Trump's Final 100 days

I'll take that as a no, you don't want to have a legitimate debate. Shocker.

Quote: Boz

Thank you Mr. Economic Liberal. You are the party that has always argued these “poor” people need to be paid more. Hell your short sighted voters you depend on push for $15 an hour for jobs that are vanishing yearly.

You’re debate about supply side is a joke about a system of people like you who never made a dollar in real world, but learned about it in a class from a dope smoking professor who never would have survived in the real world. Yet you followed their teachings like gospel until the end

And I did go to college. Although I'm not sure if any of my professors smoked dope, I do know they taught me the difference between your and you're. Actually, that might've been one of my elementary teachers that deserve the credit. I know I know I know, useless in the "real world".

Quote: Steverinos

I'll take that as a no, you don't want to have a legitimate debate. Shocker.

Economic debates?

Dow 1940 vs 2018. You lose. The rich get richer based on hard work and inventions,

Education expenses pay off if you want them to.

Hard work always beats depending on the system.

America is the best place in the world to succeed for hard workers.

Liberals and conservatives have shared in the success.

And there is always an opportunity for a Steve Jobs and a Mark Zuckerburg, both liberals.

Only debate is if the average man can do it.

Quote: Steverinos

And I did go to college. Although I'm not sure if any of my professors smoked dope, I do know they taught me the difference between your and you're. Actually, that might've been one of my elementary teachers that deserve the credit. I know I know I know, useless in the "real world".

Thanks for the typical Huffington Post “your or You’re” debate”.

Actually I have been more aware of it recently as it has been used as a measurement of intelligence.

It always bothers me as I try to justify my success in the world of opportunity presented to uneducated people like me.

I don’t typically point things like that out because, yes, it’s silly. But this NEW version of the GOP likes to deride education and I get pretty tired of it. It’s suddenly popular with their base to disparage going to college. Unbelievable.

And hey, don’t let it bother you. If voting for a guy who sleeps with porn stars and moves on married women like bitches doesn’t bother you, why should some random libtard stranger saying you can’t use an apostrophe correctly bother you?

Don’t sweat the small stuff.

Quote: Steverinos

I don’t typically point things like that out because, yes, it’s silly. But this NEW version of the GOP likes to deride education and I get pretty tired of it. It’s suddenly popular with their base to disparage going to college. Unbelievable.

And hey, don’t let it bother you. If voting for a guy who sleeps with porn stars and moves on married women like bitches doesn’t bother you, why should some random libtard stranger saying you can’t use an apostrophe correctly bother you?

Don’t sweat the small stuff.

Exactly! Thanks for finally getting it. I totally get you have absolutely nothing left. I hope you make all the money possible until the Dems get back in charge. I’m sure you will give it back to those less fortunate than you, minus the reduced taxes you earned during the Trump years.

Quote: RS

That post wasn't being sarcastic at all, oh no, it sure wasn't. Nope nope nope! No sarcasm there.

Be patient with me, I was kicked in the head by a horse when I was a child.

But I guess Starbucks could be conservative. Conservative satan worshippers.

Quote: Steverinos

And I did go to college. Although I'm not sure if any of my professors smoked dope, I do know they taught me the difference between your and you're. Actually, that might've been one of my elementary teachers that deserve the credit. I know I know I know, useless in the "real world".

All college is useless, taught by liberals who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. What good is theory and education anyway, never applies in the real world. Just work hard and you will always succeed, especially if you're given an inheritance by your dad. That's the lesson here. College is a waste for time for all.

Success is defined by the Dow 30 index, after all. Because when you open your monthly statement, the balance in your 401(k)/investment account defines happiness, and nothing else. Shallow.

Quote: boymimbo

Success is defined by the Dow 30 index, after all. Because when you open your monthly statement, the balance in your 401(k)/investment account defines happiness, and nothing else. Shallow.

Who said dat?

Quote: boymimbo

All college is useless, taught by liberals who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. What good is theory and education anyway, never applies in the real world. Just work hard and you will always succeed, especially if you're given an inheritance by your dad. That's the lesson here. College is a waste for time for all.

Success is defined by the Dow 30 index, after all. Because when you open your monthly statement, the balance in your 401(k)/investment account defines happiness, and nothing else. Shallow.

