The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[P@triot]

Watching liberals have a meltdown because the data proves they are wrong is really remarkable. Fakey Jakey doesn't like 15 years of IRS data so he demands a conversation about CT. Londoner doesn't like the facts, so he requests "comparative analysis of Keynesian economics". And WryCatcher, well he just contradicts himself by holding some founders statements as gospel while dismissing other statements.

Man do liberals fall apart when facts prove their ideology is fucked up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The data is interesting but is failed to correlate or prove Rott's OP.

Rott brings up CT then doesn't discuss it, then blames me for asking about it.

Rott's pay master should fire him now.

 

[Londoner]

Watching liberals have a meltdown because the data proves they are wrong is really remarkable. Fakey Jakey doesn't like 15 years of IRS data so he demands a conversation about CT. Londoner doesn't like the facts, so he requests "comparative analysis of Keynesian economics". And WryCatcher, well he just contradicts himself by holding some founders statements as gospel while dismissing other statements.

Man do liberals fall apart when facts prove their ideology is fucked up.

Regarding your point about low tax states versus high tax states. Once again, you're cutting and pasting simplistic garbage without considering all the facts.

Do you know how many low tax Red States are net takers from the Federal Government? We subsidize these sad sacks because they lack the revenue to take care of their own problems.

Do you know how much money Florida has collected from the government for hurricane relief? Do you know how much money Louisiana collects in disaster relief, farm subsidies, anti-poverty, ect? Don't take my word for it, do some research for once. Even New Hampshire, which is generally pretty tight, took a ton of disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy. They had no problem begging the nanny state for help, especially because they lacked the revenue to take care of their own problems (as is so often the case with low tax red states).

Dude, it gets even funnier. Alaska is the biggest taker of federal benefits, infrastructure projects, DOT and pork projects. I mention this because it's fucking hilarious to see Sarah Palin agitate idiots with her anti-government propaganda, yet her state is the biggest taker of them all. I'm just saying: don't be such an easy mark for these shameless carnival barkers. Stop cutting and pasting for these morons and take your brain back.

But yes, of course business wants to move to places like Florida... they get to enjoy low taxes while the rest of us pick up their tab after Hurricane season. These kinds of hidden costs are everywhere, but your party never addresses them, which is why you keep repeating the same stuff over and over. Consider another problem that involves businesses trying to cut costs. Walmart, Apple, Nike and all our large clothing brands have shifted their manufacturing to no-tax ultra-cheap labor markets in places like Communist China, Vietnam and Taiwan. Problem is, there's a cost to making freedom-hating dictatorships stronger (while making the American worker weaker and more credit dependent), just as there is a cost to our deep oil partnerships with the freedom-hating Saudis. There was a cost to our massive investments in the Shaw or the Hussein Regime, despite its advantages to our energy needs. There are always unintended consequences that need to be properly evaluated before we march forward with Talk Radio Talking Points about how freedom in on the march. And there are costs to Supply Side policies which I don't think you've ever studied. (I just wish you understood some of this stuff so that you weren't so reliant upon cherry picked facts that don't even tell half the story. Shit, I actually agree with a lot of your stuff, but I'm just so tired of how simplistic it is.)

Moving on. Your likely presidential candidate, Chris Christie, is from a Blue State, which means he gives more to Washington than he gets back (in order to subsidize the Red State takers). But even so - and I'm just talking about the optics here - it was funny to see him beg Washington for disaster relief. And it was even funnier to learn that Paul Ryan made two separate requests to Washington for Stimulus Aid.

The folks on the Red side of the aisle talk a good game, but when nobody's looking they're the biggest takers of all.

Dude, turn off Fox News. You can do better.

