Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!

[Dad2three]

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

Check your spelling. It's "realist".

Yep, we used to call you guys NAZI's, some still do I guess

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Must be DROVES of Biz closing in those cities then correct? lol
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.

AGAIN BUBBA IF I WASN'T CLEAR ENOUGH, WITHOUT FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES, WHAT WOULD THE RIGHT WING EVER HAVE BUBS?

There IS NO SERIOUS PUSH for a national $15 an hour min wage, HOWEVER the min wage push which IS there has PLENTY of studies saying YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. How's that Bubs, dodge for you to whine about?

You leftists like to believe nobody ever challenged you on your lies. I just posted a report from the CBO that stated hundreds of jobs would be lost with a national minimum wage increase to $10.10, and you act as if you never seen a thing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Congressional Budget Office Report Finds Minimum Wage Lifts Wages for 16.5 Million Workers

Summary:
A new CBO report finds that 16.5 million workers would get a raise from increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, helping millions of hard-working families, reducing poverty, and increasing the overall wages going to lower-income households.



1. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would directly benefit 16.5 million workers.


2. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage would increase income for millions of middle-class families, on net, even after accounting for its estimates of job losses. Middle class families earning less than six times the poverty line (i.e., $150,000 for a family of four in 2016) would see an aggregate increase of $19 billion in additional wages, with more than 90 percent of that increase going to families earning less than three times the Federal poverty line (i.e., $75,000 for a family of four in 2016). On net CBO estimates that national income would rise.



3. CBO finds that this wage increase would help the economy today.


5. CBO also found that raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. Opponents claim raising the minimum wage won’t reduce poverty, but that is not the case, as many American who work full time are unable to make ends meet. This finding echoes the broad consensus of academic studies on the topic, which is nearly unanimous in finding that increases in the minimum wage reduce poverty.

6. CBO’s estimates of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment does not reflect the current consensus view of economists.


Congressional Budget Office Report Finds Minimum Wage Lifts Wages for 16.5 Million Workers

This piece is so FOS. It claims that $10.10 could lift 900,000 people out of poverty. If you are a single person and working 40 hours per week at the current minimum wage, you are above the poverty line already.

So who is this supposed to help, the people that don't want to work full-time and stay at home half of their life?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

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.

Must be tons of Biz closing and unemployment going wild then right? lol

Nope, some businesses but not tons......yet.

It will take some time, but watch what's going to happen in two or three years. People will eventually flock to lower prices outside of these cities. That's what took place here in Cleveland because we have a county sales tax. People who live on the outskirts of the county just go to the adjoining counties to do their shopping.

 

[kaz]

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

Rand had a Randian fetish?

:

How's worshiping politicians who promise you to tax other people then cheat on their own taxes working out for you? You move from the garage into a mansion yet?

Like I said Bubba, without false premises, distortions and lies, what do you EVER have?

Yes of course, questioning government? That is just lies and distortion.

On the other hand, your standard of:

1) Small government libertarians should give money by choice to government or they are hypocrites

2) While big government liberals cheating on their taxes isn't hypocrisy.

It's just the big ball of stupid that is you

 

[Care4all]

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

Congressional Budget Office Report Finds Minimum Wage Lifts Wages for 16.5 Million Workers

Summary:
A new CBO report finds that 16.5 million workers would get a raise from increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, helping millions of hard-working families, reducing poverty, and increasing the overall wages going to lower-income households.



1. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would directly benefit 16.5 million workers.


2. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage would increase income for millions of middle-class families, on net, even after accounting for its estimates of job losses. Middle class families earning less than six times the poverty line (i.e., $150,000 for a family of four in 2016) would see an aggregate increase of $19 billion in additional wages, with more than 90 percent of that increase going to families earning less than three times the Federal poverty line (i.e., $75,000 for a family of four in 2016). On net CBO estimates that national income would rise.



3. CBO finds that this wage increase would help the economy today.


5. CBO also found that raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. Opponents claim raising the minimum wage won’t reduce poverty, but that is not the case, as many American who work full time are unable to make ends meet. This finding echoes the broad consensus of academic studies on the topic, which is nearly unanimous in finding that increases in the minimum wage reduce poverty.

6. CBO’s estimates of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment does not reflect the current consensus view of economists.


Congressional Budget Office Report Finds Minimum Wage Lifts Wages for 16.5 Million Workers

This piece is so FOS. It claims that $10.10 could lift 900,000 people out of poverty. If you are a single person and working 40 hours per week at the current minimum wage, you are above the poverty line already.

So who is this supposed to help, the people that don't want to work full-time and stay at home half of their life?

$14k-15k a year gross annual salary is not considered poverty? That's before SS taxes are taken out, before state income tax, before Medicare taxes are taken out, before federal income tax is taken out, before their portion of healthcare insurance is taken out? Many have children btw.

If that's not poverty for an adult, I don't know what is?

 

[kaz]

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?

