going to want $22.00 per hour because they are not going to work for minimum wage. The people that were making $22.00 per hour will want $30.00 per hour, and it goes right down the line.

If you think that you are going to increase minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and the rest of hourly workers are just going to stand by and watch it, you're insane. Nobody (including myself) would allow it. We all would demand more money.

Sure Bubba, sure, unions that were in decline for decades before Ronnie hosed them? lol

People get raises because those on the bottom get more??? IN THE US REALLY? lol

ONE FUKKN POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF US HISTORY? EVER? oops

We've been through that before, and I gave you two or three which you put the palms of your hands against year ears and sang aloud.

Yes unions have been on the decline because businesses have been leaving states or the country to get away from them. But when they were strong, they too created the Domino Effect.

When times were good, the only way for a non-union shop to attract workers was to have a pay scale similar to the union shops, so the cost for help went up all over.

Drastically increase the minimum wage, and you'll see the exact same thing only in fast-forward. More business will leave the country and more inflation will distance ourselves further from the rest of the world.

Oh right, YOU actually "believe" that nonsense? SHOCKING

YEAH, IT WAS THE DROP IN UNION MEMBERSHIP THAT WAS THE PROBLEM *SHAKING HEAD*


THE OFFSHORING OF US JOBS

YEAH, UNIONS *SHAKING HEAD*

What a waste of time and space. I told you that there would be an inflation factor with a large minimum wage increase and you post all this crap?

Denial, to loony libs, is far more important than some little river in Egypt.

 

[Dad2three]

Since 4% of workers get min wage, THAT premise MUST be true *shaking head*

Of course it is. That's how we inflated ourselves out of the world market. Of course it wasn't minimum wage, it was unions.

If you make minimum wage $15.00 per hour, the people that were making in the area of $15.00 per hour are going to want $22.00 per hour because they are not going to work for minimum wage. The people that were making $22.00 per hour will want $30.00 per hour, and it goes right down the line.

If you think that you are going to increase minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and the rest of hourly workers are just going to stand by and watch it, you're insane. Nobody (including myself) would allow it. We all would demand more money.

Sure Bubba, sure, unions that were in decline for decades before Ronnie hosed them? lol

People get raises because those on the bottom get more??? IN THE US REALLY? lol

ONE FUKKN POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF US HISTORY? EVER? oops

We've been through that before, and I gave you two or three which you put the palms of your hands against year ears and sang aloud.

Yes unions have been on the decline because businesses have been leaving states or the country to get away from them. But when they were strong, they too created the Domino Effect.

When times were good, the only way for a non-union shop to attract workers was to have a pay scale similar to the union shops, so the cost for help went up all over.

Drastically increase the minimum wage, and you'll see the exact same thing only in fast-forward. More business will leave the country and more inflation will distance ourselves further from the rest of the world.

Oh right, YOU actually "believe" that nonsense? SHOCKING

YEAH, IT WAS THE DROP IN UNION MEMBERSHIP THAT WAS THE PROBLEM *SHAKING HEAD*


THE OFFSHORING OF US JOBS

YEAH, UNIONS *SHAKING HEAD*

What a waste of time and space. I told you that there would be an inflation factor with a large minimum wage increase and you post all this crap?

NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE BUBS, WHY THIS TIME? Hint NO ONE SERIOUSLY IS SAYING JUMP TO $15 AN HOUR JAN 1, 2016. over a few years raise it to $15 an hour, a GOOD BIZ HAS INCREASING COSTS ALL THE TIME, THEY DEAL WITH IT!


But I love the "logic" of the right wing, tax cuts for the rich will boom the economy, but increasing wages at the bottom will destroy it? LOL

 

[thereisnospoon]

Is this a precursor of things to come?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/labour-party-election-jeremy-corbyn.html?_r=0


Are The People ready to recoil from the consequences of Reaganism as the Brits have of Thatcherism?

Are the people ready to take back democracy from the plutocrats?

