Your post disappeared, so I hope this goes in the right place.

You said something like it is so simple or obvious,why else would the GOP disagree?

I would have to address any particular issue on it's own, but just to use an example of not agreeing to fund more stimulus:  You may disagree, but there is an honest belief that more spending will not help.  Many people think there was a lot of waste.  CNN had a week of reporting on waste about a year ago.

There was an artcle in the LA Times a while ago on street lights put in under stimulus hiring people.  THe problem is they gave the cost per street light.  I was astronomical.  They had to have 3 extra govt agencies, one to write the proposal, one to review it, one to oversee the grant.

If the money had never been sent to DC, but had been taxed locally at the city level and everything done in the city, they could have replace 4 times the number of street lights for the same money.

All tax is local, but if you send it to DC and have to write proposals,all you do is add 3 levels of paper work to do any project.

If you think there was waste, you would not be a traitor to vote against a project that you see as more of it.

A lot of people are afraid of too much debt.  You may disagree, but looking at Europe there is a good-faith basis for that thought.  Thus, you may vote against more debt without being a traitor.

Name any specific policy and I will show you how you can be against it without being a traitor.

BUt you  just assume if I disagree I am a traitor.  Why would you engage in negotiations with me?

The left would not want to acknowledge that about their martyr Kennedy.

Although I don't understand your question regarding that somehow cutting taxes must increase government revenue just because Clinton managed a balanced budget in 2000 which came after (in the case of Kennedy, decades after) the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts. Are you implying that taxes were never raised after Kennedy or Reagan? Besides which, the deficit refers only to spending and revenue of that year alone. Its silly to talk about the tax policy from 20 or 40 years prior.

END OF MESSAGE

Do you really expect boy-willy to think?
Especially when he is wearing his olive drab hat whit the red star on it.

In the world of boy- willy and his comrads there is no free market, no free enterprise, there is none of that, In the world according to boy-willy the government tells everyone what to pay, what to charge etc.

Thank you
2012 = GOP

agree with willy...stimulating demand will definitely increase production and supply of drugs and booze.
don't think many houses will be bought, probably no new cars and a few used ones...should i continue. doesn't create jobs...might see a decrease.....lots of money flowing, not much result.

This recession began because of overproduction. While Austrian economists make a good point about the cause of that overproduction, it happened nonetheless. If cheap debt creation wasn't an option via low interest rates, then prices would fall to meet demand, but that would also have a lot of negative consequences, more businesses would close, making this negative cycle worse.

Stimulating demand by increasing wages would solve a lot of problems. Wages have remained flat, while productivity has skyrocketed. Raising wages would bring these two back into balance. It would further decrease our debt. Since we have a fractional reserve banking system, debt is created when people take out loans. People have less need to borrow money when they have more money in their pockets.

Raising wages is the last option left. It's also the only option we haven't tried to get us out of this mess.

Prices are going to go up anyway. Now if people who used to make $8hr make $20hr the price of everything will go up that much faster. What are the people who make $20hr going to do? No one is going to give them a raise because minimum wage goes up. They will have to struggle even harder to keep what little they have.

Willy you are a liberal on steroids. Smoke that joint and come back to the middle.

I would say that most are well intentioned. But one can make judgment calls about someone's sincerity.

I'll give you an example. Senator Coburn is a guy I don't particularly like. I think he ought to be brought up on ethics charges for his part in covering up the Ensign scandal. However, any reasonable person who listened to his concerns during the health care debates could not doubt that he was sincere in his concerns. I disagreed with him, but he was sincere.

However, when you see Republicans filibustering their own ideas, even tax breaks for businesses, then you know they're not being sincere. When you see a record number of filibusters, you know they're not being sincere. When they ignore any proposal to address the economy, and instead vote for laws that are already on the books!

Prices tend to go down when the minimum wage is increased. I've mentioned many times before why this is the case, so I won't repeat it.

I know you're just throwing out hypothetical numbers, but I wasn't suggesting we raise the minimum wage to $20. Let's say we raise it to $12 instead.

Right now the guy who's making $8 an hour is just barely making more than minimum wage, say a burger flipper. The burger flipper's wage isn't set at $8, so much as it's set at "a little bit more than the minimum wage".

There's another guy who makes $12 an hour, he's a low level retail store manager. He's happy because despite the bullshit he has to put up with at work, he's making 4 bucks and some change more than the minimum wage.

So now you raise the minimum wage to 12 bucks. The burger flipper is shouting, "Thank motherfucking god! Now I'll have enough money to replace my car tires instead of patching them over and over and over again and hoping for the best!"

What's the retail store manager do? Well, now he's making minimum wage, but there's still bullshit he has to put up with at work. What does he do? He tells his boss, "I don't have to put up with this shit! I can make the same money flipping burgers!"

His boss will either 1) have to retrain a new employee 2) eliminate some of the bullshit from the retail store manager's job or 3) pay him more money to keep him.

Yes, that old adage is true. A rising tide does lift all boats.

-- Modified on 6/11/2012 12:21:11 PM

,but you some how lit the wrong end of the joint, and smoked it backwards.

I pulled my statement out of my ass, and it still made more sesnse then what you just wrote. The only thing an employer of unskilled labor needs is a body. They don't care how good you are or how much training you have. They will tell you if you don't like it for what ever reason their is the door, we have 200+ people waiting for your job.

...but it's still expensive to hire. And when you raise the minimum wage, employment will go down. The retail store manager may not get higher wages immediately, but eventually he will. It takes times for minimum wage increases to filter through the economy. About 6-12 months.

And when you raise the minimum wage, employment will go down.

Quote: