Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Markle]

Like I said; bailout the wealthiest, and then let it trickle down. Only the wealthiest are, too big to not bailout.

Has anyone poor given you a job?

Who has been bailed out? The banks? They repaid that with interest. I wasn't in favor of that but I understood the reason. As for the auto industry, that should never have happened.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Has anyone poor given you a job?

In all fairness to danielpalos, virtually all of the customers buying weed from him are poor.

Who has been bailed out? The banks? They repaid that with interest. I wasn't in favor of that but I understood the reason. As for the auto industry, that should never have happened.

The banks should not have either.

 

[Markle]

Does the increase exceed inflation? Does it run the same? How will the cut to the increase in SNAP affect the 1.4 million veterans who are currently enrolled in the program?

As Uncensored2008 said, it is not a cut, it is a reduction in the rate of GROWTH.

 

[Markle]

Really? Maybe you need to do some light reading, pal, and catch up to the rest of 2012. Conservatives deliberately tried to deceive people by pushing this paper whose authors had to lie, manipulate, and omit in order to get the conclusion their ideology had committed them to. Why do you think they didn't want their paper to be peer-reviewed??????? Obviously because doing so would have caught the deliberate data omissions and "spreadsheet errors" that produced the conclusion Conservatives wanted; that high government debt levels translate to slower growth. WHICH IS NOT TRUE AT ALL AND IS FAKE NEWS.

Soooooo...what that means is that if the thing Conservatives were relying on to make their arguments about government debt and spending was a fucking lie, doesn't that make those who spread the fucking lie, fucking liars themselves? And if they lied about that, why wouldn't they lie about other things? I don't feel like these are unfair questions to ask. You either went along with their conclusions because you are stupid, or you did it because you're a liar. Doesn't really matter to me which is which. I think both suck equally.

You state that high government debt levels translate to slower growth are FAKE NEWS.

Do you deny that the annual debt service on $20 TRILLION is at least double that of $10 TRILLION? Where do you imagine the money comes from in order to pay that additional interest? That money will come out of our economy, out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the pockets of those holding our IOU's. Please explain how that does NOT slow our growth.

 

[Markle]

Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average right now, and they still manage to turn a profit. So if they can do it, why can't everyone else?

Of course, maybe you should just pay people in faith...since that seems to be the only thing guiding your philosophy.

As you know, you are lying about the salaries at Costco. Their cashiers and asst. cashiers are paid between $13.00 and $15.00 per hour. Consider that a cashier does have to be able to count.

 

[danielpalos]

I love low-skilled workers.
Why don't you think they deserve $100/hr?

Why are you intentionally spiking a debate? Is the reaosn because you know you cannot win it if we speak in plain terms? Is that why you always have to go to extremes as you debate? Because you don't have the thought or capacity to think critically?

Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average right now, and they still manage to turn a profit.
Well, shit, if they have a profit, why not $25/hr?
Think of all the extra spending their workers could do.......

Yeah, maybe they should get paid even more. You haven't made the argument they shouldn't. The best you can do is go from $7.25/hr to $100/hr. You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised, but you don't want to admit it on the message board because of your ego.

Get over yourself.

Why are you intentionally spiking a debate?

They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
Can you explain why?

You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised

Why? Why do unskilled workers need government force to raise their wages?

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour; that is Why.

They'd cost less if slackers were removed from the rolls.

Only in right wing fantasy; the left knows we are also paying for alleged, wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[danielpalos]

They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
Can you explain why?

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru. Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru. All I have said is that there exists a middle ground somewhere. And that point is one you do not want to agree with because of your ego, nothing more.

So get over yourself.

You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised
Why? Why do unskilled workers need government force to raise their wages?

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get. So why do you hate American workers so much that you think they should be paid and treated like the workers in China?

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru

And apparently it's not feasible to pay them $15/hr either.

Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru.

Based on supply and demand, it does seem feasible.

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get.

Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers.

Yes, it is; Only lousy Capitalists have a problem with it.

Yes, it is;

Is that why you're able to pay all your employees that much?

that's the plan, Stan.

 

[danielpalos]

[
Only through wealth. There is plenty of demand for water in the Gobi Desert, by the poor.

So why is there not overwhelming supply? The neo-Marxists of the democratic party claim that demand is the catalyst for production, yet here we have demand and no product. How can this be possible?

