Well are you?

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'll make the argument:

For one, a huge minimum wage increase would have a domino effect across the country. All wages would increase which means labor in the US would be much more expensive and cause more businesses to move overseas or make investments in automation to replace human beings. Because of the huge price increases, it would make online shopping more inviting which has an impact on mom and pop shops.

Next of course is it wouldn't solve anything. Only about 4% of our working population makes minimum wage. Therefore the only people we would most help are teenagers, college kids, and senior citizens who are just looking to keep busy during their retirement years.

Then there is the question if it would even help them. That's because even though they get a wage increase, everything they buy would be much more expensive as well. If I get a wage increase and now bring home $200.00 a month more than I did before, but my shopping bill for the month went up $200.00 a month more, how am I ahead?

I'm glad you are interested enough to discuss but disappointed in your lack of basic education on the topic.

A "huge" minimum wage increase can certainly have a domino effect on the country. Fortunately, nobody here is arguing for a "huge" minimum wage increase. My argument, from the beginning, has been an increase in minimum wage coupled with a reduction in welfare benefits. While this may end up increasing purchasing power for the impoverished slightly (which does have inflationary pressures on the economy), as the increase is more targeted to give them the ability to buy items for themselves rather than have the population at large buy them, the real goal is to only minimally increase their purchasing power, but make them more responsible for their purchases rather than having society at large responsible for a noted percent of their purchases. So, your first point is a straw man argument. That wasn't my argument. You actually never addressed my argument and then ran into a slippery slope about outsourcing.

Only 4% of the population makes minimum wage. I'm not sure about that number, but I won't argue it either. However, if you consider the population working low-wage, which is anybody making $7.26 up through a reasonable new floor for minimum wage (which you can argue about, which is why my numbers here vary so drastically), then the % of the population that that effect can be anything from 12%-26%. Also, you make a claim about a demographic based upon a simple percentage...there is no logical linkage between a number and a demographic. I'll help you however. According to the BLS in 2014, only ~5.4% of the minimum wage workers were 16-19, only ~4.3% were 65 or older. that means that (slightly) over 90% are...college kids...according to you. However, even that argument fails when you consider that ~18.4% HAVE A BACHELOR'S (or higher).

Finally, you question whether or not the wage increase would help them. Again, you need to actually READ the argument that you are countering. My contention was, is, and will be to help YOURSELF. As it stands these workers rely on varying degrees (for actual minimum wage workers, usually heavily) on government support. My point that we should increase minimum wages WHILE decreasing welfare benefits is not to aim a a large net "helping" for these workers...it is simply to place more of the burden of their living on their own back rather then mine...or yours.

Again, I'm simply shocked that anybody really has an issue with an increase in minimum wages coupled by a decrease in welfare benefits. It literally makes everybody happier and more well off (except maybe the corporations).

Why would corporations care? When you add financial burden to the companies, they just pass that burden onto us.

If you reduce government dependency, people will find a way to make more money. How many people do you know that work minimum wage and work over 40 hours a week? Not many.

As I pointed out earlier, take a look at what Maine did by creating requirements to get food stamps. Most of the people on the program dropped out! If they needed food stamps so badly, and decided they weren't going to work for them, how are they eating now????

But let me add a few things here I didn't have time to put in my other post: Minimum wage encourages people to better themselves. That's it in a nutshell.

For instance, I had a tenant that just moved out. She and her BF have been here six years. Both work fast food places. They always paid rent although late all the time, but they paid.

So why didn't they try to better themselves? Because they both smoke pot, and better paying jobs usually require drug testing.

It has always been my hope for them that they will see the errors of their ways, quit smoking dope, and try to advance themselves in life realizing low wage work just to smoke pot is not worth it.

So along comes some politicians and increase minimum wage. Such an increase would retard or hinder her decision to better herself as it would millions of people. This couple is in their mid 20's now, but it won't be long until they are in their mid 30's, then 40's. By the time they realize what a huge mistake they've made, it will be too late to get ahead in the game.

How many make less than the new min wage? Ay caramba. The rest is pure regurgitated propaganda too, dupe. Average middle class savings went from 10% to MINUS 1% from 1980 to 2007 under Reaganism. WAKE UP.