(Also, I never said Supply Side policies didn't have any positive effect. Of course: low taxes increase the incentive to invest/innovate and add jobs. You're not enlightening anybody with this 3rd grade stuff. I also said that there were periods when Supply Side policies contributed to economic growth. For God's sake, Keynes praised the benefits of tax cuts before Milton Friedman was in his teens - but you wouldn't know this because you don't read actual economic texts, just their partisan interpreters. Regardless, in addition to Supply Side tax incentives, I said that business requires sufficient Consumer Demand, which is often undercut by Supply Side polices (which tend to lower wages, cut benefits and shift the Fed's role from stimulating demand to fighting inflation through the imposition of neoliberal austerity). Business also relies heavily upon expensive infrastructure, military protection for its overseas supply chains, patent protection, and any number of subsidies that they constantly beg for through lobbying. All these things have a cost that I don't think you've ever researched (which makes your argument sort of thin). I further speculated that you didn't know anything about the Demand Side policies that were in effect during the postwar boom. This is why I asked you to compare two different growth periods (50s-60's versus 80s-90s), because these historical periods so nicely featured the two competing theories under discussion. Of course, you ignored all that and continued with your straw men and your yelling & screaming. I'll also say this again. Demand Side Policies are great up until the point that they create too much inflation. Supply Side policies are great up until the point that they overly weaken demand. Any credible economic policy team should, IMO, take both these approaches into account, and not become so doctrinaire that they over-apply one to the complete exclusion of the other. I think the Demand Side policies were over applied between 1940-1980, and the result was the great inflation of the 70s. By the same token, I think Supply Side polices were over applied between 1980-2008, and the result was the death of middle class demand. You may disagree, but it would be nice if you understood both economic theories a little better so we could be assured that there was some substance behind the cut & paste.)

 

[Agit8r]

which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%

You DO realize that they don't get electricity from running the poors on hamster heels, right?

 

[JoeB131]

I
[*]How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.


]

Poodle, Sweetie, you just don't get how things work.

The cost of a burger is not all labor. Most of the cost is overhead, ingridients, utilities, etc. A 20% increase in the minimum wage would probably only mean a 2-3% increase in the cost of the food.

Further, all those other things are going up whether the minimum wage does or not.

Here's the thing. Back in the Clinton years, most of the "burger flipping" places were offering well above the minimum wage. They simply could not find people to fill those slots when unemployment was down to less than 4%.

This is about the 1%ers abusing their workers, and letting the rest of us pay for it.

Beacuse here's the thing about minimum wage workers. They don't obediently starve. They apply for section 8, food stamps and Medicaid... and they vote for Democrats.

God, you are stone cold stupid, aren't you?

 

[P@triot]

Watching liberals have a meltdown because the data proves they are wrong is really remarkable. Fakey Jakey doesn't like 15 years of IRS data so he demands a conversation about CT. Londoner doesn't like the facts, so he requests "comparative analysis of Keynesian economics". And WryCatcher, well he just contradicts himself by holding some founders statements as gospel while dismissing other statements.

Man do liberals fall apart when facts prove their ideology is fucked up.

Regarding your point about low tax states versus high tax states. Once again, you're cutting and pasting simplistic garbage without considering all the facts.

Do you know how many low tax Red States are net takers from the Federal Government? We subsidize these sad sacks because they lack the revenue to take care of their own problems.

Even if this lie were true, there is a very simple solution. Stop "subsidizing" them. Problem solved! Next?

 

[Geaux4it]

I
[*]How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.


]

Beacuse here's the thing about minimum wage workers. They don't obediently starve. They apply for section 8, food stamps and Medicaid... and they vote for Democrats.

God, you are stone cold stupid, aren't you?

Instead of looking for a handout, why not take ownership of your personal finances and get the education or training needed to gain additional wages?

And here is the other thing about minimum wage workers.... They lack an education and sacrifices the 1%er's have. Your pay is a direct result of your education. You need to distinguish yourself above that of the minimal education/wage worker to warrant increased compensation.

Thank god in business the inmates do not rule the asylum

That's why unions are going by the way of the horse and buggy.

-Geaux

 

[P@triot]

Watching liberals have a meltdown because the data proves they are wrong is really remarkable. Fakey Jakey doesn't like 15 years of IRS data so he demands a conversation about CT. Londoner doesn't like the facts, so he requests "comparative analysis of Keynesian economics". And WryCatcher, well he just contradicts himself by holding some founders statements as gospel while dismissing other statements.

Man do liberals fall apart when facts prove their ideology is fucked up.

Regarding your point about low tax states versus high tax states. Once again, you're cutting and pasting simplistic garbage without considering all the facts.