Supply side economics, is about, "overwhelming supply". There is simply, not enough demand.

Solving simple poverty, would ensure capital circulates in our Republic and engender positive multiplier effects.

For some on the left, it seems, "the poor only get around three fifths", "open interest" on "demand" options.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
Can you explain why?

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru. Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru. All I have said is that there exists a middle ground somewhere. And that point is one you do not want to agree with because of your ego, nothing more.

So get over yourself.

You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised
Why? Why do unskilled workers need government force to raise their wages?

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get. So why do you hate American workers so much that you think they should be paid and treated like the workers in China?

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru

And apparently it's not feasible to pay them $15/hr either.

Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru.

Based on supply and demand, it does seem feasible.

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get.

Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers.

Yes, it is; Only lousy Capitalists have a problem with it.

Yes, it is;

Is that why you're able to pay all your employees that much?

that's the plan, Stan.

Yeah, let us know how much tax you pay on your weed profits.

 

[danielpalos]

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru. Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru. All I have said is that there exists a middle ground somewhere. And that point is one you do not want to agree with because of your ego, nothing more.

So get over yourself.



Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get. So why do you hate American workers so much that you think they should be paid and treated like the workers in China?

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru

And apparently it's not feasible to pay them $15/hr either.

Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru.

Based on supply and demand, it does seem feasible.

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get.

Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers.

Yes, it is; Only lousy Capitalists have a problem with it.

Yes, it is;

Is that why you're able to pay all your employees that much?

that's the plan, Stan.

Yeah, let us know how much tax you pay on your weed profits.

commercial weed is about ten dollars an ounce, "right off the top".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru

And apparently it's not feasible to pay them $15/hr either.

Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru.

Based on supply and demand, it does seem feasible.

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get.

Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers.

Yes, it is; Only lousy Capitalists have a problem with it.

Yes, it is;

Is that why you're able to pay all your employees that much?

that's the plan, Stan.

Yeah, let us know how much tax you pay on your weed profits.

commercial weed is about ten dollars an ounce, "right off the top".

Let me know when you pay any tax.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is; Only lousy Capitalists have a problem with it.

Yes, it is;

Is that why you're able to pay all your employees that much?

that's the plan, Stan.

Yeah, let us know how much tax you pay on your weed profits.

commercial weed is about ten dollars an ounce, "right off the top".

Let me know when you pay any tax.

i pay tax every time i buy something at any store.

 

[The Derp]

And apparently it's not feasible to pay them $15/hr either.

According to whom?

Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru.
Based on supply and demand, it does seem feasible.

No it doesn't because taxpayers have to pick up the slack by providing welfare benefits to compensate for the low wage. Basically, for every worker who gets welfare benefits, we are partially subsidizing that cost, which means we are partially subsidizing their profits.

Walmart, for example, pays its workers so little that taxpayers have to fork out about $5B in benefits and entitlements. Walmart's profits last year were about $14B. So US taxpayers subsidize more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits. Talk about the government picking winners and losers!

Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get.
Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers.

Nonsense. Businesses already do that right now. How many OSHA complaints are there a month to the Department of Labor?

 

[The Derp]

They'd cost less if slackers were removed from the rolls.

Who are the slackers?

 

[The Derp]

Let me know when you pay any tax.

We know that you don't pay any taxes because you don't have a job. And we know that because you project that shit out on everyone else.

 

[danielpalos]

They'd cost less if slackers were removed from the rolls.

Who are the slackers?

Right wingers with only third world excuses.

 

[The Derp]

So raising the wages for all minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else. Because, math.
Cool. Let's make it $100/hr, because math.

Stop trolling and flaming. You and I both know what I'm talking about here. So all you're doing by exercising these kinds of hysterics is to prevent any serious debate from moving forward. I'll just take your flaming as a concession on your part. Wouldn't want your ego to get too bruised, right?

There's that phrase again, "I think..." You're basing that thought on what, exactly?
On the fact that making it illegal for someone to work for less than MW harms unskilled workers who are disproportionally minorities.

But that's not a fact. That is what you "think", which would make it your opinion that isn't informed by any actual evidence. There's nothing that shows raising the MW hurts low-skill workers. In fact, from 2014 we know that raising wages results in faster job growth than not raising wages. That's something you have been unable to reconcile in this thread. So you just do what you always do; substitute your precious feelings in place of actual facts.