LEGALIZE AND TAX IT duh. Empty half the prisons of pot prisoners. Thanks GOP.

Very few people are in prison for smoking pot. Stay away from those lying lib sources of yours.

 

[froggy]

why didn't Obama do that

Total, mindless Pub obstruction- He only had control of congress for 24 working days, in the middle of a Pub depression.

He's like every other politician we've had. Done nothing but mess up everything he got into. Get rid of all politicians

So when Pubs lie and say he had total control for 2 years while they filibustered him 200 times, that's fine? You are duped. Get rid of lying, bought off politicians. IE, Pubs.

They're all the same worthless. If Trump get and does good the day of the politicians may be numbered

I'm afraid you're misinformed. He is better than the other GOPers. Not bought or socially nuts...

If he does well people will see outsiders do better than politicians and start a new system

 

[initforme]

Today's employees need to get training so they have sought after skills. Then they use those skills as a wedge between them and their employer. That is paramount.

 

[francoHFW]

Why would corporations care? When you add financial burden to the companies, they just pass that burden onto us.

If you reduce government dependency, people will find a way to make more money. How many people do you know that work minimum wage and work over 40 hours a week? Not many.

As I pointed out earlier, take a look at what Maine did by creating requirements to get food stamps. Most of the people on the program dropped out! If they needed food stamps so badly, and decided they weren't going to work for them, how are they eating now????

But let me add a few things here I didn't have time to put in my other post: Minimum wage encourages people to better themselves. That's it in a nutshell.

For instance, I had a tenant that just moved out. She and her BF have been here six years. Both work fast food places. They always paid rent although late all the time, but they paid.

So why didn't they try to better themselves? Because they both smoke pot, and better paying jobs usually require drug testing.

It has always been my hope for them that they will see the errors of their ways, quit smoking dope, and try to advance themselves in life realizing low wage work just to smoke pot is not worth it.

So along comes some politicians and increase minimum wage. Such an increase would retard or hinder her decision to better herself as it would millions of people. This couple is in their mid 20's now, but it won't be long until they are in their mid 30's, then 40's. By the time they realize what a huge mistake they've made, it will be too late to get ahead in the game.

I'm not even sure if your apply is agreeing or disagreeing with me since you begin by saying that we need to reduce government dependency, which was half of my point. Then, you tell us about people who are making minimum wage, constantly delinquent on rent, and couldn't better their wages. So, the only way to decrease governmental dependency is to...raise the minimum wages while decreasing welfare benefits. Which is my point.

You also insert something about Maine's food stamp reform. Now there is a lot of debate about a lot of the stats around this, and, leaving that aside, let us both assume that their reform DID significantly decrease usage of food stamps. Exactly how does that prove that people didn't need it in the first place though? All your point proves is that a reform designed to decrease usage decreased usage. It doesn't say anything about whether or not the individuals now ineligible or not using the program still need the benefits or have turn to more illicit means to generate the income necessary to attain basic goods to survive.

Again, not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me here. I would just ask that, if you have a point, at the very least clarify it and then back it up with some logic rather than nonsense.

I think my point is extremely clear, and I agree and disagree with you which is why it might be confusing. Perhaps I should explain who I am.

I'm a person that wants as much government out of our lives as possible. I don't believe in government micromanaging our lives and I don't believe the federal government has a role in making our lives better. I believe we as individuals should make our own lives better. Governments role is to govern--that's it.

I don't believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you have that as a policy, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

More to the point: I agree with cutting social programs to the bone. That is to say, only those that have absolutely no choice but to survive on them. I believe that anybody physically and mentally capable of working should not be living on my tax dollar or yours. If you make lower wages, then work more hours. If you don't like the wages you bring in, make yourself worth more money--minimum wage increases are not the solution.

If you make a mistake in life such as having children before you can reasonably afford them or getting yourself into so much credit debt it seems impossible to pay back should not be my problem. You created the problem--you find the solution to your problem.

Now as for Maine: the requirements to continue on food stamps are one of three things: have a part-time job working at least 20 hours per week; be enrolled in a vocational program; or do volunteer work for 24 hours per month. That's it.

