Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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. 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.
Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?
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
Without the false premises, distortions and LIES WHAT would you EVER have Bubs?
I get it though, the Randian fetishists woman wouldn't stand on her principles like the other libertarian founders right? lol
Lame deflection. The fact remains no one has ever conducted an empirical study of the effects of DOUBLING the min wage and all your dancing and prancing and waving your arms just doesn't change that fact.
Weird, you HONESTLY "believe" there is going to be a push at $15 an hour when we can't even get $10.10? OOPS
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?
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?
Yeah, "crusade" was a poor descriptor but we don't really know what would have been the result of American non-action following 9/11, do we? I would suggest that putting boots on the ground between Iran and Syria acted as a lightening rod for jihadists of all stripes and made the battlefield OVER THERE.
Had you been prez on 9/10/2001 what would you have done?
The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11
CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004
Lame dodge.
Perhaps you could find a cut and paste at one of your loony left blogspots that describes how the world would look had we not invaded Iraq and while you are at it, see if you can find one that tells you what you would have done in response to 9/11.
Dodge? WTF DID IRAQ HAVE TO DO WITH 9/11 DUMBASS???
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. 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.
Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?
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
Without the false premises, distortions and LIES WHAT would you EVER have Bubs?
I get it though, the Randian fetishists woman wouldn't stand on her principles like the other libertarian founders right? lol
Lame deflection. The fact remains no one has ever conducted an empirical study of the effects of DOUBLING the min wage and all your dancing and prancing and waving your arms just doesn't change that fact.
Weird, you HONESTLY "believe" there is going to be a push at $15 an hour when we can't even get $10.10? OOPS
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. 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.
Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?
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.
LOL
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?
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?
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?
Yeah, "crusade" was a poor descriptor but we don't really know what would have been the result of American non-action following 9/11, do we? I would suggest that putting boots on the ground between Iran and Syria acted as a lightening rod for jihadists of all stripes and made the battlefield OVER THERE.
Had you been prez on 9/10/2001 what would you have done?
The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11
CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004
Lame dodge.
Perhaps you could find a cut and paste at one of your loony left blogspots that describes how the world would look had we not invaded Iraq and while you are at it, see if you can find one that tells you what you would have done in response to 9/11.
Dodge? WTF DID IRAQ HAVE TO DO WITH 9/11 DUMBASS???
Nothing, and nor did Bush indicate Saddam had anything to do with 911. But invading Iraq was not about 911, it was about avoiding a future 911.
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?
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?
Yeah, "crusade" was a poor descriptor but we don't really know what would have been the result of American non-action following 9/11, do we? I would suggest that putting boots on the ground between Iran and Syria acted as a lightening rod for jihadists of all stripes and made the battlefield OVER THERE.
Had you been prez on 9/10/2001 what would you have done?
The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11
CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004
Lame dodge.
Perhaps you could find a cut and paste at one of your loony left blogspots that describes how the world would look had we not invaded Iraq and while you are at it, see if you can find one that tells you what you would have done in response to 9/11.
Dodge? WTF DID IRAQ HAVE TO DO WITH 9/11 DUMBASS???
Nothing, and nor did Bush indicate Saddam had anything to do with 911. But invading Iraq was not about 911, it was about avoiding a future 911.
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. 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.
Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?
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
Without the false premises, distortions and LIES WHAT would you EVER have Bubs?
I get it though, the Randian fetishists woman wouldn't stand on her principles like the other libertarian founders right? lol
Lame deflection. The fact remains no one has ever conducted an empirical study of the effects of DOUBLING the min wage and all your dancing and prancing and waving your arms just doesn't change that fact.
Weird, you HONESTLY "believe" there is going to be a push at $15 an hour when we can't even get $10.10? OOPS
States and cities are performing the task at more appropriate gov't levels and businesses are doing it at the most appropriate level, raising hourly wages internally without gov't meddling and yeah ... the push for $15/hr is alive and well in NY, Florida, Seattle and Berkeley, just to name a few.
Clearly you can find no empirical studies that support your "harmless" theory.
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?
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?
Yeah, "crusade" was a poor descriptor but we don't really know what would have been the result of American non-action following 9/11, do we? I would suggest that putting boots on the ground between Iran and Syria acted as a lightening rod for jihadists of all stripes and made the battlefield OVER THERE.