Why would businesses raise wages if there was no minimum wage?
Considering that fewer than 1 million workers make the Federal minimum wage, your question is fucking stupid.

I'm not talking about just the federal minimum wage, and I notice how you cut that part out of my post from before in your response. You did that because you are exercising sophistry. You are trying to make this about the federal minimum wage, but I'm talking about the minimum wage. So why are you doing that, knowing that many states have minimum wages above the federal one, yet still below the $14/hr it costs to provide basic assistance and benefits?

Conservatives say time after time that businesses look forward at upcoming tax rates and base their hiring on those.
Oh, they ignore tax rates. DERP!

So which is it, do they or don't they? Or is this just another instance of Conservative goalpost shifting? I think that's the likely answer here.

Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.
Well, they did. You claimed they didn't. You were wrong. Again.

LOL! The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. They were passed in 2001. Businesses forecast based on those tax cuts beginning in 2001, because that's what Conservatives always say they do! Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years. He would go on to lose net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts did not spur hiring, the Bush Mortgage Bubble did. But you are the one now tying the Bush Tax Cuts to the Bush Mortgage Bubble by misrepresenting the job growth. Was that your intent?

Setting aside that ridiculously ludicrous premise, you are making a correlation-is-causation argument
Like you when you point out that Reagan's tax cuts occurred the month after the 1981 recession began, and blame the former for the latter.

I never blamed the Reagan Tax Cuts for the 1981 recession. I blamed the Reagan Tax Cuts for the job loss that would occur throughout 1982.

Again, why are you saying something that is demonstrably untrue?
Pointing out your correlation=causation fallacy is demonstrably untrue? LOL!

Follow the thread closer. What you tried to say was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs. However, the empirical evidence from 2014 shows the opposite. So either 2014 is a freak outlier, or you're full of shit. Which is it?

No, a higher MW would increase revenues.
And after you subtract wage expenses, profits would be lower.

Not if your revenues are higher. What you have failed to prove is that consumption doesn't increase if wages increase. When a low-wage worker gets paid more money, they spend that money. So you are ignoring the growth in revenues that come from increase consumption which comes from increased wages. So why are you doing that? Why are you ignoring the YUGE piece of the equation? You are assuming revenues stay the same after a wage increase, and that's just not true. So let's figure out why you think that? Why do you personally think raising wages does not translate to increased consumption, yet cutting taxes does???

o explain to me how raising someone's wage won't result in more spending,
When you force an employer to pay a worker worth $7.25/hr,$10/hr, or more, that newly unemployed worker will spend less.

So again, you start off your argument with a flawed premise that has no base of support. Your claim that jobs are lost when the minimum wage is raised is not supported by any empirical evidence, is it? Your personal feelings are not empirical. Job numbers are. And we saw in 2014 that the states that raised their minimum wage had faster job growth than the states that didn't. You also completely avoided the inherent contradiction within your own argument; that somehow reducing taxes increases consumption, yet increases wages doesn't. That's a self-contradiction that pretty much spikes your entire argument from the get-go. So you are arguing a flawed position from a flawed premise that has no actual evidence to support it other than your personal feelings. Such a snowflake!

This is why everything you believe in is a crock of shit...
Liberals who don't understand economics and can't do math often feel that way when reality is explained to them.

You're the one whose governing economic ideology is based on a Hollywood movie about ghostly ballplayers.

There exists a middle ground that makes economic sense between $15/hr and $100/hr.
The correct minimum wage is $0.

Idiot.

I am not an economist.
No fucking kidding.

I don't pretend to be one either, unlike you who does and then just ignores the inherent contradictions in your own argument. So why do you play pretend? Is your ego that fragile that you must posture on internet message boards to feel better about yourself? What a baby!

 

[The Derp]

You state that high government debt levels translate to slower growth are FAKE NEWS.

Because it is fake news. Conservatives were lying about it. Here's the Bloomberg Article that perfectly explains how they lied about it. Take a read for yourself, and wallow in your own naivety.

Do you deny that the annual debt service on $20 TRILLION is at least double that of $10 TRILLION? Where do you imagine the money comes from in order to pay that additional interest? That money will come out of our economy, out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the pockets of those holding our IOU's. Please explain how that does NOT slow our growth.