Most of the abusers of this program didn't want to do any of those things, so they opted to drop out. This is a shockwave to liberals who constantly tell us how people are starving in this country and cutting food stamps means putting more water in the soup. I call BS. I see what these SNAPs people are buying at the grocery store.

So if you get $15/month like many do, why bother?

 

[francoHFW]

Absolutely yes.

The Bush years ended with the destruction of the housing and financial sectors. We saw the greatest meltdown in our lives. Obama turned it around and has brought unemployment to lowest levels since Clinton.

Bush and the Republican Congress created the Patriot Act, which erected a Soviet style bureaucracy over the nation.

Trump is right. He destroyed the middle east and the economy. He had the nerve to shine a light on what the Republican Party did to this country - this is why the establishment hates him.

Our only hope is that President Trump does not repeat the mistakes of the last 3 Republican administrations. Reagan tripled the debt of Carter with a bloated Pentagon budget written largely by weapons contractors. Bush 43 doubled the debt of Clinton. Every Republican administration complains about Democratic spending, BUT THEN they always - and I mean always - increase spending. Indeed, Bush didn't veto a single piece of Republican Pork. Nobody spends like Big Government Conservatives.

The only people who believe that the economy has gotten worse since Bush are people who live completely inside talk radio and FOX News.

(Wow, just Wow)

Yeah, Fox news. You want to know what else Fox news told us? No President spent more than your precious Socialist President.

90% of which is to bail out Main St and help the victims of your corrupt GOP world depression. STILL 3-400 billion a year. Brainwashed functional MORON.

Right. Do you know what 90% of 9 trillion dollars is??

Buy yourself a calculator there Sparky. I'm sure it comes with instructions.

8.1 trillion duh. What's your idiotic point? Missing the forest for the trees. Most of O's deficit is from fixing W's mess DUH.

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, Fox news. You want to know what else Fox news told us? No President spent more than your precious Socialist President.

90% of which is to bail out Main St and help the victims of your corrupt GOP world depression. STILL 3-400 billion a year. Brainwashed functional MORON.

Right. Do you know what 90% of 9 trillion dollars is??

Buy yourself a calculator there Sparky. I'm sure it comes with instructions.

8.1 trillion duh. What's your idiotic point? Missing the forest for the trees. Most of O's deficit is from fixing W's mess DUH.

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would corporations care? When you add financial burden to the companies, they just pass that burden onto us.

If you reduce government dependency, people will find a way to make more money. How many people do you know that work minimum wage and work over 40 hours a week? Not many.

As I pointed out earlier, take a look at what Maine did by creating requirements to get food stamps. Most of the people on the program dropped out! If they needed food stamps so badly, and decided they weren't going to work for them, how are they eating now????

But let me add a few things here I didn't have time to put in my other post: Minimum wage encourages people to better themselves. That's it in a nutshell.

For instance, I had a tenant that just moved out. She and her BF have been here six years. Both work fast food places. They always paid rent although late all the time, but they paid.

So why didn't they try to better themselves? Because they both smoke pot, and better paying jobs usually require drug testing.

It has always been my hope for them that they will see the errors of their ways, quit smoking dope, and try to advance themselves in life realizing low wage work just to smoke pot is not worth it.

So along comes some politicians and increase minimum wage. Such an increase would retard or hinder her decision to better herself as it would millions of people. This couple is in their mid 20's now, but it won't be long until they are in their mid 30's, then 40's. By the time they realize what a huge mistake they've made, it will be too late to get ahead in the game.

I'm not even sure if your apply is agreeing or disagreeing with me since you begin by saying that we need to reduce government dependency, which was half of my point. Then, you tell us about people who are making minimum wage, constantly delinquent on rent, and couldn't better their wages. So, the only way to decrease governmental dependency is to...raise the minimum wages while decreasing welfare benefits. Which is my point.

You also insert something about Maine's food stamp reform. Now there is a lot of debate about a lot of the stats around this, and, leaving that aside, let us both assume that their reform DID significantly decrease usage of food stamps. Exactly how does that prove that people didn't need it in the first place though? All your point proves is that a reform designed to decrease usage decreased usage. It doesn't say anything about whether or not the individuals now ineligible or not using the program still need the benefits or have turn to more illicit means to generate the income necessary to attain basic goods to survive.

