Minimum Wage, Maximum Gall

MonsterMark said:
You certainly covered all the liberal talking points. Well, back to the koll-aid kooler for you I guess. But hey, thanks for stopping in. It is rough and tumble, that's for sure and especially when you so drunk from the koolaid you can't see straight.:D Take care. Still 'friends'?

I'm not aware what reference you're making with 'kool aid.' I've just had enough political arguments in the past few years, mostly at CadillacForums. I left the political section there, and then it was shut down, because the discussions never got anywhere. Everyone comes in with an idea ingrained in their brains, and no matter what anyone says, they stick to that idea. It's not worth it to me anymore. I will probably stop by every now and then, interject, and leave before the neocons give me a headache.

I'm not 'friends' with anyone on a messageboard (excluding people from the local forum I go to, who I know or at least have met in real life) - we're all just text on a screen.
 
MediumD said:
LOL compassionate conservatives. The kind who give out tax cuts to the richest people in the nation? The kind who hire their cronies to make hundreds of millions in no-bid government contracts? The kind who believe in 'trickle down theory?' Hah.

Sorry, I'm done. We just have different views, and discussing them really won't do anything. I came here to talk about cars, and in the interest of staying calm... I think will be trying to stick to that (after I hear back on the "lets kill the muslims" thread.)
"Tax cuts for the richest of Americans?" That's so old and pitiful it's not even worth responding to. It's obvious you don't read other posts or you'd already know the answer to that one.

Go read this:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=22144&highlight=restaurant

You're one of the guys that beats up the rich guy in the example.

Furthermore:

You don't even know what "trickle down theory" means. LOL I could lecture you for eight pages on supply side economics and you'd just respond with tired old pathetic talking points gleaned from watching CNN.

Here, ponder this adage that I keep having to tell you socialist wannabes:

The cow cannot survive by feeding on its own udder.

When you're done pondering all the ramifications of that statement, and you've grown about 15 years older, you might understand.
 
MediumD said:
I'm not 'friends' with anyone on a messageboard (excluding people from the local forum I go to, who I know or at least have met in real life) - we're all just text on a screen.

That's too bad. You seem like a decent guy. For some reason, I seem to like lefties (er, I mean social progressives).

Yes, we are just text on a screen but we are all people behind the keyboard. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't or wouldn't like you if I met you.

Political Only sites suck. The rest of the boards that have tried political forums over-moderate and that is why they suck and fail. I do the modding here and rarely touch any posts because I believe in free speech and believe that grownups can settle their own differences. That is why I do my political venting here. I rant for a few minutes and then go look at some cool cars and even check out a babe or two. What's wrong with that?
 
MediumD said:
My 65 year old father (I'll let you be the judge of how old that makes me,) being a reasonable man, knows that the government needs money to do it's various duties. If we are going to let those with more than a million dollars of net worth go without paying estate taxes, where do you propose we get money? Especially with the neocons completely going back on conservatism and spending more money than ever.

I understand the value of money pretty well, actually. I have a job, I bought a Mark VIII for $2k with money I earned. My daddy didn't buy it for me. You want people to be able to get 550 times the value of my car without earning it, without taxation.

I'll talk about the family farm issue later.



So, once again your solution is, instead of closing tax loopholes where the ultra rich can hide their money, we just quit taxing the rich in the first place. Woo hoo, great plan.



It's not exactly stealing money from him when he's dead... because the money isn't going with him when he dies, it's staying here and being passed on to an heir. You can't use money when you're dead. I don't see how the heck anyone thinks this is taxing a dead person.



You want my dad to give his money away so I don't get any of it, because I didn't earn it? Well, that's what I've been saying all along, I didn't earn it, so I don't really deserve much of an inheritance - neither do the rest of the heirs who didn't do a lick of work but are set to receive millions. You are a fool to think I have had everything given to me. People should work for what they have instead of getting it on a silver platter.