Thank you for admitting those who never went to college have found a way to invest, and make money in Trumps America, I.e. 1965 and beyond.

What exactly is your point???

Without a doubt one of the most stupid posts on here in over 234,094.

Are you saying those who have assets from investing are idiots?

Or are you saying others who have found financial success without college should be respected less?

Please define your statement, inquiring minds (or uneducated idiots) want to know.

Quote: Boz

Hard work always beats depending on the system.

If that was true, we shouldn't be entertaining the idea of people abusing "the system," because of how easily they are beaten

Quote: Boz

America is the best place in the world to succeed for hard workers.

So long as we have a president who wants to keep the country closed off to hard workers from the rest of the world that will never be true

Quote: Boz

Thank you Mr. Economic Liberal. You are the party that has always argued these “poor” people need to be paid more. Hell your short sighted voters you depend on push for $15 an hour for jobs that are vanishing yearly.

You’re debate about supply side is a joke about a system of people like you who never made a dollar in real world, but learned about it in a class from a dope smoking professor who never would have survived in the real world. Yet you followed their teachings like gospel until the end

Why do I ever look at this thread?

Many professors can and did survive in the, “Real world,” assuming that being an often highly paid professor doesn’t constitute, “Survival,” on its own. There’s a demand for professors, professors fill that demand, professors are compensated. They literally live supply-side Economics.

Um...I might go back a page or two and jump in on the more substantive stuff with you guys. I enjoy Economics.

A wall along the border would be a ridiculous waste of money and an anti-Statue of Liberty.

No, the better course is to devote the money a wall would cost to hiring new ICE and border guard personnel, upgrade equipment, and set up a streamlined procedure to identify and immediately deport those here without proper authority.

Quote: Boz

Thank you Mr. Economic Liberal. You are the party that has always argued these “poor” people need to be paid more. Hell your short sighted voters you depend on push for $15 an hour for jobs that are vanishing yearly.

I agree that Democrats do tend to depend on people who tend to vote Democrat. Furthermore, I don't consider myself a Democrat, but rather a Libertarian-Socialist. However, I think it's unfair to make it appear as though all Economic Liberals steadfastly believe in a $15 minimum wage.

I do not for the following reasons:

1.) Absent price increases or other substantial cost reductions, it's simply not feasible in some areas of the country. People always like to point to big corporations like Wal-Mart or McDonald's, for example. One thing people fail to realize is that, yes, McDonald's in and of itself is a big corporation...but many of the individual restaurants are not. Some of them are owned by big corporations, or a large franchise group, whereas some franchisees may have only one or a few restaurants.

As of 2016, over 80% of them were franchises, but the company would like to see 95%:

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/03/what-percentage-of-mcdonalds-restaurants-are-owned.aspx

Thus, you could take a McDonald's in a low-income state, perhaps in a rural or semi-rural environment, and it would be understandable when a franchisor says, "I'd be shut down," or that it he/she/they wouldn't make enough to justify continuing to operate.

That's why you have state, and perhaps City/County (in some cases) minimum wage laws. It's also why any such lower level of Government laws are required to pay as much or more than the Federal Minimum wage. The idea of a Federal Minimum Wage is essentially, "If you can't afford to pay this to your employees, then you shouldn't be in business...or at least shouldn't have employees."

I just don't think that's true when you're looking at what would be an unprecedented increase (both in percentages and raw dollars) for some places. The increase it would be to the minimum wage of Ohio (MW = $8.15, Increase = $6.85) is an increase of 84.05% over what the current minimum wage in that state actually is. That's before you even get into increased FICO matches, and presumably, increased unemployment insurance payments. IOW, the $6.85/hour that the employee, "Sees," actually costs more than that.

At minimum staffing, a restaurant that may have made $120,000 in annual profits for the franchisee now operates at a loss assuming no change to prices and 17,518.25 employee hours worked per year. (Again, not even considering the tax implications) That's almost exactly 48 employee hours per day, and two employees per shift at a 24/7 location gets you there. Of course, I've never seen a McDonald's (or fast food of any kind) to only have two people per working on any shift except for midnight.

2.) Prices WILL go up.

It's not a question of, "If," but, "How much?" Not only are prices going to go up, but they are going to go up mainly in the affected industries...which is to say those industries whose payroll has increased as a direct result of the minimum wage increase.