Again, not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me here. I would just ask that, if you have a point, at the very least clarify it and then back it up with some logic rather than nonsense.

I think my point is extremely clear, and I agree and disagree with you which is why it might be confusing. Perhaps I should explain who I am.

I'm a person that wants as much government out of our lives as possible. I don't believe in government micromanaging our lives and I don't believe the federal government has a role in making our lives better. I believe we as individuals should make our own lives better. Governments role is to govern--that's it.

I don't believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you have that as a policy, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

More to the point: I agree with cutting social programs to the bone. That is to say, only those that have absolutely no choice but to survive on them. I believe that anybody physically and mentally capable of working should not be living on my tax dollar or yours. If you make lower wages, then work more hours. If you don't like the wages you bring in, make yourself worth more money--minimum wage increases are not the solution.

If you make a mistake in life such as having children before you can reasonably afford them or getting yourself into so much credit debt it seems impossible to pay back should not be my problem. You created the problem--you find the solution to your problem.

Now as for Maine: the requirements to continue on food stamps are one of three things: have a part-time job working at least 20 hours per week; be enrolled in a vocational program; or do volunteer work for 24 hours per month. That's it.

Most of the abusers of this program didn't want to do any of those things, so they opted to drop out. This is a shockwave to liberals who constantly tell us how people are starving in this country and cutting food stamps means putting more water in the soup. I call BS. I see what these SNAPs people are buying at the grocery store.

So if you get $15/month like many do, why bother?

$15 a month, huh?

Why don't you come to my grocery store and see that $15.00 a month in action?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, I see, relevance isn't relevance for you. Gotcha. How's this? On my last job, that I retired from (with a nice pension to go along with my military pension) I was making 98,970 per year with a full benefits package.

So, I went from .60 an hour in the early 60s to nearly $100,000 (well far above it with benefits) so see, relevance matters, if you don't want to stay at the bottom of the heap for your entire life.

Get it now?

Maybe you didn't read my post, but let me reiterate:

"You actually have to make a point and generally back that up with logic, knowledge, etc."

Now, personally, I'm happy to hear that you worked your way up out of the trenches (maybe even literally). Also, being a Marine veteran myself I'm happy to hear that you joined the select few who really put their ass on the line and serve the country.

However, the point still stands that an anecdotal story for you doesn't mean much when talking about the diverse population of America in general. If your point is that we shouldn't raise minimal wages, exactly WHY are you saying that? Because you once made a minimum wage? Okay...that means nothing. Maybe you are saying that everybody making a minimum wage can work their way out of it. That would mean you would have to change the entire job structure of America however (you can't honestly say that you think that there are enough higher paying jobs out there to support all the individuals making minimum wage now to move into them).
I'm not even certain why you are fighting this so much. Generally speaking the people who most commonly shop at the places that have minimum wage jobs (like McDonald's, Wal-Mart, etc.) are the individuals who also work at a place like that. People who make higher wages tend to shop and higher end stores. So, if you actually made close to $100,000 you should be actively fighting FOR an increase in minimum wages (coupled with a decrease in welfare benefits). The reason is that you generally won't use the services provided by the lowest common denominator, but, being a tax payer, you are literally paying for their meal ticket. I'm really not sure why you would argue against such an obvious point.

I'll make the argument:

For one, a huge minimum wage increase would have a domino effect across the country. All wages would increase which means labor in the US would be much more expensive and cause more businesses to move overseas or make investments in automation to replace human beings. Because of the huge price increases, it would make online shopping more inviting which has an impact on mom and pop shops.

Next of course is it wouldn't solve anything. Only about 4% of our working population makes minimum wage. Therefore the only people we would most help are teenagers, college kids, and senior citizens who are just looking to keep busy during their retirement years.

Then there is the question if it would even help them. That's because even though they get a wage increase, everything they buy would be much more expensive as well. If I get a wage increase and now bring home $200.00 a month more than I did before, but my shopping bill for the month went up $200.00 a month more, how am I ahead?

Of course, labor costs are 20% or less of final prices, so you're just parroting the usual dupe bs...

