I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

[The Rabbi]

hey OP- you know what I don't understand? Libs champion diversity but HATE Fox News.

Well there is absolutely nothing diverse about it luckily, I'm guessing you are referring to the liberal contributors that pop up every once in a while for the conservative show hosts to dangle in front of the camera to give the illusion the network is diverse, but in reality the rightwing bullshit is a non stop onslaught that over shadows anything they ever say. Typically you have three conservatives on a panel talking over the sole liberal and drowning him out.

How many conservatives are on MSNBC?

Apparently you never watch Morning Joe or watch the shows with conservative guests.

Just answer the question.

 

[Billy000]

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

So you support $50/hr as min wage?

No moron, I never said that.

I know. Why not? If 10/hr is good isnt 50/hr better? Wouldnt that unleash a torrent of consumer spending and drive the economy to new heights?
Come on, Billy. Dont fail now. Be consistent. If a higher min wage is good then let's really give a meaningful raise to America. Dont you think American workers are worth 50/hr?

Lol it's amazing how hard you try. Don't you ever get exhausted with your ridiculous responses to my threads? I mean my god you reply to all of them desperately trying to feel right and validated. It's pretty sad.

The obvious answer is that any idiot would tell you 50 is too much and would damage the economy. 15 however wouldn't be too much and would be barely kept up with inflation which is what is fair. Is it really so hard for you to figure that out?

Why is 15 not too much but 50 is too much? What is the line between just right and too much? How do you know?
Preparing for Billy Triple fail fail response in 3...2...1....

Well gee it we are talking about quantifiable values in the economy it shouldn't be too hard to establish limits. Economists determine what is a reasonable level to benefit the economy through consumer demand and indicate what would be too much that would only harm the job creators. Above 15 is too much.

You're terrible at this you know that right?

 

[Billy000]

hey OP- you know what I don't understand? Libs champion diversity but HATE Fox News.

Well there is absolutely nothing diverse about it luckily, I'm guessing you are referring to the liberal contributors that pop up every once in a while for the conservative show hosts to dangle in front of the camera to give the illusion the network is diverse, but in reality the rightwing bullshit is a non stop onslaught that over shadows anything they ever say. Typically you have three conservatives on a panel talking over the sole liberal and drowning him out.

How many conservatives are on MSNBC?

Apparently you never watch Morning Joe or watch the shows with conservative guests.

Just answer the question.

Morning Joe you ass with conservative guests on each program. Good god.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you support $50/hr as min wage?

No moron, I never said that.

I know. Why not? If 10/hr is good isnt 50/hr better? Wouldnt that unleash a torrent of consumer spending and drive the economy to new heights?
Come on, Billy. Dont fail now. Be consistent. If a higher min wage is good then let's really give a meaningful raise to America. Dont you think American workers are worth 50/hr?

Lol it's amazing how hard you try. Don't you ever get exhausted with your ridiculous responses to my threads? I mean my god you reply to all of them desperately trying to feel right and validated. It's pretty sad.

The obvious answer is that any idiot would tell you 50 is too much and would damage the economy. 15 however wouldn't be too much and would be barely kept up with inflation which is what is fair. Is it really so hard for you to figure that out?

Why is 15 not too much but 50 is too much? What is the line between just right and too much? How do you know?
Preparing for Billy Triple fail fail response in 3...2...1....

Well gee it we are talking about quantifiable values in the economy it shouldn't be too hard to establish limits. Economists determine what is a reasonable level to benefit the economy through consumer demand and indicate what would be too much that would only harm the job creators. Above 15 is too much.

You're terrible at this you know that right?

Please cite the economists who have determined that 15/hr is a reasonable limit.
You fail so badly when you make shit up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Milton Friedman owns Billy's ass.

 

[Billy000]

No moron, I never said that.

I know. Why not? If 10/hr is good isnt 50/hr better? Wouldnt that unleash a torrent of consumer spending and drive the economy to new heights?
Come on, Billy. Dont fail now. Be consistent. If a higher min wage is good then let's really give a meaningful raise to America. Dont you think American workers are worth 50/hr?

Lol it's amazing how hard you try. Don't you ever get exhausted with your ridiculous responses to my threads? I mean my god you reply to all of them desperately trying to feel right and validated. It's pretty sad.

The obvious answer is that any idiot would tell you 50 is too much and would damage the economy. 15 however wouldn't be too much and would be barely kept up with inflation which is what is fair. Is it really so hard for you to figure that out?

Why is 15 not too much but 50 is too much? What is the line between just right and too much? How do you know?
Preparing for Billy Triple fail fail response in 3...2...1....

Well gee it we are talking about quantifiable values in the economy it shouldn't be too hard to establish limits. Economists determine what is a reasonable level to benefit the economy through consumer demand and indicate what would be too much that would only harm the job creators. Above 15 is too much.

You're terrible at this you know that right?

Please cite the economists who have determined that 15/hr is a reasonable limit.
You fail so badly when you make shit up.

Lol you never cite jack shit you dipshit. They are the same economists that determined that 15 would be kept up with inflation. They work for the CBO. Don't believe me? I don't care.

 

[The Rabbi]

I know. Why not? If 10/hr is good isnt 50/hr better? Wouldnt that unleash a torrent of consumer spending and drive the economy to new heights?
Come on, Billy. Dont fail now. Be consistent. If a higher min wage is good then let's really give a meaningful raise to America. Dont you think American workers are worth 50/hr?

Lol it's amazing how hard you try. Don't you ever get exhausted with your ridiculous responses to my threads? I mean my god you reply to all of them desperately trying to feel right and validated. It's pretty sad.

The obvious answer is that any idiot would tell you 50 is too much and would damage the economy. 15 however wouldn't be too much and would be barely kept up with inflation which is what is fair. Is it really so hard for you to figure that out?

Why is 15 not too much but 50 is too much? What is the line between just right and too much? How do you know?
Preparing for Billy Triple fail fail response in 3...2...1....

Well gee it we are talking about quantifiable values in the economy it shouldn't be too hard to establish limits. Economists determine what is a reasonable level to benefit the economy through consumer demand and indicate what would be too much that would only harm the job creators. Above 15 is too much.

You're terrible at this you know that right?

Please cite the economists who have determined that 15/hr is a reasonable limit.
You fail so badly when you make shit up.

Lol you never cite jack shit you dipshit. They are the same economists that determined that 15 would be kept up with inflation. They work for the CBO. Don't believe me? I don't care.

Please list these economists who say 15 would be kept up with inflation, whatever that is supposed to mean. Please cite the CBO study that said 15/hr would be a desirable level.
Milton Friedman already owned your ass on this topic. Unlike your mythical CBO economists he won the Nobel Prize in the subject.

 

[Billy000]

Lol it's amazing how hard you try. Don't you ever get exhausted with your ridiculous responses to my threads? I mean my god you reply to all of them desperately trying to feel right and validated. It's pretty sad.

The obvious answer is that any idiot would tell you 50 is too much and would damage the economy. 15 however wouldn't be too much and would be barely kept up with inflation which is what is fair. Is it really so hard for you to figure that out?

Why is 15 not too much but 50 is too much? What is the line between just right and too much? How do you know?
Preparing for Billy Triple fail fail response in 3...2...1....

Well gee it we are talking about quantifiable values in the economy it shouldn't be too hard to establish limits. Economists determine what is a reasonable level to benefit the economy through consumer demand and indicate what would be too much that would only harm the job creators. Above 15 is too much.

You're terrible at this you know that right?

Please cite the economists who have determined that 15/hr is a reasonable limit.
You fail so badly when you make shit up.

Lol you never cite jack shit you dipshit. They are the same economists that determined that 15 would be kept up with inflation. They work for the CBO. Don't believe me? I don't care.

Please list these economists who say 15 would be kept up with inflation, whatever that is supposed to mean. Please cite the CBO study that said 15/hr would be a desirable level.
Milton Friedman already owned your ass on this topic. Unlike your mythical CBO economists he won the Nobel Prize in the subject.

Lol and the link I cited that said 200 economists signed a letter all supporting a minumum wage increase (7 of whom are Nobel prize winners) doesn't matter huh? You just like to pretend I didn't post that?

 

[Billy000]

Lol it's amazing how hard you try. Don't you ever get exhausted with your ridiculous responses to my threads? I mean my god you reply to all of them desperately trying to feel right and validated. It's pretty sad.

The obvious answer is that any idiot would tell you 50 is too much and would damage the economy. 15 however wouldn't be too much and would be barely kept up with inflation which is what is fair. Is it really so hard for you to figure that out?

