Obama wants to raise the minimum wage when we're on the verge of a second recession?

[Dubya]

my bad....i mixed up GE with GM....but the principle remains the same.....both are beneficiaries of Big Government who subsidizes them.....instead of promoting a free competitive market we have BO pushing his 'green' ideas upon the market.....for example by using our Tax Money to subsidize GE and then banning incandescent bulbs (more regulation)....so the GE lightbulb plant in Virginia shuts down which creates JOB LOSS.....and the kicker is most of the dangerous-to-the-environment $50 CFL bulbs are being made in China....a free market would never permit this kind of top-down idiocy....

free trade encourages growth and promotes innovation and competition....and it promotes economic freedom....which promotes freedom overall....

the free market has actually been raising labor wages in China so they aren't the cheapest anymore......in fact many of the cheap products are now being produced in other more competitive Asian countries like Tailand and Vietnam....and some of the companies are even coming back to the U.S.......like the US has been doing China is now in the process of gearing alot of its manufacturing to better more innovative and expensive products....

change is hard for some.....and some industries suffer from competition.....but attempting to control economic trade from the White House just leaves us with high taxes and stupid lightbulbs.....

Post proof of a subsidy! A loan paid back with interest is not a subsidy.

Proof has been posted to you before, even in a thread that you demanded.

GM is not GE, but the government has already made more revenue from not allowing GM to fail than it would if they did fail. That's what economics is and I know for a fact, good economics is only something for a right-winger to destroy.

You right-wingers don't want to fund the government, so you destroy the industrial base of your own country for that purpose. You oppose everything that is good for an economy. That's not an accusation, that's a fact!

 

[dblack]

Post proof of a subsidy! A loan paid back with interest is not a subsidy.

I fail to see how the 'profitability' of these special favors has any bearing. Unless you are positing profit as the point of government - which I would argue vehemently against.

We're really in the midst of a transition from a liberal democracy, based on universal rights and rule of law, to a corporatist state, based on group-rights and rule by decree. Under the 'new normal', your rights depend on who you are, who you know or what group you belong to. If your business, or a business you've invested in, is "too big to fail" or simply well-connected in DC, you're more likely to get bailouts and exemptions. If not, too bad. If you belong to a class or group with an aggressive lobbying presence, your needs will be attended to. If not, too bad.

Equal protection isn't such a bad thing. We should reconsider it before leaping to the bottom of this ravine.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Post proof of a subsidy! A loan paid back with interest is not a subsidy.

Proof has been posted to you before, even in a thread that you demanded.

GM is not GE, but the government has already made more revenue from not allowing GM to fail than it would if they did fail. That's what economics is and I know for a fact, good economics is only something for a right-winger to destroy.

You right-wingers don't want to fund the government, so you destroy the industrial base of your own country for that purpose. You oppose everything that is good for an economy. That's not an accusation, that's a fact!

Do you know the amount we are going to lose as the GM stocks are liquidated?

Only in the govt is a loss considered a win.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What planet do you live on where you believe this to be a good idea?

More money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending.

Well hell, let's get them printing presses rolling. Paper is a renewable resource, after all!

Is anything I said false?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What planet do you live on where you believe this to be a good idea?

More money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending.

The unintelligent who can't predict potential consequences past step 1 would think that. The rest of us are slightly more intelligent.

So intelligent that you don't even have to present any argument or justify your position in anyway except to call everyone else stupid?

Wow - that's REALLY intelligent.

 

[Truthmatters]

all the studies show small raises in the minimum wage to not adversely effect unemployment

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

all the studies show small raises in the minimum wage to not adversely effect unemployment

So does all the historical reality.

 

[driveby]

I say again, for the 4th time: I made $4.25 an hour bagging groceries when I first got into college. Now, it is $7.25 min wage.

In between those two eras, we had huge economic booms in the mid 90's and mid 00's.

We'll be fine.