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.

Must be DROVES of Biz closing in those cities then correct? lol

Without false premises, distortions and LIES, what do the right wingers EVER have Bubs?

Unemployment is skyrocketing. Businesses adapt, we are smarter than you are

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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.

Must be DROVES of Biz closing in those cities then correct? lol
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.

AGAIN BUBBA IF I WASN'T CLEAR ENOUGH, WITHOUT FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES, WHAT WOULD THE RIGHT WING EVER HAVE BUBS?

There IS NO SERIOUS PUSH for a national $15 an hour min wage, HOWEVER the min wage push which IS there has PLENTY of studies saying YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. How's that Bubs, dodge for you to whine about?

I would be all for requiring farmers to pay $15.00 an hour or more.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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 ?

SOURCE?

Next crazy right wing BS?

lmaorog

I was simply trying to see if you are a Truther.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Must be DROVES of Biz closing in those cities then correct? lol
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.

AGAIN BUBBA IF I WASN'T CLEAR ENOUGH, WITHOUT FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES, WHAT WOULD THE RIGHT WING EVER HAVE BUBS?

There IS NO SERIOUS PUSH for a national $15 an hour min wage, HOWEVER the min wage push which IS there has PLENTY of studies saying YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. How's that Bubs, dodge for you to whine about?

You leftists like to believe nobody ever challenged you on your lies. I just posted a report from the CBO that stated hundreds of jobs would be lost with a national minimum wage increase to $10.10, and you act as if you never seen a thing.

You mean CBO PROJECTS 16+ million WOULD be helped AND UP TO 500,000 MIGHT lose jobs, that part that was disputed by economists?

Bet YOU agree with CBO that ACA cuts the deficits then right??

Why CBO differs from other economists on the minimum wage

The Congressional Budget Office says that increasing the minimum wage would eliminate half a million jobs. But the consensus among economists is that increasing the minimum wage would eliminate few if any jobs. Who’s right?

In part, this is a dispute between analysis and observation. CBO is projecting what ought to happen based on economic modeling. The consensus among economists is based on what’s actually been observed to happen.





“These estimates,” he wrote in a blog post, “do not reflect the overall consensus view of economists which is that raising the minimum wage has little or no negative effect on employment.” But even Furman is measured in his criticism of the CBO report. Why?

Three reasons:

1.) No politician or government official is free to say this, but—shhh!–even CBO’s projection of 500,000 jobs lost is not very high. During 2013, the economy added 194,000 jobs per month, a rate of increase that everybody agreed was bad. If the economy were to lose 500,000 jobs, that would equal the number of jobs created during less than three months of distressingly weak economic growth. “Relative to a stronger macro economy that is nothing,” says Katz. “A tight labor market would overwhelm [that] in terms of what it would do for disadvantaged workers.”

2.) Even CBO concedes that the number of jobs lost could be as low as zero.

3.) The CBO did not conclude that raising the minimum wage is inherently a job-killer....


Why CBO differs from other economists on the minimum wage

 

[Dad2three]

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

Congressional Budget Office Report Finds Minimum Wage Lifts Wages for 16.5 Million Workers

Summary:
A new CBO report finds that 16.5 million workers would get a raise from increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, helping millions of hard-working families, reducing poverty, and increasing the overall wages going to lower-income households.



1. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would directly benefit 16.5 million workers.


2. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage would increase income for millions of middle-class families, on net, even after accounting for its estimates of job losses. Middle class families earning less than six times the poverty line (i.e., $150,000 for a family of four in 2016) would see an aggregate increase of $19 billion in additional wages, with more than 90 percent of that increase going to families earning less than three times the Federal poverty line (i.e., $75,000 for a family of four in 2016). On net CBO estimates that national income would rise.



3. CBO finds that this wage increase would help the economy today.


5. CBO also found that raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. Opponents claim raising the minimum wage won’t reduce poverty, but that is not the case, as many American who work full time are unable to make ends meet. This finding echoes the broad consensus of academic studies on the topic, which is nearly unanimous in finding that increases in the minimum wage reduce poverty.

6. CBO’s estimates of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment does not reflect the current consensus view of economists.


Congressional Budget Office Report Finds Minimum Wage Lifts Wages for 16.5 Million Workers

This piece is so FOS. It claims that $10.10 could lift 900,000 people out of poverty. If you are a single person and working 40 hours per week at the current minimum wage, you are above the poverty line already.

So who is this supposed to help, the people that don't want to work full-time and stay at home half of their life?

WEIRD, YOU ACCEPT CBO'S PROJECTION ON JOB LOSSES, BUT NOTHING ELSE THEY PROJECT? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?
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.

Must be tons of Biz closing and unemployment going wild then right? lol

Nope, some businesses but not tons......yet.

It will take some time, but watch what's going to happen in two or three years. People will eventually flock to lower prices outside of these cities. That's what took place here in Cleveland because we have a county sales tax. People who live on the outskirts of the county just go to the adjoining counties to do their shopping.

