Repeating Tax cuts which has proved not to create jobs is the same hence, Republicans have passed beyond insanity, wouldn’t you say.
Republicans have repeated the cut taxes for the rich manta since Ronnie and hasn’t balanced the budget, reduced debt or reduced the budget.
The last time balanced budget and near full employment occurred under president who raised taxes. So, why don’t you tell brethren about their insanity.
...is that there's a shortfall in demand....
...then why not stimulate demand?
Here's a simple solution. Raise the fucking minimum wage!
Democrats are proposing to do just that. Raise it to 10 bucks an hour. Will it work? Fuck, we've tried everything else so far. Why the fuck not?
Will the GOP block it? Of course, they will. Why? Because they're traitors who are trying to destroy the United States.
Repeating Tax cuts which has proved not to create jobs is the same hence, Republicans have passed beyond insanity, wouldn’t you say.
Republicans have repeated the cut taxes for the rich manta since Ronnie and hasn’t balanced the budget, reduced debt or reduced the budget.
The last time balanced budget and near full employment occurred under president who raised taxes. So, why don’t you tell brethren about their insanity.
why dont libs ever acknowledge that?
has the federal government taken in more money since then or less?
are there more jobs now than then?
if cutting taxes does'nt generate more income to the government, then how did clinton "balance the budget" (actually an accounting illusion) AFTER the tax cuts of Reagan and Kennedy?
finally, or "lastly", as platipus likes to say, i'm not aware of any proposal to "cut taxes", rather, to just keep current rates in place.
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.
First, I can't respond in the right place, so sorry that it is here.
Willie typifies what is hurting the nation.
He can't credit those he disagrees with with an honest different of opinon. Maybe people honestly believe that raising the minimum wage can hurt. There is an argument to that effect, but I don't want to get sidetracked, so I won't present it here. But it exists and is logical, even if it is ultimately not correct..
But Willie assumes they take a position because they are traitors and bad.
If this is true, negotiations are useless, rendering compromise impossible. Why should the Dems even try to negotiate with traitors who should be dismissed out of hand.
It may be true that some on the right have a similar view, and to the extent that some do it is the mirror harm, but it does not negate the fact that it is wrong on the side of anyone who adopts it, like willie. However, again it would be getting sidetracked to discuss if other people have a similar view.
He denies the age-old concept of "the loyal opposition." To the extent that Willie only sees evil motive (and being a traitor is an evil motive) on the other side, he and his ilk will never have any basis to even talk to the opposition
...when it comes to solving economic issues. And I certainly agree that well intensioned people may just have the wrong answer.
But the GOP has been quite clear about their strategy. They're not even interesting in pursuing economic policies that traditionally conservatives support.
Why would they do this?
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 economy is makebelive, it is what ever we say it is.
But the nice thing about raising the minimum wage is that it's more than a short term solution (like say a temporary tax cut).
We've been in this mess now for 4 years. That's a lot of pent up demand.
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.
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.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=168852&boardID=39&page=#168852
You continue to accuse others of what you are.
and wearing your olive drab hat with the red star on it too.
You're Welcome
2012 = Drug Free GOP
Come on Willy, why can't you connect the dots!!!
You just think "raise the minimum wage" and evil companies just make less money.
SIGH!!!
OK, here is econ 101, raise costs like payroll, companies raise prices. They don't take the hit, the "little guy" does. So you make more and pay more, back to square one.
OR...
They just cut costs by firing some people and unemployment goes back into double digits.
THINK WILLY, THINK!!!!
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
...then why not stimulate demand?
Here's a simple solution. Raise the fucking minimum wage!
To understand the economic issues involved, here are a couple of very entertaining music videos which fairly present both the Keynesian and Austrian points of view. (Sounds strange, but they are really quite clever imo.)
Fear the Boom and Bust, a Hayek vs Keynes Rap Anthem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
Fight of the Century: Keynes vs Hayek Round 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&feature=relmfu
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.
There is a non-traitor reason.
Many people honestly believe that raising the minimum wage would discourage people from hiring entry level employees who may not be worth much.
You may disagree, but you can be a non-traitor and believe something different.
Finally, here is the difference between us. I understand that you have good intentions in wanting to raise the minimum wage, even though I think you are wrong and it will end up hurting people. But the merits aside, I do not credit you with bad motives.
I can even see your arguments. Hire people, give them money, they spend it..... I just don't think it works that way.
I feel the same for almost every lib I know. I think Obama wants what is good in his mind. I just disgree with it and think it will hurt. But his motives are not evil. (Even taking it to the extreme, if he wants to lessens the US role in the world, his ultimate motive is a better world.)
You and other Dems think I am motivated by evil. We want money for ourselves. We don't care if children starve. We don't care if people live under bridges.
You cannot see that we do care but have different solutions.
Here is a test: What do you think conservatives would do about hungry children? Do you even really understand our thoughts beyond bumper-sticker, "Starve a kid, vote GOP."
-- Modified on 6/10/2012 9:49:57 AM
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!