Why is 15 not too much but 50 is too much? What is the line between just right and too much? How do you know?
Preparing for Billy Triple fail fail response in 3...2...1....

Well gee it we are talking about quantifiable values in the economy it shouldn't be too hard to establish limits. Economists determine what is a reasonable level to benefit the economy through consumer demand and indicate what would be too much that would only harm the job creators. Above 15 is too much.

You're terrible at this you know that right?

Please cite the economists who have determined that 15/hr is a reasonable limit.
You fail so badly when you make shit up.

Lol you never cite jack shit you dipshit. They are the same economists that determined that 15 would be kept up with inflation. They work for the CBO. Don't believe me? I don't care.

Please list these economists who say 15 would be kept up with inflation, whatever that is supposed to mean. Please cite the CBO study that said 15/hr would be a desirable level.
Milton Friedman already owned your ass on this topic. Unlike your mythical CBO economists he won the Nobel Prize in the subject.

Minimum Wage Mythbusters - U.S. Department of Labor

Wait it was actually 600 economists who voiced their support for raising the minimum wage. 7 of whom are Nobel prize winners.

"Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016."

 

[Slyhunter]

Lol you're talking about federal minimum wage which affects 3% of the population. There is no way that would have been the reason for the change in GDP.

If it only affects 3% of the population then what possible benefit could there be raising it?
Again, if 10/hr is good, why is 50/hr not better? You cannot answer this so you deflect. Because you are Billy Triple Fail.

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

I was responding to why not $50.
It misses the point.

How does it miss the point? It is the point! If 10/hr is good because it gives low wage workers money to spend and takes them off gov't programs then 50/hr would give them even more money to spend. Think of the jobs created by all that spending!

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

 

[dblack]

Billy000, or anyone else who supports minimum wage laws: Do you think that every job anyone might do is worth a living wage?

 

[dblack]

If it only affects 3% of the population then what possible benefit could there be raising it?
Again, if 10/hr is good, why is 50/hr not better? You cannot answer this so you deflect. Because you are Billy Triple Fail.

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

I was responding to why not $50.
It misses the point.

How does it miss the point? It is the point! If 10/hr is good because it gives low wage workers money to spend and takes them off gov't programs then 50/hr would give them even more money to spend. Think of the jobs created by all that spending!

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

The question is aimed at people who claim that there's no downside to raising the minimum wage. Clearly that's nonsense, as your answer here implies. There is a downside, The fantasy of supporters is that the downside will only affect the profits of employers.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't understand why republicans reject both a minimum wage hike and welfare for the poor

They both cost money.

But do you have any proof that higher costs are more expensive?

Dude do you realize how stupid that statement was?

Read the thread instead of hopping in thinking you understand the conversation.

 

[Royce99]

Because they want the super rich to have it all.

That's not possible, inheritance tax heard of it? Duh! Even with the trillions in wealth redistribution already going on you leftist socialist pukes want to steal even more from the people worked to earn it.

LMAO!!

The only estates the damned thing effected were those exceeding $5 million for a single individual and $10 million for a couple. In the last thirty years the rich have increased their incomes by nearly 300% while the lower half of earners have remained flat when adjusted for inflation. We get it.....you want the upper crust to get it all while a lord/serf society is created in America.

I have an idea: In the future any senator or representative who votes to send other folk's kids to fight and die in some god-for-saken desert 10,000 miles from home will be required to send one of their own family and pay a double tax rate for the rest of his life. That'll apply some brakes to this stupid warmongering crap which has been going on all my life.....'course I'm just 80.

 

[Iceweasel]

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

No it isn't, moron. The subject is minimum wage, not the salary for a grown up raising a family. You don't know the difference because....well, you are minimum wage material.

 

[Iceweasel]

I have an idea: In the future any senator or representative who votes to send other folk's kids to fight and die in some god-for-saken desert 10,000 miles from home will be required to send one of their own family and pay a double tax rate for the rest of his life. That'll apply some brakes to this stupid warmongering crap which has been going on all my life.....'course I'm just 80.

Does that include drone strikes and proxy battles in places like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? You want obama to send his teenage girls to the front, Herr Goering?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why is 15 not too much but 50 is too much? What is the line between just right and too much? How do you know?
Preparing for Billy Triple fail fail response in 3...2...1....

Well gee it we are talking about quantifiable values in the economy it shouldn't be too hard to establish limits. Economists determine what is a reasonable level to benefit the economy through consumer demand and indicate what would be too much that would only harm the job creators. Above 15 is too much.

You're terrible at this you know that right?

Please cite the economists who have determined that 15/hr is a reasonable limit.
You fail so badly when you make shit up.

Lol you never cite jack shit you dipshit. They are the same economists that determined that 15 would be kept up with inflation. They work for the CBO. Don't believe me? I don't care.

Please list these economists who say 15 would be kept up with inflation, whatever that is supposed to mean. Please cite the CBO study that said 15/hr would be a desirable level.
Milton Friedman already owned your ass on this topic. Unlike your mythical CBO economists he won the Nobel Prize in the subject.

Minimum Wage Mythbusters - U.S. Department of Labor

Wait it was actually 600 economists who voiced their support for raising the minimum wage. 7 of whom are Nobel prize winners.

"Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016."

A study? Lmao, i deal in reality , so no jobs were lost in 2009 since the last time it was raised?

 

[Royce99]

I have an idea: In the future any senator or representative who votes to send other folk's kids to fight and die in some god-for-saken desert 10,000 miles from home will be required to send one of their own family and pay a double tax rate for the rest of his life. That'll apply some brakes to this stupid warmongering crap which has been going on all my life.....'course I'm just 80.

Does that include drone strikes and proxy battles in places like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? You want obama to send his teenage girls to the front, Herr Goering?

I have news for you numbnuts! George W. Bush stirred up the entire middle east when he declared war on Saddam Hussein. Iraq had done nothing to America and had no part in 9/11. W. Bush was pissed about one thing...Saddam trying to assassinate Bush41 in Qatar circa 1993. Texas justice is expensive.....especially to everybody else except the Bushes.

Look at the bright side. Only 4500 young Americans were killed and another 35,000 seriously wounded...it could have been bad.

Oh! It wasn't just the Bushes wanting war in Iraq. Here's a letter from major Republicans to Bill Clinton dated 1998. They were champing at the bit then:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is
not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more
serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming
State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That
strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand
ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment
of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to
uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to
ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially
diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely,
experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter
many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of
confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a
seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam
does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we
continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and
allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil
will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the
first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness
of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or
threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein
and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a
strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.
Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the
dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN
resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in
the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of
mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security
interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future
at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

 

[Wyatt earp]

The question is to pay people enough so they can support themselves. Driving businesses into bankruptcy by trying to pay them too much is stupid. There is a middle answer.

The middle answer is raising the minimum wage.

I was responding to why not $50.
It misses the point.

How does it miss the point? It is the point! If 10/hr is good because it gives low wage workers money to spend and takes them off gov't programs then 50/hr would give them even more money to spend. Think of the jobs created by all that spending!

It's the difference between reasonable accommodation, and unreasonable.

The question is aimed at people who claim that there's no downside to raising the minimum wage. Clearly that's nonsense, as your answer here implies. There is a downside, The fantasy of supporters is that the downside will only affect the profits of employers.

Of course they do they think they are sticking it to the rich.

 

[Iceweasel]

I have an idea: In the future any senator or representative who votes to send other folk's kids to fight and die in some god-for-saken desert 10,000 miles from home will be required to send one of their own family and pay a double tax rate for the rest of his life. That'll apply some brakes to this stupid warmongering crap which has been going on all my life.....'course I'm just 80.

Does that include drone strikes and proxy battles in places like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? You want obama to send his teenage girls to the front, Herr Goering?

I have news for you numbnuts! George W. Bush stirred up the entire middle east when he declared war on Saddam Hussein. Iraq had done nothing to America and had no part in 9/11. W. Bush was pissed about one thing...Saddam trying to assassinate Bush41 in Qatar circa 1993. Texas justice is expensive.....especially to everybody else except the Bushes.

Look at the bright side. Only 4500 young Americans were killed and another 35,000 seriously wounded...it could have been bad.

Wrong, numbskull. You don't even understand why we went in. Ask Hillary, maybe she can explain it to you. No, we wouldn't have if the UN had been worth anything but they didn't do much besides run a oil for food scam that helped Saddam rebuild his army. You also left out obama's efforts in the ME. That's what happens when you can't think.