The increase in prices is basically going to be as much as the consumers will tolerate. While the increases might not be the same percentage as the increases to payroll, especially not in states in which the increase to payroll is even more substantial and the market will not bear prices increased accordingly, they are going to increase them as much as possible in the hopes of clearing the same net profit.

Of course, that doesn't actually hurt the very rich. Who it really hurts is anyone who was already making more than $15/hour (rich or not) because the wages for those people often will not go up, (even given the increased minimum wage) but the prices they see will. $15/hour is $31,200/annually assuming a forty-hour workweek, so that's obviously not very much. Imagine having your spending power, with a 20% increase to the average price you pay for everything, go from 31.2K to an effective $24,960. (Not accounting for taxes) An assumed 20% spending power reduction, if nothing else, is probably way too conservative an estimate.

Hell, even city governments often pay their sewer/garbage crews and clerical-type positions less than that, so what you might see is a new or increased local sales tax just to keep the budget sustainable. The thing about sales taxes that sucks is, obviously, that those DO disproportionally affect poorer people, as a percentage of income.

3.) It ONLY helps those who were making less than the minimum wage (sometimes) and hurts everyone else.

This goes along with #2, but you're going to see an increase in the wages of many people while others either stay flat or do not increase at the same percentage or even the percentage at which their prices increase. I already tossed out a few examples in #2 that cover that.

I mean, if you're making $16/hour as it is in Ohio and minimum wage goes up to $15, I don't think they're usually going to take the $16/hour guy and do a proportionate bump up to $29.45. I know when I did telemarketing over a decade ago (before being a supervisor) we made $8.00/hour before bonuses and commissions and, after a modest minimum wage increase, we made $8.00/hour before bonuses and commissions. I think that was when it went from $5.15 to $5.85, or something like that.

I also know, in that state, it then went up to $6.25. You guessed it, the TSR's still made $8.00/hour before bonuses and commissions. Technically the $8.00 was partially a bonus as you had to work forty hours per week to get to the $8.00....so I guess the, "Base Pay," stayed at $6.00/hour until the MW went up to $6.25/hour at which point the, "Attendance Bonus," was technically REDUCED from $2.00/hour to $1.75/hour.

Yeah, so spending power goes down.

Those who have it worse to the greatest extent are quite possibly those who were relatively close to $15/hour as it was (but not quite there) who only get a raise to $15/hour when it takes effect. The reason why is because the prices, as a percentage, are more likely to raise against their wages in a more disproportionate way while they find themselves now making minimum wage.

I know of many places where you're doing pretty well to make $12-$14 an hour. Yes, there are places in America in which that is a sustainable income for as single person. More than sustainable, really. Low cost-of-living type places, mostly semi-rural or small towns, of course.

Conclusion

In addition to NOT favoring a MW increase, (I have different plans of effectuating Socialism when they finally decide to appoint me World Leader) I would argue that it would disrupt as many lives and communities, perhaps, as it improves.

Furthermore, I stipulate that the Left makes a mistake when they look at those with, "Rightist," ideals as uniformly stupid. No. If I live in a smaller town and make $13/hour, I know what's best for my own self-interest, and a $15 minimum wage isn't it. If I live in a small town and make $8.75/hour, then maybe that changes.

Of course, anti-abortion and anti gay marriage types, well...I really fail to see how that kind of stuff affects the self-interest of those people. I kind of want to look at one of those people (if a guy) and say, "I'm not going to make you marry a dude if you don't want to, I promise. I have no plans to marry a dude, either."

When Trump got Russian hookers to urinate on Obama and his wife(A bed they once slept in).
He was just using a visual demonstration of how trickle-down economics should work.

Quote: Boz

Thank you for admitting those who never went to college have found a way to invest, and make money in Trumps America, I.e. 1965 and beyond.

What exactly is your point???

Without a doubt one of the most stupid posts on here in over 234,094.

Are you saying those who have assets from investing are idiots?

Or are you saying others who have found financial success without college should be respected less?

Please define your statement, inquiring minds (or uneducated idiots) want to know.

It's over your head. What do you care anyway?

You guys aren’t going to find any common ground to build from this way. What’s the point of having the conversation?