Is it possible that all the wealth of Brothers Koch and the SuperPacs have met their match, as the antipathy of The People seeing great wealth continue to flow to the few at the expense of the many continues to grow?

Is Sen. Sanders our Jeremy Corbyn?

It's past time for a correction, American voters have in the past rejected extremism, and today's Republican Party is not today, and not since 1981, a party of the people, by the people and for the people.

Once single issue voters understand the GOP is all hat and no cattle, as the have given the cattle to the wealthy elite, they will realize the wedge issues have never been fixed by the GOP.

In fact the GOP and it's benefactors - the Power Elite - understand that to solve issues like immigration, health care, the meme that they will take away your guns, make abortion harder SSM and will destroy marriage between a man and a women will take away their talking points.

The changes necessary to take back America from the power held by the First and Second Estates will be a monumental task, given the money which the clergy and nobility - our power elites - will put into keeping the Congress under the leadership they own.

Umm..and the super PAC's and corporations that support the left wing? Interesting conundrum you've created for yourself.

 

[Dad2three]

Of course it is. That's how we inflated ourselves out of the world market. Of course it wasn't minimum wage, it was unions.

If you make minimum wage $15.00 per hour, the people that were making in the area of $15.00 per hour are going to want $22.00 per hour because they are not going to work for minimum wage. The people that were making $22.00 per hour will want $30.00 per hour, and it goes right down the line.

If you think that you are going to increase minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and the rest of hourly workers are just going to stand by and watch it, you're insane. Nobody (including myself) would allow it. We all would demand more money.

Sure Bubba, sure, unions that were in decline for decades before Ronnie hosed them? lol

People get raises because those on the bottom get more??? IN THE US REALLY? lol

ONE FUKKN POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF US HISTORY? EVER? oops

We've been through that before, and I gave you two or three which you put the palms of your hands against year ears and sang aloud.

Yes unions have been on the decline because businesses have been leaving states or the country to get away from them. But when they were strong, they too created the Domino Effect.

When times were good, the only way for a non-union shop to attract workers was to have a pay scale similar to the union shops, so the cost for help went up all over.

Drastically increase the minimum wage, and you'll see the exact same thing only in fast-forward. More business will leave the country and more inflation will distance ourselves further from the rest of the world.

Oh right, YOU actually "believe" that nonsense? SHOCKING

YEAH, IT WAS THE DROP IN UNION MEMBERSHIP THAT WAS THE PROBLEM *SHAKING HEAD*


THE OFFSHORING OF US JOBS

YEAH, UNIONS *SHAKING HEAD*

What a waste of time and space. I told you that there would be an inflation factor with a large minimum wage increase and you post all this crap?

Denial, to loony libs, is far more important than some little river in Egypt.

Can't use logic and reasoning NOR able to refute anything huh Bubs?

 

[Dad2three]

Is this a precursor of things to come?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/labour-party-election-jeremy-corbyn.html?_r=0


Are The People ready to recoil from the consequences of Reaganism as the Brits have of Thatcherism?

Are the people ready to take back democracy from the plutocrats?

Is it possible that all the wealth of Brothers Koch and the SuperPacs have met their match, as the antipathy of The People seeing great wealth continue to flow to the few at the expense of the many continues to grow?

Is Sen. Sanders our Jeremy Corbyn?

It's past time for a correction, American voters have in the past rejected extremism, and today's Republican Party is not today, and not since 1981, a party of the people, by the people and for the people.

Once single issue voters understand the GOP is all hat and no cattle, as the have given the cattle to the wealthy elite, they will realize the wedge issues have never been fixed by the GOP.

In fact the GOP and it's benefactors - the Power Elite - understand that to solve issues like immigration, health care, the meme that they will take away your guns, make abortion harder SSM and will destroy marriage between a man and a women will take away their talking points.

The changes necessary to take back America from the power held by the First and Second Estates will be a monumental task, given the money which the clergy and nobility - our power elites - will put into keeping the Congress under the leadership they own.