MORE right wing BS


WHEN have CONservatives EVER Been right? GIVE ME ONE GAWDDAM TIME THEY SAID POLICY WOULD WORK AND IT DID?

 

[Dad2three]

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

Rand had a Randian fetish?

:

How's worshiping politicians who promise you to tax other people then cheat on their own taxes working out for you? You move from the garage into a mansion yet?

Like I said Bubba, without false premises, distortions and lies, what do you EVER have?

Yes of course, questioning government? That is just lies and distortion.

On the other hand, your standard of:

1) Small government libertarians should give money by choice to government or they are hypocrites

2) While big government liberals cheating on their taxes isn't hypocrisy.

It's just the big ball of stupid that is you

ONCE MORE BUBBA

Without false premises, distortions and LIES what would you EVER have?


You mean Rand doesn't stand on principles? Thanks

 

[Dad2three]

Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?
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.

Must be DROVES of Biz closing in those cities then correct? lol

Without false premises, distortions and LIES, what do the right wingers EVER have Bubs?

Unemployment is skyrocketing. Businesses adapt, we are smarter than you are

Skyrocketing? Bubba, this isn't the end of a GOP Prez term!

Hint record CONSECUTIVE months of hiring AND 5.1% unemployment after the shithole 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policy gave US

 

[Dad2three]

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 ?

SOURCE?

Next crazy right wing BS?

lmaorog

I was simply trying to see if you are a Truther.

Sorry Bubba, it was simply Dubya not giving afuk about ANYTHING on foreign policy except Iraq and Israel the first 9 months of Dubya's term!

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Must be DROVES of Biz closing in those cities then correct? lol
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.

AGAIN BUBBA IF I WASN'T CLEAR ENOUGH, WITHOUT FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES, WHAT WOULD THE RIGHT WING EVER HAVE BUBS?

There IS NO SERIOUS PUSH for a national $15 an hour min wage, HOWEVER the min wage push which IS there has PLENTY of studies saying YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. How's that Bubs, dodge for you to whine about?

I would be all for requiring farmers to pay $15.00 an hour or more.

I'm all for a min wage of $15 an hour for ANY job. Start with $10.10 Jan 2016 and go up every 6 months over 3 years and adjust for inflation. It will not happen, but would be good for the economy, lift MILLIONS out of poverty and take some of the money out of the pockets of the top 1/10th of 1% of US who get over half of all cap gains/dividends each year!

But I understand the trap you THINK you are setting. Living
in Monterey, I know PLENTY of "poor farmers" lol

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 9/12/2001 what would you have done?

A fair question.

I would not have declared war on Terrorists. I would have characterized those who planned and carried out the attack on the WTC as criminals, and engaged Russia, China and our allies - to do the same. For they too have had their civilian population attacked and murdered.

I would have opened a dialogue with the Arab states on their responsibility to crack down on the criminal element which has carried out the atrocities of destroying antiquities and targeting civilians, emphasizing that all of the world's great religions seek peace and community.

I would have spoken to the world at the UN, broadcast on TV and Radio, characterizing those who murder civilians, women and children as cowards, mass murderers and evil, and describe events around the world where such atrocities have occurred.

I would not have established a new government agency, Homeland Security. I would have expanded the Coast Guard to secure our coastal borders and established flights entering the US to only do so at select airports with heightened security; and, provided local law enforcement the training and resources necessary to screen passengers using common carriers.

In other words I would have done the opposite of what was done, I would have spoken softly, and expanded on our ability to gather intelligence, and to respond to critical incidents by our military, our covert agencies, the FBI, the national guard, local LE and the Dept of State.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

"Is Sen. Sanders our Jeremy Corbyn?"

I don't know, is Corbyn 75 and wearing diapers ?

Nor do you know anything of substance, so why would anyone be surprised. The point made was pretty simple: The election in GB showed how dissatisfied the electorate was with the current government, and they rejected it.

With a Congress found unfavorable by 90% of the American People, the callous conservatives ought to be concerned.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is the dumbest poll I have ever seen, there's lots of changes that need to be made. I vote for this woman. The CNN debate winner. Our version of the Iron Lady.

You want to support a Neoconservative, in the mold of Dick Cheney? Why? Do you think - if you do - that Brinkmanship and saber rattling are the two most important characteristics needed in the President of the US?

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is the dumbest poll I have ever seen, there's lots of changes that need to be made. I vote for this woman. The CNN debate winner. Our version of the Iron Lady.

You want to support a Neoconservative, in the mold of Dick Cheney? Why? Do you think - if you do - that Brinkmanship and saber rattling or the two most important characteristics needed in the President of the US?

The poll's questions are open ones, it gives everyone the opportunity to express their opinion as to how they would seek change. I doubt anyone wants to continue to stay the course, well, maybe the 9% who seem to think McConnell and Boehner put America First.