Quote: Mission146

In addition to NOT favoring a MW increase, (I have different plans of effectuating Socialism when they finally decide to appoint me World Leader) I would argue that it would disrupt as many lives and communities, perhaps, as it improves.

Furthermore, I stipulate that the Left makes a mistake when they look at those with, "Rightist," ideals as uniformly stupid. No. If I live in a smaller town and make $13/hour, I know what's best for my own self-interest, and a $15 minimum wage isn't it. If I live in a small town and make $8.75/hour, then maybe that changes.

We've seen minimum wage increases in many places, some sudden, some not.

In the sudden:
(1) There is a reticence to hire new workers at the high wage as employers look for experienced workers.
(2) Benefits are removed from the low income workers (paid breaks, medical, sick, vacation) to pay the mandated wages
(3) Pressure on prices to be raised.
(4) In good economic times, no change to unemployment due to more spending. In poor economic times, more unemployment and a shift of labor away from the young.
(5) Businesses do not have time to adjust and ineffective employers make sudden shifts that result in lost sales.

In the gradual:
(1) New workers are still hired and benefits maintained.
(2) Price increases are absorbed easily through greater spending.
(3) Businesses have time to adjust and even make mistakes
(4) Better employment numbers because of greater spending.

At worse, the gradual increase in rates has never had a negative effect. At worst, the sudden increase has resulted in a host of ill effects, but none of which has had a long-standing economic impact. I have yet to see a valid study that shows that the gradual increase of minimum wage has had a poor effect. In the end, minimum wage laws have not kept up to inflation anyway, and there needs to be a correction to account.

Raising minimum wages gets people off of government welfare programs. People who work full time will no longer require food stamps (which currently benefit 42,000,000 Americans). People who were not in the workforce will rejoin. It increases spending, particularly in industries that are labor price intensive.

I would suggest that $12/hour minimum wage is probably sustainable for any single person. What you want is a minimum wage that is sustainable for a family; that is, a single wage earner supporting a partner and a child, or a double wage earner with a partner, two children and paying daycare. I would suggest that is closer to $15/hour. And you want to encourage families. If you want the American population to be fruitful and multiply, then you need to provide conditions for that. Otherwise, you'll be relying on immigration to fill the labor force, and Trump does not want that.

Quote: Mission146

You guys aren’t going to find any common ground to build from this way. What’s the point of having the conversation?

Exactly. There are people who will defend their political view to the end and won't admit successes and failures of each side, and to me, there is no point in having rational conversations with those people who defend their leader to a fault and form their views over what a news network is telling them to believe.

I've always said that ObamaCare was a failure and certainly there are things that Obama could have done better. But it also fails to address the many things that the end of the Bush administration (TARP) and the Obama administration did to get the economy going again. I've also said that the Trump tax plan *may* have good benefits. In the end however it's corporate welfare. The tax plan is costing between $100 - $200 billion per year, which someone eventually has to pay for through an increase in tax revenue.

My political leanings are left because of my beliefs in a just society where people who have gifts (not just the rich and healthy) help out the people who lack them. I don't believe in corporate welfare because in the end, most corporations have always gone to payments to benefit its shareholders, and this massive tax break is no exception.

Minimum wage should be locked with inflation.

Quote: boymimbo

My political leanings are left because of my beliefs in a just society where people who have gifts (not just the rich and healthy) help out the people who lack them. I don't believe in corporate welfare because in the end, most corporations have always gone to payments to benefit its shareholders, and this massive tax break is no exception.

Can't you see this is why the state is slowly replacing the church? Communities and relationships are being destroyed because people no longer depend on each other. Why should I continue giving my money to a church when I have none left after taxes? Charity is dead. Besides, people in churches were way better at finding the truly needy because they WANTED to, not because they had to pay back student loans by pushing papers around a desk. God gave us free will and people like you are taking that free will away when you vote for leaders who force us to give under the threat of jail time.

Quote: Boz

Dow 1940 vs 2018. You lose.

Umm, supply side trickle down economics has really only been in practice in America since the 80s. Not sure why you're going back to 1940. You keep citing the DOW as some kind of empirical evidence that supply side is golden and that there's nothing else to measure economic performance by. You do realize that only 50% of Americans have any ownership in stocks, including retirement accounts?