It's not just labor cost, rent is higher, logistics are higher, everything is higher because every person in the chain expects to earn more money.

 

[frigidweirdo]

90% of which is to bail out Main St and help the victims of your corrupt GOP world depression. STILL 3-400 billion a year. Brainwashed functional MORON.

Right. Do you know what 90% of 9 trillion dollars is??

Buy yourself a calculator there Sparky. I'm sure it comes with instructions.

8.1 trillion duh. What's your idiotic point? Missing the forest for the trees. Most of O's deficit is from fixing W's mess DUH.

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

Oh, blaming the recession on Clinton now, well it's different to blaming it on Obama the whole time, I'll give you that. So, Bush going to war and spending billions didn't do anything then?

 

[francoHFW]

90% of which is to bail out Main St and help the victims of your corrupt GOP world depression. STILL 3-400 billion a year. Brainwashed functional MORON.

Right. Do you know what 90% of 9 trillion dollars is??

Buy yourself a calculator there Sparky. I'm sure it comes with instructions.

8.1 trillion duh. What's your idiotic point? Missing the forest for the trees. Most of O's deficit is from fixing W's mess DUH.

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???
The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

The stimulus worked GREAT. What trillion on ACA, dupe? Clean energy is a great investment.

Funny how unworthy blacks couldn't get loans until W's pals Countrywide etc got all Fanny /Freddy business in 2003, chump.

 

[ChrisL]

You cannot argue with the facts!

For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades

Who's arguing that? I sure wasn't.

When unions were at full force, many workers were well overpaid for the work they did. People had jobs turning nuts onto bolts and were able to get wages and benefits enough to live very good.

When jobs started to leave the country and businesses invested in automation to replace monkey jobs, wages declined. Nobody can argue that.

Construction workers work 100 times harder than you do. The job takes it's toll on the body. You have NO IDEA.

I have no idea? A son of a bricklayer has no idea?

I grew up doing construction work with my father on side-jobs. I started at the age of 11 I believe. He paid me one dollar an hour. One dollar an hour to carry clamps of bricks to the job site, one dollar an hour to mix cement by hand, one dollar an hour to erect scaffolding as the job progressed.

At the age of 18, my father pulled some strings and got me into the bricklayers union as an apprentice. I worked one summer and decided I lived with construction long enough. I chose a different route.

My father made a great living being a bricklayer, but even with the wages they make today, they still can't find people to enter that field of work. Younger people today don't want to get their hands dirty, and most of them don't want to give up smoking pot.

Plenty of construction companies that are not unionized don't pay very well, and they skimp on safety.

 

[initforme]

Unionized carpenters are the only way to go

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You cannot argue with the facts!

For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades

Who's arguing that? I sure wasn't.

When unions were at full force, many workers were well overpaid for the work they did. People had jobs turning nuts onto bolts and were able to get wages and benefits enough to live very good.

When jobs started to leave the country and businesses invested in automation to replace monkey jobs, wages declined. Nobody can argue that.

Construction workers work 100 times harder than you do. The job takes it's toll on the body. You have NO IDEA.

I have no idea? A son of a bricklayer has no idea?

I grew up doing construction work with my father on side-jobs. I started at the age of 11 I believe. He paid me one dollar an hour. One dollar an hour to carry clamps of bricks to the job site, one dollar an hour to mix cement by hand, one dollar an hour to erect scaffolding as the job progressed.

At the age of 18, my father pulled some strings and got me into the bricklayers union as an apprentice. I worked one summer and decided I lived with construction long enough. I chose a different route.

My father made a great living being a bricklayer, but even with the wages they make today, they still can't find people to enter that field of work. Younger people today don't want to get their hands dirty, and most of them don't want to give up smoking pot.

Plenty of construction companies that are not unionized don't pay very well, and they skimp on safety.

Trust me, construction is hard work and if it doesn't pay well, you don't keep employees for a very long time. Although I do understand things are different down south because you work year round and have a lot of illegals and foreigners down there. My father was asked to go to Florida to work during the winter months. He was all excited about going until he found out what the pay scale was. Yes, it was a union job too.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Unionized carpenters are the only way to go

No, I think remodeling is the way to go.