So where was all this debt concern back in 2001 when you all erased a surplus and produced record deficits by cutting taxes? We only have the debt today because you fucking assholes cut taxes in 2001, erasing a surplus and producing record deficits.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Supply side economics, is about, "overwhelming supply". There is simply, not enough demand.

Solving simple poverty, would ensure capital circulates in our Republic and engender positive multiplier effects.

For some on the left, it seems, "the poor only get around three fifths", "open interest" on "demand" options.

Again stoner boi, you have not a hint of a clue as to how supply side economics works, nor indeed how Keynesian theory works. You have a sum total of zero knowledge on the subject under discussion.

Supply side economics as proposed by the brilliant economist Dr. Arthur Laffer holds quite simply that production is the single most important factor in economics. (Hence why I earned a Ph.D. in Supply Chain Management to augment my credentials rather than pursuing traditional economics.) The key to macroeconomics is equilibrium. This is the point that demand and supply intersect, which by necessity is the most efficient use of resources.

Now you have never had an economics course, nor did you finish high school, but a universal truth is that scarcity drives all economic systems. To put it in a way you can understand, you as a dope dealer have had times where you couldn't get any pot to sell, supplies were short. What did that do to you dope dealing business? Did demand create a new supply of dope? On the other hand, if you get a shipment of 30 pounds in and can only sell a few ounces a week, you have a lot of capital tied up in weed that isn't moving - which you will end up smoking rather than selling.

So the goal in macroeconomics is to match the supply of goods with the demand.

Now when demand increases, two things can happen, either prices increase to contain the scarcity of the goods, or supply increases to meet the demand. Supply side economics recognizes the fact that only an increase in production can result in an increase in supply. Demand will never, and cannot increase the supply of anything, only production can do this. Hence supply side theory is axiomatically true. No amount of Keynesian stimulus to the public will alter supply in any way. Demand does not increase supply, only production increases supply. In a capitalist society, industrialists will generally monitor demand and increase production if possible, but it is not demand that creates supply, demand only creates opportunity for production. Production alone creates supply. Only the pot growers planting more Marijuana increase the amount of dope you can sell. Your stoner buddies cannot change the amount of weed on the market.

China, though a socialist country is a great example of supply side theory in action. During the heyday of Mao, about a third of the population was technically starving, lacking the food needed to maintain normal health. Mao as you know, ran a purely demand driven economy. The state accounted for demand and allocated production to what they viewed as goods needing supply. 90% of China was in abject poverty

After Nixon opened China, American companies began engaging in production in China. This production transformed the dictatorship to the point that starvation has been entirely eradicated and poverty is under 20%. It was production that changed the dynamic, Demand was irrelevant, the goods produced were not even offered to Chinese consumers. Production created jobs, jobs provided income.

Supply side is about the role of production, not about "trickle down."

The left has dishonestly used the term trickle down due to the supply side remedy to the business cycle. Under Keynesian economics, the response of monetary policy during economic down turns is to create fiat currency and large deficits to pump cash into the economy as a means of "priming the pump." Under the General Theory, Keynes advocated for this stimulus to go directly to individuals, the Roosevelt WPA is prime example, people were employed and paid by the government to build roads and bridges, money went directly to citizens.

Now the Porkulus of Obama is quite different, the trillions of dollars he spent went to public employee unions, auto manufacturers, and other well connected looters, so his fiasco cannot be viewed as a Keynesian stimulus.

Supply side holds that the most effective way to end a recession is to stimulate production, since it is not demand that falters, but supply in a recession. (The poor still want a loaf of bread, they simply cannot afford it due rising prices). To stimulate production, the most direct route is to reduce the amount of capital that the government confiscates from business. This is accomplished by lowering taxes.

One of the lies of the left is that lowering taxes has a unique impact on the public treasury; both a stimulus AND tax breaks have an impact. To claim that only lowering taxes has such and impact is highly dishonest.

Anyway, I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So raising the wages for all minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else. Because, math.
Cool. Let's make it $100/hr, because math.

Stop trolling and flaming. You and I both know what I'm talking about here. So all you're doing by exercising these kinds of hysterics is to prevent any serious debate from moving forward. I'll just take your flaming as a concession on your part. Wouldn't want your ego to get too bruised, right?