So what about GDP growth? Job creation? Investment growth? Median wages? Deficits? Debt? Income inequality? I don't understand why any person, highly educated, poorly educated (Trump loves them, said so himself), or self-educated can look at the data on income inequality over the last 30 years and say that it's not a problem. When a very very small percentage of people are acquiring most of the wealth being generated, don't you think that will, umm, lead to some problems down the road?

Let's not pretend that there are not a variety of factors that are in play when it comes to economic performance in respective eras. And I'm not saying that tax cuts will never work or that tax increases always work. What I am saying is that the data that is widely available to all of us is pretty clear. There is NO indication that lowering taxes for businesses and wealthy individuals will lead to long-term economic growth. That is especially true for an already healthy economy, which we had when Trump took office.

For an economy that is struggling? Sure, I can see lowering taxes to boost SHORT-term economic growth as a viable strategy and it has worked in the past. But maintaining those same rates after an economy has recovered and it becoming the new standard has led to long-term problems, including a huge national debt (that conservatives do not appear to be concerned about now that a republican is in the WH), and an income inequality emergency.

And by the way, throughout the last 100 or so years, democrats have outperformed republicans in all of these measurements. In some cases, it's not even close. You can argue that it's a small sample size. You can argue that timing and luck have a role. Both are true. However, the data is in and it doesn't lie. I could provide you with several links to different data sets but something tells me you're not interested, so I'm not going to waste anymore of my time.

GO GAMBLE.

Quote: Steverinos

And by the way, throughout the last 100 or so years, democrats have outperformed republicans in all of these measurements. In some cases, it's not even close. You can argue that it's a small sample size. You can argue that timing and luck have a role. Both are true. However, the data is in and it doesn't lie. I could provide you with several links to different data sets but something tells me you're not interested, so I'm not going to waste anymore of my time.

Even President Trump himself said the economy does better under Democrats.

And oh, boy, 2020 could be interesting....

Quote: RogerKint

Can't you see this is why the state is slowly replacing the church? Communities and relationships are being destroyed because people no longer depend on each other. Why should I continue giving my money to a church when I have none left after taxes? Charity is dead. Besides, people in churches were way better at finding the truly needy because they WANTED to, not because they had to pay back student loans by pushing papers around a desk. God gave us free will and people like you are taking that free will away when you vote for leaders who force us to give under the threat of jail time.

I think what you are saying is "taxes bad". Taxes have been part of societies for a long time, from the Pharoahs to the Romans to the British Empire to Lincoln. Tariffs are also a form of tax: a sales tax effectively on imports that the US had in place when they weren't collecting taxes.

Over time, I've learned that the most important "items" in my life are people and the relationships that I have with those people. I used to think that money would make me happy, but I see people with close to nothing who are living lives of happiness.

What does money have to do with free will anyway? Wasn't it Jesus that said: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's?" When you start equating free will with $$$,$$$ there is a problem in your heart.

Does it mean that the DJIA is meaningless? No. But it is only one measure of many of how a society is performing.

I think what you are saying is "taxes good". Let me build a straw man and completely destroy it.

Boymimbo,

First of all, terrific stuff! This is an excellent post to respond to!

Quote: boymimbo

We've seen minimum wage increases in many places, some sudden, some not.

In the sudden:
(1) There is a reticence to hire new workers at the high wage as employers look for experienced workers.
(2) Benefits are removed from the low income workers (paid breaks, medical, sick, vacation) to pay the mandated wages
(3) Pressure on prices to be raised.
(4) In good economic times, no change to unemployment due to more spending. In poor economic times, more unemployment and a shift of labor away from the young.
(5) Businesses do not have time to adjust and ineffective employers make sudden shifts that result in lost sales.

1.) Agreed, obviously.

2.) Agreed, to an extent. In this instance, it really depends upon the state. Some states mandate that there must be paid breaks for x number of hours worked in a shift with exception to certain job types. (Mainly those in which the person working is the only employee on the premises...generally in those jobs the employee can eat whenever he/she wants, anyway.)

Secondly, I've not really looked into the healthcare laws under the ACA re: employment, but it occurs to me that, short of making some people part time, you really cannot remove the healthcare in some instances.

I agree with sick/personal/vacation day reduction. Of course, even if someone got a total of eighteen PTO days per year, taking ALL of them away only puts a small dent in the increase to the overall payroll cost. That's particularly true when you're talking about a wage increase of as much as 80%.