Do you know how many low tax Red States are net takers from the Federal Government? We subsidize these sad sacks because they lack the revenue to take care of their own problems.

Do you know how much money Florida has collected from the government for hurricane relief? Do you know how much money Louisiana collects in disaster relief, farm subsidies, anti-poverty, ect? Don't take my word for it, do some research for once. Even New Hampshire, which is generally pretty tight, took a ton of disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy. They had no problem begging the nanny state for help, especially because they lacked the revenue to take care of their own problems (as is so often the case with low tax red states).

Dude, it gets even funnier. Alaska is the biggest taker of federal benefits, infrastructure projects, DOT and pork projects. I mention this because it's fucking hilarious to see Sarah Palin agitate idiots with her anti-government propaganda, yet her state is the biggest taker of them all. I'm just saying: don't be such an easy mark for these shameless carnival barkers. Stop cutting and pasting for these morons and take your brain back.

But yes, of course business wants to move to places like Florida... they get to enjoy low taxes while the rest of us pick up their tab after Hurricane season. These kinds of hidden costs are everywhere, but your party never addresses them, which is why you keep repeating the same stuff over and over. Consider another problem that involves businesses trying to cut costs. Walmart, Apple, Nike and all our large clothing brands have shifted their manufacturing to no-tax ultra-cheap labor markets in places like Communist China, Vietnam and Taiwan. Problem is, there's a cost to making freedom-hating dictatorships stronger (while making the American worker weaker and more credit dependent), just as there is a cost to our deep oil partnerships with the freedom-hating Saudis. There was a cost to our massive investments in the Shaw or the Hussein Regime, despite its advantages to our energy needs. There are always unintended consequences that need to be properly evaluated before we march forward with Talk Radio Talking Points about how freedom in on the march. And there are costs to Supply Side policies which I don't think you've ever studied. (I just wish you understood some of this stuff so that you weren't so reliant upon cherry picked facts that don't even tell half the story. Shit, I actually agree with a lot of your stuff, but I'm just so tired of how simplistic it is.)

Moving on. Your likely presidential candidate, Chris Christie, is from a Blue State, which means he gives more to Washington than he gets back (in order to subsidize the Red State takers). But even so - and I'm just talking about the optics here - it was funny to see him beg Washington for disaster relief. And it was even funnier to learn that Paul Ryan made two separate requests to Washington for Stimulus Aid.

The folks on the Red side of the aisle talk a good game, but when nobody's looking they're the biggest takers of all.

Dude, turn off Fox News. You can do better.

(Also, I never said Supply Side policies didn't have any positive effect. Of course: low taxes increase the incentive to invest/innovate and add jobs. You're not enlightening anybody with this 3rd grade stuff. I also said that there were periods when Supply Side policies contributed to economic growth. For God's sake, Keynes praised the benefits of tax cuts before Milton Friedman was in his teens - but you wouldn't know this because you don't read actual economic texts, just their partisan interpreters. Regardless, in addition to Supply Side tax incentives, I said that business requires sufficient Consumer Demand, which is often undercut by Supply Side polices (which tend to lower wages, cut benefits and shift the Fed's role from stimulating demand to fighting inflation through the imposition of neoliberal austerity). Business also relies heavily upon expensive infrastructure, military protection for its overseas supply chains, patent protection, and any number of subsidies that they constantly beg for through lobbying. All these things have a cost that I don't think you've ever researched (which makes your argument sort of thin). I further speculated that you didn't know anything about the Demand Side policies that were in effect during the postwar boom. This is why I asked you to compare two different growth periods (50s-60's versus 80s-90s), because these historical periods so nicely featured the two competing theories under discussion. Of course, you ignored all that and continued with your straw men and your yelling & screaming. I'll also say this again. Demand Side Policies are great up until the point that they create too much inflation. Supply Side policies are great up until the point that they overly weaken demand. Any credible economic policy team should, IMO, take both these approaches into account, and not become so doctrinaire that they over-apply one to the complete exclusion of the other. I think the Demand Side policies were over applied between 1940-1980, and the result was the great inflation of the 70s. By the same token, I think Supply Side polices were over applied between 1980-2008, and the result was the death of middle class demand. You may disagree, but it would be nice if you understood both economic theories a little better so we could be assured that there was some substance behind the cut & paste.)

