Dems Big Push for 2014: Minimum Wage

[thereisnospoon]

Reagan doubled federal spending and tripled the national debt. He was a Keynesian by definition.

A) None of that is true. Ive pointed it out time and again and you never learn.
B) If that's what accounted for the success of the 1980s then why hasn't Obama's economy done twice as well? Obama's deficits are bigger than Reagan's entire budget.

A) show me the numbers that prove it isn't true. Federal spending was less than a trillion a year when Reagan took office and it was 2 trillion a year when he left. He found a federal budget of 900 billion and left one of 3 trillion.

B) The 1980's economy wasn't successful. It was the begining of the long decline of the middle class. More to the point, the real problem with the Obama economy is that the Austerity crowd insisted on cutting government spending. We do have huge deficits because REVENUES dropped.

In short, we have never gotten out of a recession without a flurry of spending and wealth redistribution. The problem with this recession is we actually listened to you idiots.

Two things...One, we don't prove negatives here. That's a rule.
Second, you and all the other Obamabots are hypocrites.
You curse Reagan by complaining about his administration using government policy to improve the economy, while increasing deficit spending. Then out of the other side of your mouths you praise Obama for doing the same thing.
Obama's policies are having the opposite effect on the country that Reagan's policies, which you claim are the same as Obama's.
Same general methods. entirely different results.
Now go ahead and bloviate about THAT.

 

[Iceman]

Why is absolute freedom reasonable?

It's not. Why are you referring to "absolute freedom"?

So it's reasonable to restrict freedom when you see fit?

 

[dblack]

Why is absolute freedom reasonable?

It's not. Why are you referring to "absolute freedom"?

So it's reasonable to restrict freedom when you see fit?

It's reasonable to restrict someone's freedom when it violates the freedom of others. What are you getting at? I made the claim that government has no business interfering in our private economic decisions and you insinuated that that amounts to "absolute freedom", which is nonsense.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yeah... I wouldn't look for 'reason' in a minimum wage argument. Just let that one go.

Why is opposition to minimum wage reasonable?

It's reasonable from the perspective of personal freedom. Government shouldn't dictate prices and wages. Those are personal decisions that government has no business interfering with.

It's reasonable because im not going to be forced ro pay some temporary/part time schmuck 15 damn dollars an hour to pick up trash on a construction site. As it stands using a temp agency already costs between 12 and 17 per hour. You double the wage and most of those guys will be sitting at home waiting for work while the "under the table" labor market EXPLODES

 

[Iceman]

It's not. Why are you referring to "absolute freedom"?

So it's reasonable to restrict freedom when you see fit?

It's reasonable to restrict someone's freedom when it violates the freedom of others. What are you getting at? I made the claim that government has no business interfering in our private economic decisions and you insinuated that that amounts to "absolute freedom", which is nonsense.

So it is unreasonable to regulate the marketplace?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So it's reasonable to restrict freedom when you see fit?

It's reasonable to restrict someone's freedom when it violates the freedom of others. What are you getting at? I made the claim that government has no business interfering in our private economic decisions and you insinuated that that amounts to "absolute freedom", which is nonsense.

So it is unreasonable to regulate the marketplace?

I'll bite.

OSHA is an outdated, unneeded waste of taxpayers dollars. Unless you think me posting warning labels about my chemicals on my job site are somehow saving someone from something. And that is just a tiny example.

 

[dblack]

So it's reasonable to restrict freedom when you see fit?

It's reasonable to restrict someone's freedom when it violates the freedom of others. What are you getting at? I made the claim that government has no business interfering in our private economic decisions and you insinuated that that amounts to "absolute freedom", which is nonsense.

So it is unreasonable to regulate the marketplace?

There's so much equivocation on the concept of 'regulation' that it's difficult to agree, or disagree, with such an unqualified statement. When regulations attempt to dictate personal economic decisions, I'd say they are wrong, if not 'unreasonable'. Laws requiring honesty and transparency in transactions, however, are both reasonable and helpful.

 

[Iceman]

It's reasonable to restrict someone's freedom when it violates the freedom of others. What are you getting at? I made the claim that government has no business interfering in our private economic decisions and you insinuated that that amounts to "absolute freedom", which is nonsense.

So it is unreasonable to regulate the marketplace?

There's so much equivocation on the concept of 'regulation' that it's difficult to agree, or disagree, with such an unqualified statement. When regulations attempt to dictate personal economic decisions, I'd say they are wrong, if not 'unreasonable'. Laws requiring honesty and transparency in transactions, however, are both reasonable and helpful.

So you think government should be involved in the marketplace where you want, and that is reasonable. But it is unreasonable when government is involved when you don't want it. Got it.

 

[dblack]

So it is unreasonable to regulate the marketplace?

There's so much equivocation on the concept of 'regulation' that it's difficult to agree, or disagree, with such an unqualified statement. When regulations attempt to dictate personal economic decisions, I'd say they are wrong, if not 'unreasonable'. Laws requiring honesty and transparency in transactions, however, are both reasonable and helpful.

So you think government should be involved in the marketplace where you want, and that is reasonable. But it is unreasonable when government is involved when you don't want it. Got it.

Heh... Have you notice all your posts are trying to constuct strawmen, and I keep having to come in and take off the carrot nose you've attached???

Anyway, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that regulations that actually protect people from fraud and deception are fine. Those that try to dictate our personal values and decisions aren't. There's a difference in principle there that I've been trying to explain. Should I continue? You don't seem to care.