Umm..and the super PAC's and corporations that support the left wing? Interesting conundrum you've created for yourself.

THEY SUPPORT THE LEFT WING? lmaorog

 

[thereisnospoon]

Is this a precursor of things to come?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/labour-party-election-jeremy-corbyn.html?_r=0


Are The People ready to recoil from the consequences of Reaganism as the Brits have of Thatcherism?

Are the people ready to take back democracy from the plutocrats?

Is it possible that all the wealth of Brothers Koch and the SuperPacs have met their match, as the antipathy of The People seeing great wealth continue to flow to the few at the expense of the many continues to grow?

Is Sen. Sanders our Jeremy Corbyn?

It's past time for a correction, American voters have in the past rejected extremism, and today's Republican Party is not today, and not since 1981, a party of the people, by the people and for the people.

Once single issue voters understand the GOP is all hat and no cattle, as the have given the cattle to the wealthy elite, they will realize the wedge issues have never been fixed by the GOP.

In fact the GOP and it's benefactors - the Power Elite - understand that to solve issues like immigration, health care, the meme that they will take away your guns, make abortion harder SSM and will destroy marriage between a man and a women will take away their talking points.

The changes necessary to take back America from the power held by the First and Second Estates will be a monumental task, given the money which the clergy and nobility - our power elites - will put into keeping the Congress under the leadership they own.

As if the UK doesn't have enough problems with the influx of Muslims who have grown in numbers enough to demand their customs and religious beliefs become part of UK law...
This peckerhead wants to invite even MORE...
Worse yet, Corbyn will no doubt seek to increase the size of the UK's social safety net. Which by the way has nearly buried the UK economy in debt. In fact the only thing keeping the UK alive is the Pound Sterling which is one the most trusted and respected currencies on the world exchanges.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Is this a precursor of things to come?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/labour-party-election-jeremy-corbyn.html?_r=0


Are The People ready to recoil from the consequences of Reaganism as the Brits have of Thatcherism?

Are the people ready to take back democracy from the plutocrats?

Is it possible that all the wealth of Brothers Koch and the SuperPacs have met their match, as the antipathy of The People seeing great wealth continue to flow to the few at the expense of the many continues to grow?

Is Sen. Sanders our Jeremy Corbyn?

It's past time for a correction, American voters have in the past rejected extremism, and today's Republican Party is not today, and not since 1981, a party of the people, by the people and for the people.

Once single issue voters understand the GOP is all hat and no cattle, as the have given the cattle to the wealthy elite, they will realize the wedge issues have never been fixed by the GOP.

In fact the GOP and it's benefactors - the Power Elite - understand that to solve issues like immigration, health care, the meme that they will take away your guns, make abortion harder SSM and will destroy marriage between a man and a women will take away their talking points.

The changes necessary to take back America from the power held by the First and Second Estates will be a monumental task, given the money which the clergy and nobility - our power elites - will put into keeping the Congress under the leadership they own.

Umm..and the super PAC's and corporations that support the left wing? Interesting conundrum you've created for yourself.

THEY SUPPORT THE LEFT WING? lmaorog

Yeah....DO you question the existence of large corporate donors and Super PAC's that support the DNC, democrat candidates and liberal causes?....Please do not play stupid here.

 

[Dad2three]

Is this a precursor of things to come?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/labour-party-election-jeremy-corbyn.html?_r=0


Are The People ready to recoil from the consequences of Reaganism as the Brits have of Thatcherism?

Are the people ready to take back democracy from the plutocrats?

Is it possible that all the wealth of Brothers Koch and the SuperPacs have met their match, as the antipathy of The People seeing great wealth continue to flow to the few at the expense of the many continues to grow?

Is Sen. Sanders our Jeremy Corbyn?

It's past time for a correction, American voters have in the past rejected extremism, and today's Republican Party is not today, and not since 1981, a party of the people, by the people and for the people.

Once single issue voters understand the GOP is all hat and no cattle, as the have given the cattle to the wealthy elite, they will realize the wedge issues have never been fixed by the GOP.