It would be nice if [MENTION=24221]Londoner[/MENTION] could broaden his talking points, rather than terminally repeating stuff we've heard before.

We understand that he favors an economic policy that provides incentives to parasites (though a host of subsidies, benefits, and perks) along with disincentives against producers (by taking what they earn/create and redistributing it among the masses). We get it. People started making this argument long ago, and they put it more elegantly and convincingly than Londoner. Here is my point: if Londoner is just going to "cut & paste" tired slogans and talking points, than he's not advancing the issue or helping us understand it.

Is there any chance that Londoner could give us a comparative analysis of postwar Keynesian demand-side policies versus post-Carter supply side policies - and the resultant economic growth from those eras? Seriously, if he could help us compare the economic growth of the "tax and spend blue states" to the free market "red states", than we can get our hands dirty with the specifics and learn more about this very complicated issues. Instead, he creates these silly straw men about "red states" so he can attack his policy opponents without ever really discussing the policy. We know he hates conservatives but we never see him do any actual heavy lifting or make any actual arguments. He just cuts and pastes and screams and yells.

I wish he understood that this is a truly interesting issue that is worthy of an actual discussion as opposed to romper room name calling. For instance, there are people who think that both demand and supply side polices have, at different times in our history, played productive roles in growing the economy; however, each policy has been over applied (e.g., demand-side lead to inflation whereas supply side choked demand), and each policy has, sadly, seen the formation of crusty special interest groups which became entrenched in Washington (and prevented us from solving the problems that occurred when their policies were over applied).

Meaning: If Londoner is going to bring these issues up, it would be nice if he did it in a more enlightening way (rather than his terminal partisan buggery).

I'm just asking him to make an argument that demonstrates a clear understanding of all sides of the issue. C'mon dude, help us understand this shit. Say something new or interesting. I mean, you demanded "comparative analysis" of "Keynesian economics" of me, but then when you attack red states, you're too fuck'n intellectually lazy to post a simple fuck'n link to back up your wild claims.

 

[Redfish]

so you think cheating in elections is warrented because your too stupid to figure out how to leave a country you hate?

are you talking to yourself? The dem/libs are the ones who cheat and lie to win elections "if you like your policy, you can keep it., period" Was that not a lie to win an election?

 

[P@triot]

Watching liberals have a meltdown because the data proves they are wrong is really remarkable. Fakey Jakey doesn't like 15 years of IRS data so he demands a conversation about CT. Londoner doesn't like the facts, so he requests "comparative analysis of Keynesian economics". And WryCatcher, well he just contradicts himself by holding some founders statements as gospel while dismissing other statements.

Man do liberals fall apart when facts prove their ideology is fucked up.

Regarding your point about low tax states versus high tax states. Once again, you're cutting and pasting simplistic garbage without considering all the facts.

Do you know how many low tax Red States are net takers from the Federal Government? We subsidize these sad sacks because they lack the revenue to take care of their own problems.

Do you know how much money Florida has collected from the government for hurricane relief? Do you know how much money Louisiana collects in disaster relief, farm subsidies, anti-poverty, ect? Don't take my word for it, do some research for once. Even New Hampshire, which is generally pretty tight, took a ton of disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy. They had no problem begging the nanny state for help, especially because they lacked the revenue to take care of their own problems (as is so often the case with low tax red states).

So while blue states have the federal government throwing trillions at them for everything from roads to closed down choo-choo trains stations to closed down "visitor centers", red states should reject assistance for major catastrophe's after the federal government has taken so much from them? They should refuse the opportunity to get as much back of what was already theirs? So you're literally taking the immature and simplistic Dumbocrat view of Social Security and how "real" conservatives should reject the opportunity to get some of the money that was taken from them, back - and you're applying it to the states? Really? This is the depth of your intellectual capabilities [MENTION=24221]Londoner[/MENTION]? No wonder you add no links, quotes, or data to your posts. While we all absorb your new found limited capacities that was just exposed, why don't you chew on this my friend...