There's that phrase again, "I think..." You're basing that thought on what, exactly?
On the fact that making it illegal for someone to work for less than MW harms unskilled workers who are disproportionally minorities.

But that's not a fact. That is what you "think", which would make it your opinion that isn't informed by any actual evidence. There's nothing that shows raising the MW hurts low-skill workers. In fact, from 2014 we know that raising wages results in faster job growth than not raising wages. That's something you have been unable to reconcile in this thread. So you just do what you always do; substitute your precious feelings in place of actual facts.

Why would businesses raise wages if there was no minimum wage?
Considering that fewer than 1 million workers make the Federal minimum wage, your question is fucking stupid.

I'm not talking about just the federal minimum wage, and I notice how you cut that part out of my post from before in your response. You did that because you are exercising sophistry. You are trying to make this about the federal minimum wage, but I'm talking about the minimum wage. So why are you doing that, knowing that many states have minimum wages above the federal one, yet still below the $14/hr it costs to provide basic assistance and benefits?

Conservatives say time after time that businesses look forward at upcoming tax rates and base their hiring on those.
Oh, they ignore tax rates. DERP!

So which is it, do they or don't they? Or is this just another instance of Conservative goalpost shifting? I think that's the likely answer here.

Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.
Well, they did. You claimed they didn't. You were wrong. Again.

LOL! The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. They were passed in 2001. Businesses forecast based on those tax cuts beginning in 2001, because that's what Conservatives always say they do! Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years. He would go on to lose net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts did not spur hiring, the Bush Mortgage Bubble did. But you are the one now tying the Bush Tax Cuts to the Bush Mortgage Bubble by misrepresenting the job growth. Was that your intent?

Setting aside that ridiculously ludicrous premise, you are making a correlation-is-causation argument
Like you when you point out that Reagan's tax cuts occurred the month after the 1981 recession began, and blame the former for the latter.

I never blamed the Reagan Tax Cuts for the 1981 recession. I blamed the Reagan Tax Cuts for the job loss that would occur throughout 1982.

Again, why are you saying something that is demonstrably untrue?
Pointing out your correlation=causation fallacy is demonstrably untrue? LOL!

Follow the thread closer. What you tried to say was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs. However, the empirical evidence from 2014 shows the opposite. So either 2014 is a freak outlier, or you're full of shit. Which is it?

No, a higher MW would increase revenues.
And after you subtract wage expenses, profits would be lower.

Not if your revenues are higher. What you have failed to prove is that consumption doesn't increase if wages increase. When a low-wage worker gets paid more money, they spend that money. So you are ignoring the growth in revenues that come from increase consumption which comes from increased wages. So why are you doing that? Why are you ignoring the YUGE piece of the equation? You are assuming revenues stay the same after a wage increase, and that's just not true. So let's figure out why you think that? Why do you personally think raising wages does not translate to increased consumption, yet cutting taxes does???

o explain to me how raising someone's wage won't result in more spending,
When you force an employer to pay a worker worth $7.25/hr,$10/hr, or more, that newly unemployed worker will spend less.

So again, you start off your argument with a flawed premise that has no base of support. Your claim that jobs are lost when the minimum wage is raised is not supported by any empirical evidence, is it? Your personal feelings are not empirical. Job numbers are. And we saw in 2014 that the states that raised their minimum wage had faster job growth than the states that didn't. You also completely avoided the inherent contradiction within your own argument; that somehow reducing taxes increases consumption, yet increases wages doesn't. That's a self-contradiction that pretty much spikes your entire argument from the get-go. So you are arguing a flawed position from a flawed premise that has no actual evidence to support it other than your personal feelings. Such a snowflake!

This is why everything you believe in is a crock of shit...
Liberals who don't understand economics and can't do math often feel that way when reality is explained to them.

You're the one whose governing economic ideology is based on a Hollywood movie about ghostly ballplayers.

There exists a middle ground that makes economic sense between $15/hr and $100/hr.
The correct minimum wage is $0.

Idiot.

I am not an economist.
No fucking kidding.

I don't pretend to be one either, unlike you who does and then just ignores the inherent contradictions in your own argument. So why do you play pretend? Is your ego that fragile that you must posture on internet message boards to feel better about yourself? What a baby!

When it comes to economics, I respect a total of two people on this board, Toro and Toddsterpatriot . To call Todd a troll is patently absurd.I grew bored with you long ago, he is more patient than I.