I have two cousins in remodeling and they both work for themselves. They take vacations and days off when they want to, work how many hours a day they want to, and even work weekends when things get busy.

As for myself, I hated bricklaying, but I think I might have fared well as an electrician or plumber. Of course I didn't have these inclinations until after I became a landlord and already decided on a career for full-time work.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right. Do you know what 90% of 9 trillion dollars is??

Buy yourself a calculator there Sparky. I'm sure it comes with instructions.

8.1 trillion duh. What's your idiotic point? Missing the forest for the trees. Most of O's deficit is from fixing W's mess DUH.

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???
The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

The stimulus worked GREAT. What trillion on ACA, dupe? Clean energy is a great investment.

Funny how unworthy blacks couldn't get loans until W's pals Countrywide etc got all Fanny /Freddy business in 2003, chump.

Read and learn Chump:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites'

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right. Do you know what 90% of 9 trillion dollars is??

Buy yourself a calculator there Sparky. I'm sure it comes with instructions.

8.1 trillion duh. What's your idiotic point? Missing the forest for the trees. Most of O's deficit is from fixing W's mess DUH.

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

Oh, blaming the recession on Clinton now, well it's different to blaming it on Obama the whole time, I'll give you that. So, Bush going to war and spending billions didn't do anything then?

They all played a part. I'm just pointing out the start of the problem, not the end results like FrankFart.

If not for the housing crisis, we would have enjoyed a good economy through the Bush years right into the McCain Presidency.

 

[froggy]

The illegals are what keeps wages down

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, I see, relevance isn't relevance for you. Gotcha. How's this? On my last job, that I retired from (with a nice pension to go along with my military pension) I was making 98,970 per year with a full benefits package.

So, I went from .60 an hour in the early 60s to nearly $100,000 (well far above it with benefits) so see, relevance matters, if you don't want to stay at the bottom of the heap for your entire life.

Get it now?

Maybe you didn't read my post, but let me reiterate:

"You actually have to make a point and generally back that up with logic, knowledge, etc."

Now, personally, I'm happy to hear that you worked your way up out of the trenches (maybe even literally). Also, being a Marine veteran myself I'm happy to hear that you joined the select few who really put their ass on the line and serve the country.

However, the point still stands that an anecdotal story for you doesn't mean much when talking about the diverse population of America in general. If your point is that we shouldn't raise minimal wages, exactly WHY are you saying that? Because you once made a minimum wage? Okay...that means nothing. Maybe you are saying that everybody making a minimum wage can work their way out of it. That would mean you would have to change the entire job structure of America however (you can't honestly say that you think that there are enough higher paying jobs out there to support all the individuals making minimum wage now to move into them).
I'm not even certain why you are fighting this so much. Generally speaking the people who most commonly shop at the places that have minimum wage jobs (like McDonald's, Wal-Mart, etc.) are the individuals who also work at a place like that. People who make higher wages tend to shop and higher end stores. So, if you actually made close to $100,000 you should be actively fighting FOR an increase in minimum wages (coupled with a decrease in welfare benefits). The reason is that you generally won't use the services provided by the lowest common denominator, but, being a tax payer, you are literally paying for their meal ticket. I'm really not sure why you would argue against such an obvious point.

I'll make the argument:

For one, a huge minimum wage increase would have a domino effect across the country. All wages would increase which means labor in the US would be much more expensive and cause more businesses to move overseas or make investments in automation to replace human beings. Because of the huge price increases, it would make online shopping more inviting which has an impact on mom and pop shops.

Next of course is it wouldn't solve anything. Only about 4% of our working population makes minimum wage. Therefore the only people we would most help are teenagers, college kids, and senior citizens who are just looking to keep busy during their retirement years.

Then there is the question if it would even help them. That's because even though they get a wage increase, everything they buy would be much more expensive as well. If I get a wage increase and now bring home $200.00 a month more than I did before, but my shopping bill for the month went up $200.00 a month more, how am I ahead?

Of course, labor costs are 20% or less of final prices, so you're just parroting the usual dupe bs...

It's not just labor cost, rent is higher, logistics are higher, everything is higher because every person in the chain expects to earn more money.