3.) That's the one that hurts everybody.

4.) I generally agree, but I think, from a MicroEconomic standpoint, people often forget how localized this is. In other words, state or federal unemployment levels are not necessarily relevant for something along those lines. More important are local employment levels. If you have a fast food place that employs perhaps as many as sixty people that closes, then those sixty people are going to have trouble replacing that income in a small town.

5.) I wouldn't really blame the employers too much, especially if it comes in the light of an unprecedented percentage increase to the minimum wage. They really don't know what to do, don't know what increased prices the market will bear...they just know that their businesses have (in some cases) gone from trending profitable to trending unprofitable essentially overnight. That's a lot to deal with.

Me? I'd collude the hell out of it. You'd be surprised how easy local collusion is. Hotels do it all the time, in fact, it's not even always unspoken. I'd raise my prices gradually in advance of the MW going up and try to hoard some money to weather the storm. After that, even though there is going to be a price hike, it won't seem as dramatic, since everyone locally and in the industry will have already raised prices somewhat.

I'd add one, even though it goes along with #2:

6.) Many workers will be reduced to part-time, when feasible.

Quote:

In the gradual:
(1) New workers are still hired and benefits maintained.
(2) Price increases are absorbed easily through greater spending.
(3) Businesses have time to adjust and even make mistakes
(4) Better employment numbers because of greater spending.

At worse, the gradual increase in rates has never had a negative effect. At worst, the sudden increase has resulted in a host of ill effects, but none of which has had a long-standing economic impact. I have yet to see a valid study that shows that the gradual increase of minimum wage has had a poor effect. In the end, minimum wage laws have not kept up to inflation anyway, and there needs to be a correction to account.

1.) Agreed.

2.) I disagree, there's greater spending from those who now have increased wages, but you're not focusing enough on those who made more than the old minimum wage, less than the new minimum wage and whose employers only bring them up to the new minimum wage. On a percentage of income basis, those people often find themselves spending a greater percentage of their incomes to get the same goods.

Worse still is the situation for those people who made slightly more than the new minimum wage who do not see a wage increase at all. The spending power of their money goes down and...that's it.

Essentially, you're bringing up the floor, but you're also putting more people at or closer to the floor...from a spending power standpoint.

3.) Agreed.

4.) I disagree. I think it may have correlated that way on a federal basis, but I don't know that minimum wage increases caused that. There are any number of different factors, especially MicroEconomically, that could lead to the same result.

Quote:

Raising minimum wages gets people off of government welfare programs. People who work full time will no longer require food stamps (which currently benefit 42,000,000 Americans). People who were not in the workforce will rejoin. It increases spending, particularly in industries that are labor price intensive.

I'm going to agree, but I don't think that getting people off of Government welfare programs is necessarily a worthy goal on its own. For one thing, like I said, I think you raise the floor up, but you have more people at or near the floor. What happens is that the weakening of an individual's relative spending power taken as a percentage of income goes down the closer that the person is to the NEW minimum wage without getting any kind of raise.

Further, anyone between the OLD and NEW minimum wage who just goes up to the new minimum wage sees a disproportionate decrease to relative spending power...and now they also don't have food stamps anymore! In other words, they're worse off in just about every conceivable way. If the wages go up 20%, the prices go up 30% AND they lose food stamps...well, it's not hard to do the math on what happens to them.

The positive aspect of food stamps is that food stamps are a derivative of tax dollars which (ideally) disproportionally come from the rich, and more importantly, the very rich. When you look at a price increase relative to income, that disproportionally affects poor people, always has, always will. The reason why is because some of their income must go towards base goods, (read: no other choice but to buy) so any increase in the cost of those base goods decreases their overall spending power.

Think of it like a toll if you want to drive across a state and the toll is $40. Everybody pays the same $40, but that $40 is a greater percentage of annual income for someone making $22,000 per year than someone making $100,000 per year. Now, if you think about someone who works some service job at one of the service plazas, the tolls they have to pay just to get to and from work represent a not inconsiderable percentage of their income. For someone making $500,000 per year who takes the same toll road everyday, it's a pittance, percentage-wise.