1. Forest Service to Replace Windows in Visitor Center Closed in 2007 (Amboy, WA) - $554,763 Blue State

2. “Dance Draw” - Interactive Dance Software Development (Charlotte, NC) - $762,372 Blue State

3. North Shore Connector to Professional Sports Stadiums, Casino (Pittsburgh, PA) - $62 million Blue State

5. Abandoned Train Station Converted Into Museum (Glassboro, NJ) - $1.2 million Blue State

6. Ants Talk. Taxpayers Listen (San Francisco, CA) - $1.9 million Blue State

12. Agency Under a Cloud Keeps Pool Open for the Summer at No Charge (Youngstown, OH) - $450,950 Blue State

13. ProjectCostsJobs, Drastically Reduces Shopping Center Business (Normandy Park, WA)- $3.8 million Blue State

14. MoheganSunCasinoOwnerUsesFundsforWNBAPracticeFacility(Connecticut)-$54 million Blue State

I could literally continue indefinitely, but this is just getting boring now. You pose no challenge, add nothing of value, and are too intellectually lazy to add even a simple link or fact to your posts. You're simply 100% uninformed opinion.

Summertime Blues

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you could not continue forever, Rott.

Your lies do. N. C. is a Red State, for example.

Fire him, friend: he is making people reject his far right philosophy.

 

[Agit8r]

Watching liberals have a meltdown because the data proves they are wrong is really remarkable. Fakey Jakey doesn't like 15 years of IRS data so he demands a conversation about CT. Londoner doesn't like the facts, so he requests "comparative analysis of Keynesian economics". And WryCatcher, well he just contradicts himself by holding some founders statements as gospel while dismissing other statements.

Man do liberals fall apart when facts prove their ideology is fucked up.

Regarding your point about low tax states versus high tax states. Once again, you're cutting and pasting simplistic garbage without considering all the facts.

Do you know how many low tax Red States are net takers from the Federal Government? We subsidize these sad sacks because they lack the revenue to take care of their own problems.

Do you know how much money Florida has collected from the government for hurricane relief? Do you know how much money Louisiana collects in disaster relief, farm subsidies, anti-poverty, ect? Don't take my word for it, do some research for once. Even New Hampshire, which is generally pretty tight, took a ton of disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy. They had no problem begging the nanny state for help, especially because they lacked the revenue to take care of their own problems (as is so often the case with low tax red states).

So while blue states have the federal government throwing trillions at them for everything from roads to closed down choo-choo trains stations to closed down "visitor centers", red states should reject assistance for major catastrophe's after the federal government has taken so much from them? They should refuse the opportunity to get as much back of what was already theirs? So you're literally taking the immature and simplistic Dumbocrat view of Social Security and how "real" conservatives should reject the opportunity to get some of the money that was taken from them, back - and you're applying it to the states? Really? This is the depth of your intellectual capabilities [MENTION=24221]Londoner[/MENTION]? No wonder you add no links, quotes, or data to your posts. While we all absorb your new found limited capacities that was just exposed, why don't you chew on this my friend...

1. Forest Service to Replace Windows in Visitor Center Closed in 2007 (Amboy, WA) - $554,763 Blue State

2. “Dance Draw” - Interactive Dance Software Development (Charlotte, NC) - $762,372 Blue State

3. North Shore Connector to Professional Sports Stadiums, Casino (Pittsburgh, PA) - $62 million Blue State

5. Abandoned Train Station Converted Into Museum (Glassboro, NJ) - $1.2 million Blue State

6. Ants Talk. Taxpayers Listen (San Francisco, CA) - $1.9 million Blue State

12. Agency Under a Cloud Keeps Pool Open for the Summer at No Charge (Youngstown, OH) - $450,950 Blue State

13. ProjectCostsJobs, Drastically Reduces Shopping Center Business (Normandy Park, WA)- $3.8 million Blue State

14. MoheganSunCasinoOwnerUsesFundsforWNBAPracticeFacility(Connecticut)-$54 million Blue State

I could literally continue indefinitely, but this is just getting boring now. You pose no challenge, add nothing of value, and are too intellectually lazy to add even a simple link or fact to your posts. You're simply 100% uninformed opinion.

Summertime Blues

Waiiiiit a minute! What party do the governors of Pennsylvania, Ohio, N. Carolina and New Jersey belong to?