Rent is higher because the demand for rental units is unbelievable. We can charge whatever the market allows us. Kind of makes up for the losses we took during the housing bubble where it was damn near impossible to find good tenants. We had to lower the price of our rental units because we landlords were in competition with each other.

It's the exact opposite today. I just rented out one of my units last month. It's usually very difficult to find tenants this time of year up north with the cold and snow. The first day I put the ad out on Craig's List, I had ten replies; some of them even offering to take the unit sight unseen.

 

[Never3ndr]

I think my point is extremely clear, and I agree and disagree with you which is why it might be confusing. Perhaps I should explain who I am.

I'm a person that wants as much government out of our lives as possible. I don't believe in government micromanaging our lives and I don't believe the federal government has a role in making our lives better. I believe we as individuals should make our own lives better. Governments role is to govern--that's it.

I don't believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you have that as a policy, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

More to the point: I agree with cutting social programs to the bone. That is to say, only those that have absolutely no choice but to survive on them. I believe that anybody physically and mentally capable of working should not be living on my tax dollar or yours. If you make lower wages, then work more hours. If you don't like the wages you bring in, make yourself worth more money--minimum wage increases are not the solution.

If you make a mistake in life such as having children before you can reasonably afford them or getting yourself into so much credit debt it seems impossible to pay back should not be my problem. You created the problem--you find the solution to your problem.

Now as for Maine: the requirements to continue on food stamps are one of three things: have a part-time job working at least 20 hours per week; be enrolled in a vocational program; or do volunteer work for 24 hours per month. That's it.

Most of the abusers of this program didn't want to do any of those things, so they opted to drop out. This is a shockwave to liberals who constantly tell us how people are starving in this country and cutting food stamps means putting more water in the soup. I call BS. I see what these SNAPs people are buying at the grocery store.

I am glad that you clarified your stance.

My understanding is that you want less government in our lives. Which means a support of a decrease in welfare benefits. However, to do this without increasing minimum wages enough to compensate you would have start suffering international sanctions due to human rights conditions, suffer a widespread increase in general crime rates, but especially violent crimes, and potentially start looking at anything from heavy civil uprising to outright civil war.

Usually, stating such dire consequences is nothing but a logical slippery slope fallacy. However, when you look at countries with a increasingly larger income inequality gaps (we will use the GINI coefficient here) none of them look good. Countries like Haiti, Namibia, and South Africa lead income inequality. Income inequality is also well researched (and increasingly so) as being positively correlated with homicides and health issues while negatively correlated with economic growth. So, especially given the particularly volatile situation we seem to be in already (the US has a much higher GINI coefficient than most other 1st world countries and, predictably, we also tend to have some of the worst homicide rates and health conditions among 1st world nations coupled with constant outcries from our citizens (Oregon militia, various protests, etc.)) an increase in inequality would, logically, lead to an increase in those issues, of which civil uprising or civil war is not outside the realm of reasonable consideration.

So, with the understanding that anybody with a basic education has...which is that increasing income inequality is generally a horrible idea, and coupled with the understanding that you want less government assistance for these individuals...the only real logical conclusion is that you agree FULLY with me. You want a minimum wage increase coupled with a decrease in welfare benefits.

Edit: You again mention that Maine's program decreased the amount of food stamp users...which I never disagreed with. However, you have still failed to show how that, exactly, means that they didn't need it in the first place? There are a lot of starving people in India and China that could use a welfare program, but are not on one. Just because you don't receive benefits doesn't mean you don't need them. There is zero logical connection there.

 

[francoHFW]

8.1 trillion duh. What's your idiotic point? Missing the forest for the trees. Most of O's deficit is from fixing W's mess DUH.

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???
The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

The stimulus worked GREAT. What trillion on ACA, dupe? Clean energy is a great investment.

Funny how unworthy blacks couldn't get loans until W's pals Countrywide etc got all Fanny /Freddy business in 2003, chump.

Read and learn Chump:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites'

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

Blah blah. Look at the toxic loans that caused problems and they're overwhelmingly done under Boooshie "regulation"...That's why F+F went from 75% to 25% of the market in 2003.