Had you been prez on 9/10/2001 what would you have done?
The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11
CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004
So let me guess, you believe 9/11 was an inside job ?
If you mean do I think Dubya/Cheney could give a fuk about what happened to US UNLESS it could be blamed on Iraq? Yep...
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?
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. 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.
Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?
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
Without the false premises, distortions and LIES WHAT would you EVER have Bubs?
I get it though, the Randian fetishists woman wouldn't stand on her principles like the other libertarian founders right? lol
Lame deflection. The fact remains no one has ever conducted an empirical study of the effects of DOUBLING the min wage and all your dancing and prancing and waving your arms just doesn't change that fact.
Weird, you HONESTLY "believe" there is going to be a push at $15 an hour when we can't even get $10.10? OOPS
Liberal cities are doing it as we speak.
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. 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.
Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?
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.
LOL
ECONOMY
Minimum Wage Hike Would Eliminate 500,000 Jobs
James Sherk / @JamesBSherk / February 18, 2014
Surprise, surprise: An analysis released today found that a proposed minimum wage hike would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced it agreed with the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of President Obama’s proposed minimum wage increase. Of course the CBO did not put it that way. But the agency came to the same conclusion Heritage did: a $10.10 minimum wage has no historical precedent and would jettison hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Minimum Wage Hike Would Eliminate 500,000 Jobs
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?
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?
Yeah, "crusade" was a poor descriptor but we don't really know what would have been the result of American non-action following 9/11, do we? I would suggest that putting boots on the ground between Iran and Syria acted as a lightening rod for jihadists of all stripes and made the battlefield OVER THERE.
Had you been prez on 9/10/2001 what would you have done?
The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11
CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004
So let me guess, you believe 9/11 was an inside job ?
If you mean do I think Dubya/Cheney could give a fuk about what happened to US UNLESS it could be blamed on Iraq? Yep...
A missile hit the Pentagon, right ?
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?
If you totally want to change the subject, perhaps it might be better to start your own topic.
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?
We should have taken care of all the family business then. Instead, we held back due to political correctness.
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?
We should have taken care of all the family business then. Instead, we held back due to political correctness.
100's of thousands dead wasn't enough for you Bubs?
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?
We should have taken care of all the family business then. Instead, we held back due to political correctness.
100's of thousands dead wasn't enough for you Bubs?
Shrug.
Look at the problem then. Look at the problem now.
It would have been far easier and more humane to disinfect then.
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?
We should have taken care of all the family business then. Instead, we held back due to political correctness.
100's of thousands dead wasn't enough for you Bubs?
Shrug.
Look at the problem then. Look at the problem now.
It would have been far easier and more humane to disinfect then.
Oh goodie, a "humanist" lol
Must be DROVES of Biz closing in those cities then correct? lolStates and cities are performing the task at more appropriate gov't levels and businesses are doing it at the most appropriate level, raising hourly wages internally without gov't meddling and yeah ... the push for $15/hr is alive and well in NY, Florida, Seattle and Berkeley, just to name a few.
Clearly you can find no empirical studies that support your "harmless" theory.
Without false premises, distortions and LIES, what do the right wingers EVER have Bubs?
Must be DROVES of Biz closing in those cities then correct? lolStates and cities are performing the task at more appropriate gov't levels and businesses are doing it at the most appropriate level, raising hourly wages internally without gov't meddling and yeah ... the push for $15/hr is alive and well in NY, Florida, Seattle and Berkeley, just to name a few.
Clearly you can find no empirical studies that support your "harmless" theory.
Without false premises, distortions and LIES, what do the right wingers EVER have Bubs?
I'll take your deflection to mean you can't find any study that supports your "harmless" theory. I'm shocked!
To your snarky comment, the doubling of the federal min wage will effect different places differently (but you knew that, no?). Where most hourly workers are already making at or near the higher wage, the hike will have little impact. Where it will significantly distort the existing entry level, low-skill wage structure, it will definitely result in the loss of jobs and perhaps businesses.
BTW, I am not against higher wages for low wage earners ... I'm against our federal gov't - no matter how well intentioned (and I'm not convinced the push is well intentioned) meddling in that market.
Instead I believe it is a no-lose political ploy by some of our elected officials and others who aspire to be elected officials. The apparent beneficiaries are pawns.