In fact the GOP and it's benefactors - the Power Elite - understand that to solve issues like immigration, health care, the meme that they will take away your guns, make abortion harder SSM and will destroy marriage between a man and a women will take away their talking points.

The changes necessary to take back America from the power held by the First and Second Estates will be a monumental task, given the money which the clergy and nobility - our power elites - will put into keeping the Congress under the leadership they own.

Umm..and the super PAC's and corporations that support the left wing? Interesting conundrum you've created for yourself.

THEY SUPPORT THE LEFT WING? lmaorog

Yeah....DO you question the existence of large corporate donors and Super PAC's that support the DNC, democrat candidates and liberal causes?....Please do not play stupid here.

Wait, you TRYING to lump ALL that together? Seriously dumbfuk?

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's time to reject the ignorance and hate common to most on the right; the reactionaryism and fear of change, diversity, and expressions of individual liberty.

It's also time to reject failed conservative fiscal dogma, to instead pursue a pragmatic course predicated on what works, not what conforms to that failed conservative economic dogma.

So empty are your words, you found it necessary to repeat "conservative dogma".....
And the alternative is? Ah yes... Replace it with YOUR dogma.....Which is what?
Equality of outcome and unconditional fairness? Where everyone is deemed to be equal by government mandate despite their superior efforts, intellect, ideas, achievements?.....

 

[SAYIT]

Of course it is. That's how we inflated ourselves out of the world market. Of course it wasn't minimum wage, it was unions.

If you make minimum wage $15.00 per hour, the people that were making in the area of $15.00 per hour are going to want $22.00 per hour because they are not going to work for minimum wage. The people that were making $22.00 per hour will want $30.00 per hour, and it goes right down the line.

If you think that you are going to increase minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and the rest of hourly workers are just going to stand by and watch it, you're insane. Nobody (including myself) would allow it. We all would demand more money.

Sure Bubba, sure, unions that were in decline for decades before Ronnie hosed them? lol

People get raises because those on the bottom get more??? IN THE US REALLY? lol

ONE FUKKN POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF US HISTORY? EVER? oops

We've been through that before, and I gave you two or three which you put the palms of your hands against year ears and sang aloud.

Yes unions have been on the decline because businesses have been leaving states or the country to get away from them. But when they were strong, they too created the Domino Effect.

When times were good, the only way for a non-union shop to attract workers was to have a pay scale similar to the union shops, so the cost for help went up all over.

Drastically increase the minimum wage, and you'll see the exact same thing only in fast-forward. More business will leave the country and more inflation will distance ourselves further from the rest of the world.

Oh right, YOU actually "believe" that nonsense? SHOCKING

YEAH, IT WAS THE DROP IN UNION MEMBERSHIP THAT WAS THE PROBLEM *SHAKING HEAD*


THE OFFSHORING OF US JOBS

YEAH, UNIONS *SHAKING HEAD*

What a waste of time and space. I told you that there would be an inflation factor with a large minimum wage increase and you post all this crap?

NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE BUBS, WHY THIS TIME? Hint NO ONE SERIOUSLY IS SAYING JUMP TO $15 AN HOUR JAN 1, 2016. over a few years raise it to $15 an hour, a GOOD BIZ HAS INCREASING COSTS ALL THE TIME, THEY DEAL WITH IT!


But I love the "logic" of the right wing, tax cuts for the rich will boom the economy, but increasing wages at the bottom will destroy it? LOL

Once more for the terminally dense propagandist: No one here is arguing against increased wages for "the bottom." The argument is with gov't meddling in the labor wage market and pretending it will have little or no impact on prices (inflation) which disproportionately hurts "the bottom" and those on fixed incomes .. not that you seem to know or care.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is great! I'm looking forward to watching the UK fall into ruins.

You would. Such a hope is disgusting but not unexpected from a callous and ignorant person.

Such an event would fall into the category of "elections have consequences".

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rent control is one method. Consider what is happening in and beyond Silicon Valley. The tech crowd makes big bucks, but each business in Santa Clara Co. needs ancillary staff, many of whom need to commute hours simply to get to the job site.

Rent control is a more effective way to destroy a city than strategic bombing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Again, you offer an opinion with no evidence and no examples based solely on your ideology and ignorance.

Santa Clara Co. is the heart of Silicon Valley:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/realestate/creating-housing-for-teachers.html?_r=0

The evidence is all the buildings in New York that look like they're in a war zone. Do you recall all those stories in TV about landlords who wouldn't repair their buildings? Those buildings were rent controlled. Landlords have no incentive to maintain their property when they can't raise rents enough to cover the cost of owning the building.

Because of rent control, construction of rental units in New York came to a complete stop. Now paying $3000/month for a one bedroom apartment is common typical - if you can even find one.

Mea Culpa, I was wrong. I took what I had gleaned from the Santa Clara situation and didn't look beyond it. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/u...control-and-unintended-consequences.html?_r=0

Kudos.
I gather your mea culpa is an admission that gov't meddling in the biz of biz can (and often does) have negative unintended consequences but, as the article illustrates, gov't resists the need to undo the damage they do. Instead of repealing rent control, the pressure is to use a means-test to determine one's ability to pay rent (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). The same unintended consequences are in store when gov't meddles in the labor wage market.

My immediate response is this, efforts to engage in social policy has hidden pitfalls, and I happy to see them characterized as unintended consequences.

The intent of those who oppose efforts to make the playing field level and fair is maliciously misrepresented by callous conservatives as covert racism; it is a ploy to present policy makers, stakeholders, and progressives as devious and the real set of callous people.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Lol, there nothing to discuss. Just more sohpistry and pining for govt to wipe everyone's ass.

The vote in GB is not sophistry, it's reality; the popularity of Sanders and Trump suggests the potential for a tsunami and a rejection of DC Insiders and the status quo.

Thus, there is more reason for, and we can expect more rhetoric from, the GOP and their anti-democratic conservative base to work harder to suppress the vote.

Please.....

My thread was not intended to attract trolls and partisans. If the Mods would please move this thread into the clean zone, so rational people can post, and the trolls cannot side track a current event of significance, the thread may become thought provoking, and not a place for whiners and ostriches.

Poor fella. Opposition is a terrible thing, eh?

Intelligent and thought provoking opposition is welcome. Do you have any? If so, you hide it well.

You asked a question. This was my response:

"I will vote to prevent you people from airing out the pockets of the creative and productive in order to purchase your voting bloc of those who produce nothing but urine, feces, crime and terrorism."

Now, tell me how my point of view proceeds from a false assumption. Be specific.

That's thought provoking? The only thought provoked is, you've parroted a talking point of right wing rhetoric, formed in bigotry and framed in hate.

I suggest, a futile suggestion I suspect, that you read the link posted in the OP. Then consider the reality of income inequality in America and the influence of SuperPacs and their impact on democracy.

Then, listen to the stump speech of Sen. Sanders, and ask yourself why it resonates in so many and so diverse a population?

You're supporting Bernie Sanders. We get it. So what?....
BTW, who are the "so many" that Sanders' words of left wing radicalism resonate?
The guy is a card carrying socialist who has some of you eating his redistribution pot brownies.
The guy is a kook. This is his last stand. He no more has a chance of wining the WH than you do.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

So what if the Democrats push for a "living wage" law? What would that number be?

As we all know, a huge increase in minimum wage is a temporary fix to the poverty problem because you can't increase wages on one group of people. If you increase wages for one group of people, it creates a Domino Effect and all wages eventually increase.

Then those that were elated with the new minimum wage find themselves right back where they started because everything else increased in price. They have no more buying power than they had before.

Since 4% of workers get min wage, THAT premise MUST be true *shaking head*

Of course it is. That's how we inflated ourselves out of the world market. Of course it wasn't minimum wage, it was unions.