You have no idea the value of money, land, or tangible assets. Property alone in the region I am in (north metro atlanta) on a major highway with frontage is currently $1.2 million an acre. Thats just dirt. No building, no nothing but trees, birds and dirt.

An although I am not a farmer nor into farming, I know damn well that just 2 or 3 pieces of farm equipment can easily go over a million bucks. And just cause your daddy is 65 doesn't mean he didn't do something stupid or have an accidental child. Are you afraid to show the ignorance of your age?

[Edited for personal attack]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MediumD said:
I'll talk about the family farm issue later.

Nice Dodge.. was it a neon or a k car?


So, once again your solution is, instead of closing tax loopholes where the ultra rich can hide their money, we just quit taxing the rich in the first place. Woo hoo, great plan.


The comment that this was in response to, was the tail end of my comments concerning the family farm, which you chose to dodge. So.....
 
It was a Satellite, then an Omni. The truth is, I don't know what to think about family farms. On one hand, if forced to sell, the heirs still get a lot of money from the sale. On the other, its forcing people to sell the land they grew up on, usually to a farm conglomerate. I haven't made up my mind. *shrug*


stang99x said:
And just cause your daddy is 65 doesn't mean he didn't do something stupid or have an accidental child. Are you afraid to show the ignorance of your age?

[Edited for personal attack]

I'm not sure how my conception ties into the estate tax. But, sure, you're right, I'm actually an eleven year old, I don't know anything. ;) Happy now?
 
Nobel Economists: Republicans Wrong on Minimum Wage
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/nobel-economists-minimum-wage-hike.html
With the buying power of the Federal minimum wage at its lowest point in 55 years, five Nobel Prize-winning economists have been joined by 650 of their peers, in calling on the Republican-led Congress to increase the minimum wage. Describing the last increase almost 10 years ago as now "fully eroded," the economists said that they agree with a report written in 1999 by the Council of Economic Advisors declaring that "modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment."

"We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed," the economists wrote in a paper delivered this week on a conference call hosted by the Economic Policy Institute, an economic research group based in Washington, D.C.

In addition to asserting that the real value of the minimum wage is at its lowest point since 1951, the economists also noted that the ratio of what a minimum-wage earner makes and the average pay rates of other hourly workers is at a significant low.

"The ratio of the minimum wage to the average hourly wage of non-supervisory workers is 31%, its lowest level since World War II," they said. " This decline is causing hardship for low-wage workers and their families."

The Federal minimum wage has been at $5.15 an hour since 1997, which puts a working American earning that wage, even laboring 50 hours a week, at below the national poverty line.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has been ferociously pursuing the issue for years and with particular fervor in the current Congress, which ends this year.

“These esteemed economists understand what everyone except the Republican leadership and the White House understand: an increase in the minimum wage is long overdue and would strengthen our economy," said Kennedy, in a statement Thursday. "Millions of American families are living in poverty while working hard for the American dream, while the Republicans block every effort to give them the raise they deserve --- despite skyrocketing increases in health care, gas prices, and education."

Nobel Prize winners calling on Republicans to raise the minimum wage are Kenneth Arrow of Stanford University, Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, Robert Solow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Joseph Stiglitz at Columbia University and Clive Granger of the University of California, San Diego.

The Republican leadership and the Bush administration have stubbornly held to the view that a higher minimum wage would lead to fewer jobs and more employers moving jobs offshore -- the latter, a ludicrous assumption, given that most minimum wage jobs are local, service-oriented positions that cannot be moved to another country.

The group of 650 economists shot down that notion, saying in their report that a Democratic plan to phase in a minimum wage increase to $7.25 "falls well within the range of options where the benefits to the labor market, workers, and the overall economy would be positive."

They also contradicted Republican claims that most people earning minimum wage are teenagers who don’t use the money for living essentials and bare subsistence.

"While controversy about the precise employment effects of the minimum wage continues, research has shown that most of the beneficiaries are adults, most are female, and the vast majority are members of low-income working families," the report says.