 

[Edgetho]

No, you could not continue forever, Rott.

Your lies do. N. C. is a Red State, for example.

Fire him, friend: he is making people reject his far right philosophy.

Fakey, you really are one stupid bitch.

James B hunt, dimocrap scumbag, was guvner of NC from 1993 to 2001.

Mike Easley, dimocrap duche, was gubner of NC from 2001 to 2009.

Beverly Perdue, dimocrap excuse for a female, was governator from 2009 to 2013.

In 2008, NC went for the lying cocksucker in chief, barack HUSSEIN obama.

Try not being such a lazy bitch, Fakey. Do a little research

But.... You're a dimocrap. 'Work' is an unknown to you

 

[TheShinyOne]

Republicans cheat in elections, so what? That is what Republicans are for. Elections are stupid ideas to begin with, they always turn out bad. Want to know red states and blue states, liberals turn America into a coloring book, but then try to pretend it was all just the Tea Party that's hypocrisy. And meanwhile Obama is spun out big time, his minions break down in tears. They talk too much, like their prissy power trips, so it's okay for Republicans to violate them. I really don't mind it so much.

 

[Truthmatters]

so you think cheating in elections is warrented because your too stupid to figure out how to leave a country you hate?

are you talking to yourself? The dem/libs are the ones who cheat and lie to win elections "if you like your policy, you can keep it., period" Was that not a lie to win an election?

so you don't believe in court records ?


I can give you court documentation that goes right to the SCOTUS.

what evidence can you give of your claim?

 

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year.

 

[Truthmatters]

GOP Memo Admits Plan Could 'Keep Black Vote Down' - Los Angeles Times


She said in the memorandum that the program had been approved by Gregory Graves, deputy political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

The document, called Exhibit 13, was unsealed by U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise when lawyers for the Democratic National Committee said it was needed to question Wolfe.

Wolfe testified that she wrote about the possibility of keeping the black vote down to remind Griffith that there "might be a political situation he might want to consider. . . . I wanted him to be aware of the political considerations."

The Democrats are suing the Republican Party for $10 million, charging that the Republican National Committee ballot security programs--a method of assuring that voters reside at their listed addresses--violated a 1981 consent agreement signed by both parties.

Under the agreement, the Republican committee would "refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial composition of such districts is a factor."



right from the top of your party

 

[bripat9643]

I
[*]How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.


]

Poodle, Sweetie, you just don't get how things work.

The cost of a burger is not all labor. Most of the cost is overhead, ingridients, utilities, etc. A 20% increase in the minimum wage would probably only mean a 2-3% increase in the cost of the food.

Further, all those other things are going up whether the minimum wage does or not.

Here's the thing. Back in the Clinton years, most of the "burger flipping" places were offering well above the minimum wage. They simply could not find people to fill those slots when unemployment was down to less than 4%.

This is about the 1%ers abusing their workers, and letting the rest of us pay for it.

Beacuse here's the thing about minimum wage workers. They don't obediently starve. They apply for section 8, food stamps and Medicaid... and they vote for Democrats.

God, you are stone cold stupid, aren't you?

Most people making minimum wage simply go home and eat whatever mom is serving for dinner.

 

[bripat9643]

GOP Memo Admits Plan Could 'Keep Black Vote Down' - Los Angeles Times


She said in the memorandum that the program had been approved by Gregory Graves, deputy political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

The document, called Exhibit 13, was unsealed by U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise when lawyers for the Democratic National Committee said it was needed to question Wolfe.

Wolfe testified that she wrote about the possibility of keeping the black vote down to remind Griffith that there "might be a political situation he might want to consider. . . . I wanted him to be aware of the political considerations."

The Democrats are suing the Republican Party for $10 million, charging that the Republican National Committee ballot security programs--a method of assuring that voters reside at their listed addresses--violated a 1981 consent agreement signed by both parties.

Under the agreement, the Republican committee would "refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial composition of such districts is a factor."



right from the top of your party

In other words, the Democrat party is suing to make voter fraud easier.

Thanks scumbags!

 

[bripat9643]

so you think cheating in elections is warrented because your too stupid to figure out how to leave a country you hate?

Democrats are the only ones who have ever been caught cheating, asshole.