If you make minimum wage $15.00 per hour, the people that were making in the area of $15.00 per hour are going to want $22.00 per hour because they are not going to work for minimum wage. The people that were making $22.00 per hour will want $30.00 per hour, and it goes right down the line.

If you think that you are going to increase minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and the rest of hourly workers are just going to stand by and watch it, you're insane. Nobody (including myself) would allow it. We all would demand more money.

A ripple effect the left neither mentions nor acknowledges but is clearly what the min wage battle is really about. Many union contracts are "min wage plus" based and millions of wages would increase should the minimum rise.
Doubling the min wage would cause the same economic dynamic that OPEC's artificial price-setting did in the 1970s ... inflationary catch-up.

Liberals never ask where the money is going to come from using their plans. They just assume that those involved have this big money tree in their backyards and they just pull bills off of it when needed.

Liberals play checkers and conservatives play chess. You need to think what's going to happen several moves ahead with chess.

Speaking of unions and the relationship to minimum wage, I wonder if those teachers unions have that clause in their contracts as well as government unions for workers?

LOL, did Cheney and Bush think moves ahead when they invaded and occupied Iraq? Did Bush even think when he used the emotionally charged word Crusade in response to terrorism?


Europe cringes at Bush 'crusade' against terrorists

By Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor SEPTEMBER 19, 2001

PARIS — As Europeans wait to see how the United States is planning to retaliate for last week's attacks on Washington and New York, there is growing anxiety here about the tone of American war rhetoric.

President Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust.

Europe cringes at Bush 'crusade' against terrorists

Did any of those in last nights Republican Debate think about the consequences of the saber rattling and brinkmanship of those who want to be POTUS?

 

[Dad2three]

Sure Bubba, sure, unions that were in decline for decades before Ronnie hosed them? lol

People get raises because those on the bottom get more??? IN THE US REALLY? lol

ONE FUKKN POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF US HISTORY? EVER? oops

We've been through that before, and I gave you two or three which you put the palms of your hands against year ears and sang aloud.

Yes unions have been on the decline because businesses have been leaving states or the country to get away from them. But when they were strong, they too created the Domino Effect.

When times were good, the only way for a non-union shop to attract workers was to have a pay scale similar to the union shops, so the cost for help went up all over.

Drastically increase the minimum wage, and you'll see the exact same thing only in fast-forward. More business will leave the country and more inflation will distance ourselves further from the rest of the world.

Oh right, YOU actually "believe" that nonsense? SHOCKING

YEAH, IT WAS THE DROP IN UNION MEMBERSHIP THAT WAS THE PROBLEM *SHAKING HEAD*


THE OFFSHORING OF US JOBS

YEAH, UNIONS *SHAKING HEAD*

What a waste of time and space. I told you that there would be an inflation factor with a large minimum wage increase and you post all this crap?

NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE BUBS, WHY THIS TIME? Hint NO ONE SERIOUSLY IS SAYING JUMP TO $15 AN HOUR JAN 1, 2016. over a few years raise it to $15 an hour, a GOOD BIZ HAS INCREASING COSTS ALL THE TIME, THEY DEAL WITH IT!


But I love the "logic" of the right wing, tax cuts for the rich will boom the economy, but increasing wages at the bottom will destroy it? LOL

Once more for the terminally dense propagandist: No one here is arguing against increased wages for "the bottom." The argument is with gov't meddling in the labor wage market and pretending it will have little or no impact on prices (inflation) which disproportionately hurts "the bottom" and those on fixed incomes .. not that you seem to know or care.

Weird, you mean like CBO said lifting min wage to $10.10 an hour would HELP 16 million families? But MIGHT hurt up to 500,000 jobs?


Disproportionate? lol Sure Bubba, sure That's what the right wing is concerned about, since SS can help the VAST majority of those on the bottom AND Gov't safety nets can help the remaining few!



The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth




Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum WageEconomist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage: Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

 

[SAYIT]

We've been through that before, and I gave you two or three which you put the palms of your hands against year ears and sang aloud.