 

[Iceman]

There's so much equivocation on the concept of 'regulation' that it's difficult to agree, or disagree, with such an unqualified statement. When regulations attempt to dictate personal economic decisions, I'd say they are wrong, if not 'unreasonable'. Laws requiring honesty and transparency in transactions, however, are both reasonable and helpful.

So you think government should be involved in the marketplace where you want, and that is reasonable. But it is unreasonable when government is involved when you don't want it. Got it.

Heh... Have you notice all your posts are trying to constuct strawmen, and I keep having to come in and take off the carrot nose you've attached???

Anyway, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that regulations that actually protect people from fraud and deception are fine. Those that try to dictate our personal values and decisions aren't. There's a difference in principle there that I've been trying to explain. Should I continue? You don't seem to care.

So I should be able to sell cocaine or meth?

 

[dblack]

So you think government should be involved in the marketplace where you want, and that is reasonable. But it is unreasonable when government is involved when you don't want it. Got it.

Heh... Have you notice all your posts are trying to constuct strawmen, and I keep having to come in and take off the carrot nose you've attached???

Anyway, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that regulations that actually protect people from fraud and deception are fine. Those that try to dictate our personal values and decisions aren't. There's a difference in principle there that I've been trying to explain. Should I continue? You don't seem to care.

So I should be able to sell cocaine or meth?

Yep.

 

[Iceman]

Heh... Have you notice all your posts are trying to constuct strawmen, and I keep having to come in and take off the carrot nose you've attached???

Anyway, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that regulations that actually protect people from fraud and deception are fine. Those that try to dictate our personal values and decisions aren't. There's a difference in principle there that I've been trying to explain. Should I continue? You don't seem to care.

So I should be able to sell cocaine or meth?

Yep.

OK. At least you are consistent. I was asking that line of questioning to understand where you are coming from. At least you are a consistent libertarian unlike republicans who oppose minimum wage here.

Good luck getting people to think getting rid of minimum wage and legalizing meth and cocaine are reasonable.

 

[dblack]

So I should be able to sell cocaine or meth?

Yep.

OK. At least you are consistent. I was asking that line of questioning to understand where you are coming from. At least you are a consistent libertarian unlike republicans who oppose minimum wage here.

Good luck getting people to think getting rid of minimum wage and legalizing meth and cocaine are reasonable.

Indeed. These days it will take much more than luck to get voters to do anything reasonable.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yep.

OK. At least you are consistent. I was asking that line of questioning to understand where you are coming from. At least you are a consistent libertarian unlike republicans who oppose minimum wage here.

Good luck getting people to think getting rid of minimum wage and legalizing meth and cocaine are reasonable.

Indeed. These days it will take much more than luck to get voters to do anything reasonable.

Well, to be fair, our voting and political systems are specifically designed to force voters to choose from one of two unreasonable choices.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So it is unreasonable to regulate the marketplace?

In most cases, "regulation" of the market is nothing more than criminal theft by a well connected cadre of looters.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, to be fair, our voting and political systems are specifically designed to force voters to choose from one of two unreasonable choices.

That generally amount to the same choice....

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama’s Attack on Low-Income Workers

January 7, 2014 by Arnold Ahlert

Democrats and President Obama aim to make raising the minimum wage and focusing on growing inequality their main agenda for the 2014 mid-term election campaign. The strategy behind the effort is two-fold: make Republicans defend their opposition to a policy favored by a majority of the public, and increase the turnout of youth and minority voters who lean Democrat, but typically stay way from mid-term elections. Unfortunately, the effort amounts to little more than feel-good populism supported by a host of dubious actors, even as it masks the true nature of the problem.

The dubious actors have familiar names. They include ACORN, the community organizer group that was defunded by Congress in 2009, following a tax fraud scandal, Industrial Areas Foundation, which was founded by radical strategist Saul Alinksy, labor unions such as the SEIU, and other progressive entities like Americans United for Change and the National Employment Law Project.

...

“Getting beyond [capitalist policies], shouldn’t there be massive income inequality between someone with rare skills who works 70 hours a week and an unskilled part time worker? Most people say ‘yes’ and even liberals who talk obsessively about income inequality behave as if there should be a difference. Do you see Michael Moore, Barack Obama, or Al Gore refusing to work for more than $20 an hour because they want to show solidarity with poor workers? No, they believe they deserve their money, but those ‘other people’ should have more of their money taken away for the common good. If a CEO should have his pay limited, why shouldn’t Michael Moore make $20 an hour? If Barack Obama thinks fast food workers are so vitally important to the economy, why doesn’t he reduce his salary to the point where he only makes as much as they do? If Al Gore really believes in fighting for income inequality, why doesn’t he refuse to make more than the guy who spends 8 hours a day saying, ‘Welcome to Wal-Mart?’”

The answer to Hawkins’ question is simple. Progressivism is about talking the talk of “compassion,” not walking the walk. There has never been a society in the history world where wealth redistribution has obviated the need for a cabal of wealthy elitists and their (often bloodthirsty) enforcers who must ensure the so-called equality of the masses, even as they enrich themselves in the process. Despite all protests to the contrary “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs” is, and alway has been, for the little people.

...

Obama?s Attack on Low-Income Workers | FrontPage Magazine

 

[RoadVirus]

Raising the minimum wage is a job killer. Simple as that.

That's what Obama does best!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A better name for this thread would have been:

Dems big push for 2014 is going to be buying votes with the money of business owners.

 

[candycorn]

A better name for this thread would have been:

Dems big push for 2014 is going to be buying votes with the money of business owners.

Probably more of a 2016 purchase.