Republicans put forth a bogus plan to raise the minimum wage over the summer, when they attached it to a whopping Estate Tax cut for America's super rich, knowing that the legislation would fail, but providing them with a cynical way to tell voters that they had voted to improve the lot of working families.

Meanwhile, the GOP Congress has killed three attempts by Kennedy to raise the minimum wage in just the last two years on almost straight party-line votes and will undoubtedly keep doing that if allowed to remain in power after November 7.

Said Kennedy: "It is clear as day that despite what the economists advise, the only way these hard working people will get a new raise is if this Congress gets new management in November."
 
The article's findings are political and wrong. Raising the minimum wage is nothing but a tax on business, and eventually, on the working class of America.

If raising the minimum wage is so beneficial, why not raise it to $20/hr? Or $50/hr? This question has been asked to proponents of the minimum wage increase, and their response is always the same: because it might hurt the economy to do that.

So I guess it's okay to hurt the economy a little at a time, right?

Besides, the minimum wage was voted DOWN BY DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS. What a bunch of hypocrites. They abandoned their base in their hour of need. Too bad. I know that there were things in the bill that they objected to, but let's face it: if it were important enough, they would have sacrificed in order to look out for the little guy.
 
The democrats voted against that particular bill because the Repugs tied it to a repeal of the inheritance tax which the dems are against. The repugs have stalled or voted down bills whose sole prupose was raising the minimum wage. More BS from the repugs.
 
No, it's not BS. Republicans are against a minimum wage increase.

If the Democrats were really interested in raising the minimum wage, they would have accepted the political compromise. Truth is, raising the minimum wage is an empty gesture that hurts the economy and it's net result is negative.
 
Why don't you try working for minimum wage and see just how far you can make it stretch. An increase in the minimum wage is necessary and needed so that those of us working for minimum wage can have a better life!!!!
 
pepperman said:
Why don't you try working for minimum wage and see just how far you can make it stretch. An increase in the minimum wage is necessary and needed so that those of us working for minimum wage can have a better life!!!!

I have no intention working for minimum wage, why would I do that? You can make more than minimum wage working at McDonalds. I've never worked for minimum wage, even when I was a 15 year old high school student working part time.

If someone is making minimum wage, they need to consider changing jobs. Hell, Rich's friends at Autozone make more then minimum wage.

It's not my responsibility to make sure everyone has a better life. That's the responsibility of the able bodied adults who are content to be paid only $5.15/hr
 
pepperman said:
Why don't you try working for minimum wage and see just how far you can make it stretch. An increase in the minimum wage is necessary and needed so that those of us working for minimum wage can have a better life!!!!

Pep, I know you're not a spring chicken. So let me ask you something: Do you really think that some things in life are free?

Who do you think will pay for the increase in wages? Corporations will raise their prices to compensate because they have to answer to their stockholders, who expect them to deliver a profit. An increase in prices will negate any increase in wages you would see. A Big Mac would go up 45 cents, and gas will go up, and so will utilities. The effect is felt across the board. The result would be a wash, but yippee! you'd have your higher wage. Of course, your life wouldn't change at all, but who cares about that, right?
 
In addition to the possible increase in prices,
the few jobs that currently do pay minimum wage would simply be eliminated.

Most minimum wage jobs are "entry level" at best. If the cost of hiring these position goes up, most small companies will simply opt to hire less of them.

Ultimately, this means less part time jobs for high school students and young adults trying to get their foots in the door anywhere.

However, again, if you're an able bodied adult, and you're trying to raise a family on a minimum wage, you have no one to blame but yourself. Labor, if you're simply willing to do physical labor will pay you considerably more than minimum wage. And if you're willing to show up on time and everyday, you will quickly find yourself in the $10/hr range, at least.
 
I would also add, thanks to Calabrio triggering my thought process yet again, that eliminating minimum wage jobs will also increase foreign outsourcing. And we know how much you liberals HATE outsourcing! Why would Dems support something that causes such a reprehensible outcome?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top