Yep and hamburgers used to be 10 cents, clown. Raising the minimum wage will do nothing but help whiny ass liberals feel good about themselves while accomplishing zilch. Keep up the bad work, comrade....

 

[driveby]

all the studies show small raises in the minimum wage to not adversely effect unemployment

1) Going from $7.25 to $9.00 is not a "small raise".

2) "All studies" is a flat out lie.

3) If government and government loving clowns just get out of the private sector's way, unemployment will go down and wages will go up.

 

[Dubya]

Post proof of a subsidy! A loan paid back with interest is not a subsidy.

I fail to see how the 'profitability' of these special favors has any bearing. Unless you are positing profit as the point of government - which I would argue vehemently against.

We're really in the midst of a transition from a liberal democracy, based on universal rights and rule of law, to a corporatist state, based on group-rights and rule by decree. Under the 'new normal', your rights depend on who you are, who you know or what group you belong to. If your business, or a business you've invested in, is "too big to fail" or simply well-connected in DC, you're more likely to get bailouts and exemptions. If not, too bad. If you belong to a class or group with an aggressive lobbying presence, your needs will be attended to. If not, too bad.

Equal protection isn't such a bad thing. We should reconsider it before leaping to the bottom of this ravine.

Why did the government take GM stock for collateral and sell it when it did?

 

[dblack]

Post proof of a subsidy! A loan paid back with interest is not a subsidy.

I fail to see how the 'profitability' of these special favors has any bearing. Unless you are positing profit as the point of government - which I would argue vehemently against.

We're really in the midst of a transition from a liberal democracy, based on universal rights and rule of law, to a corporatist state, based on group-rights and rule by decree. Under the 'new normal', your rights depend on who you are, who you know or what group you belong to. If your business, or a business you've invested in, is "too big to fail" or simply well-connected in DC, you're more likely to get bailouts and exemptions. If not, too bad. If you belong to a class or group with an aggressive lobbying presence, your needs will be attended to. If not, too bad.

Equal protection isn't such a bad thing. We should reconsider it before leaping to the bottom of this ravine.

Why did the government take GM stock for collateral and sell it when it did?

I have no idea. Why is it relevant?

 

[dblack]

More money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending.

Well hell, let's get them printing presses rolling. Paper is a renewable resource, after all!

Is anything I said false?

Well, beyond the entire Keynesian premise? I suppose not. In any case, I don't think it's properly the job of government to sponsor consumer spending.

 

[Dubya]

I fail to see how the 'profitability' of these special favors has any bearing. Unless you are positing profit as the point of government - which I would argue vehemently against.

We're really in the midst of a transition from a liberal democracy, based on universal rights and rule of law, to a corporatist state, based on group-rights and rule by decree. Under the 'new normal', your rights depend on who you are, who you know or what group you belong to. If your business, or a business you've invested in, is "too big to fail" or simply well-connected in DC, you're more likely to get bailouts and exemptions. If not, too bad. If you belong to a class or group with an aggressive lobbying presence, your needs will be attended to. If not, too bad.

Equal protection isn't such a bad thing. We should reconsider it before leaping to the bottom of this ravine.

Why did the government take GM stock for collateral and sell it when it did?

I have no idea. Why is it relevant?

It's relevant because the stupid government took GM stock and sold it when it was stupid to sell it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well hell, let's get them printing presses rolling. Paper is a renewable resource, after all!

Is anything I said false?

Well, beyond the entire Keynesian premise? I suppose not. In any case, I don't think it's properly the job of government to sponsor consumer spending.

Who said anything about the role of government? I said more money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending. Are you saying more money in the hands of the working poor means less consumer spending?

 

[Bern80]

You think the people with the money are likely to fix the problem?

Uhh, no. I think I was pretty clear in stating it's not a problem that is their responsibility to fix.

And....you're full of shit with the warm fuzzy bullshit.

The evidence is to the contrary, because that seems to be the single positive characteristic of those policies. On paper and without much in the way of extra thought in terms of how they would play out in practices, that they initially sound like nice, compassionate things to do seems to be their only redeeming quality. Liberals are just plain horse shit problem solvers because all of their solutions are based on emotion which is the enemy of objectivity and reason and it is those later two traits that are best at determining whether something actually works.

Like I said....you are full of shit.

If that's really all you got with nothing to counter to show I'm wrong, you'll forgive me if I'm not terribly offended.

 

[Bern80]

Anyone who thinks it's OK for the 1% to end up with all the money can kiss my big orange east Tennessee Volunteer coon dawg ass!!

You're as bad as laughable. You have no reasonable counter argument so you resort to this. You didn't answer my question.

And no I don't think all of the money should be held among the 1%. I don't really care how it's divided up. My point is, if you want more it's your damn job to figure out how to get it.

 

[Bern80]

So you believe that the problem in this country is that workers have too much advantage?

So things would be better if workers had even fewer rights, protections, and powers under the law?

lol

Once again the core principle of conservative economic policy appears:

the working class must be made poorer and weaker.

It isn't my problem that you have a problem being honest. Stating that labor has slight advantage over business in negotiating compensation does not equate to some fictitious desire to keep the working class down. In a negotiation over wages labor is always going think their worth more and business is always going to pay less and the market determines something in the middle that isn't exactly what either parties want. The question is why is labor's position that they should be paid more, more valid than business position to pay as little as possible? How can you be so obtuse as not to not see that a laborer is never going to, nor should they get paid exactly what they want anymore than a business is going to get to pay labor exactly what they want. The fact that you want more doesn't mean you're entitled to more.

The market for labor in China is a buck an hour or less. Shouldn't Americans be paid about the same, if they're doing about the same as a Chinese worker is?

Another person who can't answer my question. And no they shouldn't be paid what chinese workers are paid. This is the dumbest thing you've said yet. Does the concept of regional markets completely escape you?

 

[Bern80]

I look at life like this. If I go somewhere and do anything necessary for my existence, I should pay the people involved enough money for their existence. Think of all the things a person spends their money on and all the jobs necessary for that product to exist and someone to sell it to you. To me, all those people are necessary and if I have to pay more for that product, instead of lord over another human being, I choose to pay more. I want the person who rings a product up on a cash register to earn a living wage and not be eligible for social programs to subsidize a business paying someone substandard wages. A business that isn't paying it's employees enough to live isn't doing it's job and is being subsidized by the government. Our society also has it's working poor and they shouldn't have to get two or three jobs and work 3,500 hours per year to make a living without government assistance. If we need them to do a job, we should properly pay them and treat them with respect.

Then you're looking at it wrong. Simple as that. No entrepreneur went in to business for themselves with their only goal being to earn enough to get by. Successful entrepreneurs aren't know for their inefficiency and going into business just to get by is pretty damn inefficient. You have clearly never operated a business of your own. Do you even realize how unfair it would be to your own workers to compensate them the way you are proposing?

 

[Bern80]

More money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending.

The unintelligent who can't predict potential consequences past step 1 would think that. The rest of us are slightly more intelligent.

So intelligent that you don't even have to present any argument or justify your position in anyway except to call everyone else stupid?

Wow - that's REALLY intelligent.

It's not my job to do your thinking for you. All of you idiots say the same thing. 'If I were a business owner, I'd make sure all my employees made at least enough to live on.' Here's one thing you didn't think of. How fair is it to pay two people that work for you different wages for doing the same job?

 

[dblack]

Is anything I said false?

Well, beyond the entire Keynesian premise? I suppose not. In any case, I don't think it's properly the job of government to sponsor consumer spending.

Who said anything about the role of government? I said more money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending. Are you saying more money in the hands of the working poor means less consumer spending?

No. I'm saying promoting consumer spending isn't justification for state policy. I want a government focused on protecting our freedom and security, not manipulating the economy.