Yes unions have been on the decline because businesses have been leaving states or the country to get away from them. But when they were strong, they too created the Domino Effect.

When times were good, the only way for a non-union shop to attract workers was to have a pay scale similar to the union shops, so the cost for help went up all over.

Drastically increase the minimum wage, and you'll see the exact same thing only in fast-forward. More business will leave the country and more inflation will distance ourselves further from the rest of the world.

Oh right, YOU actually "believe" that nonsense? SHOCKING

YEAH, IT WAS THE DROP IN UNION MEMBERSHIP THAT WAS THE PROBLEM *SHAKING HEAD*


THE OFFSHORING OF US JOBS

YEAH, UNIONS *SHAKING HEAD*

What a waste of time and space. I told you that there would be an inflation factor with a large minimum wage increase and you post all this crap?

NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE BUBS, WHY THIS TIME? Hint NO ONE SERIOUSLY IS SAYING JUMP TO $15 AN HOUR JAN 1, 2016. over a few years raise it to $15 an hour, a GOOD BIZ HAS INCREASING COSTS ALL THE TIME, THEY DEAL WITH IT!


But I love the "logic" of the right wing, tax cuts for the rich will boom the economy, but increasing wages at the bottom will destroy it? LOL

Once more for the terminally dense propagandist: No one here is arguing against increased wages for "the bottom." The argument is with gov't meddling in the labor wage market and pretending it will have little or no impact on prices (inflation) which disproportionately hurts "the bottom" and those on fixed incomes .. not that you seem to know or care.

Weird, you mean like CBO said lifting min wage to $10.10 an hour would HELP 16 million families? But MIGHT hurt up to 500,000 jobs?


Disproportionate? lol Sure Bubba, sure That's what the right wing is concerned about, since SS can help the VAST majority of those on the bottom AND Gov't safety nets can help the remaining few!



The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth




Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum WageEconomist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage: Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Same old "workers of the world unite and eat the rich" pap you always post. The studies vary on the impact and dredging up 600 loony left economists in a country of 300 mil is easy but 1 thing is certain ... no one has ever produced an empirical study of the effect of DOUBLING the min wage. No one.

 

[kaz]

So you think Republicans are Randian? The stupid just goes deeper and deeper with you, doesn't it?

Some are, or they are called RINO's by the far right which dominates the tent of the Republican Party which continues to shrink.

Um...no...RINOs are you, leftist Democrats. Randians aren't Republicans at all. Do you know anything about anything?

Right, the Koch's who ARE the leading libertarians, and fund the leading libertarian "think tank", CATO, AND spent the most in 2012, aren't GOPers, lol

So why do you worship the Republican party if you think they are controlled by libertarians?

Projection Bubba? That's the best you have?

It was a question based on your statements. Why are Republicans so clueless?

 

[kaz]

You take everything too personally, and ignore being called an asshole, which you are, and something you ought to fix.

My points were generic, not directed at anyone business or any single business owner. Do try to grow up, and consider opinions which differ from you own, and stop being an asshole.

how can i both take things to personal and ignore being called names???

Wryner is one stupid bitch, damn

Says the Randian fetishist who CLAIMED Rand didn't want Gov't BUT she sucked off the teet as soon as possible! lol

Sorry, didn't see your link she could turn down paying for social security, can you show that again?

TURN DOWN? Weird I thought SHE had principles to stand on, her fellow anti collectivist didn't collect even though THEY paid the taxes???


“In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”


Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”

Journalist Patia Stephens wrote of Rand:

[She] called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax.


Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.

“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers remained true to their principles.

Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophic all


Paterson would end up dying a pauper. Rand went a different way.

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them



LMAOROG

Principles would be if she had the option to opt out of social security. She didn't.

She was forced to participate. You call on her to pay, then not collect on the terrible deal making it even worse.

At the same time, you worship politicians who call for more taxes while cheating on their taxes and you say dick about it.

You have some serious house cleaning to do before you call anyone else out as a hypocrite