Quote:

I would suggest that $12/hour minimum wage is probably sustainable for any single person. What you want is a minimum wage that is sustainable for a family; that is, a single wage earner supporting a partner and a child, or a double wage earner with a partner, two children and paying daycare. I would suggest that is closer to $15/hour. And you want to encourage families. If you want the American population to be fruitful and multiply, then you need to provide conditions for that. Otherwise, you'll be relying on immigration to fill the labor force, and Trump does not want that.

I consider myself a Socialist and I do not want a MW sustainable for a family. I don't think it should be because then there is very little motivation to go to school or take anything other than the most menial of jobs. I think you need some more Government oversight with respect to how much childcare should cost, but it should otherwise be an expectation that a family of three or four is going to need multiple wage earners if they are at minimum wage level jobs.

I mean, you can make an argument that both people should not have to work full-time necessarily, and I wouldn't have a problem with that, but the notion that the literal easiest possible jobs to get, some of which don't even require a H.S. Diploma, should ALWAYS pay sufficiently to sustain a family of three or four is a notion that I disagree with. Besides, they qualify for forms of Government assistance which, as a percentage, disproportionately affect the rich and very rich, so that's cool with me.

Quote: TigerWu

Minimum wage should be locked with inflation.

Not localized enough. I would say cost-of-living index...preferably local/county, but I guess you could go by state.

Quote: boymimbo

Exactly. There are people who will defend their political view to the end and won't admit successes and failures of each side, and to me, there is no point in having rational conversations with those people who defend their leader to a fault and form their views over what a news network is telling them to believe.

Yeah...that's pretty much why I don't really follow anything except gambling news until two weeks before local elections, a month before non-Presidential years and about two months before Presidential years. In addition to the fact that I don't really care to listen to the talking heads scream at each other for hours at a time, you're not really going to effectuate any meaningful change until election time anyway.

That's what bothers me about The Resistance and the #Resist people. In addition to being arrogant, and I'm arrogant, so I'm good at identifying arrogance...it's so melodramatic. It's like, here's what you want to do if you want Trump out of office:

1.) Wait for 2020.
2.) Vote for someone else.

Does the political process suck? Sure. Does the Electoral College suck? Indubitably, in my opinion. But, under the context of what the codified rules are, Trump won, so the #NotMyPresident people can shove it. The Constitution says he is my President. Now, I can still think he's a lard ass blowhard moron, but he's a lard ass blowhard moron who happens to be my President.

Until Congress or the next election determine otherwise. He could be impeached, but we need the investigation results first, (and probably a Democratic-controlled Congress) so anything prior to that time is worthless speculation and pipe-dreaming.

#TheResistance can play the role of Penny Henny in the meantime, that's not my bag. The world will either end or it won't. I doubt if it will, but even were my opinion the opposite, it's out of my hands.

Quote:

I've always said that ObamaCare was a failure and certainly there are things that Obama could have done better. But it also fails to address the many things that the end of the Bush administration (TARP) and the Obama administration did to get the economy going again. I've also said that the Trump tax plan *may* have good benefits. In the end however it's corporate welfare. The tax plan is costing between $100 - $200 billion per year, which someone eventually has to pay for through an increase in tax revenue.

I'll stipulate that it could have done a lot of stuff better, such as be straight up Socialized medicine instead, but I'm not willing to call it a failure.

I would say that the people are going to end up paying it, ultimately. You'll trim down on social safety nets and otherwise keep them as cheap as possible and shift the tax burden such that the proportional impact is felt more by the lower classes.

Quote:

My political leanings are left because of my beliefs in a just society where people who have gifts (not just the rich and healthy) help out the people who lack them. I don't believe in corporate welfare because in the end, most corporations have always gone to payments to benefit its shareholders, and this massive tax break is no exception.

I pretty much agree with that statement.

Quote: RogerKint

Can't you see this is why the state is slowly replacing the church?

Good. The church could be replaced by nothing and it would be an improvement. It would also be fitting, there's nothing in the sky, so we'll have nothing on the ground to celebrate and worship the nothing that is in the sky.

Quote:

Communities and relationships are being destroyed because people no longer depend on each other.

They never could depend on each other. Tell me, what percentage of Americans were Protestants (or some other Abrahamic faith) back when slavery was legal? We tried it the Religious way, the Religious way does nothing but fail.

The Religious way is nothing but a means to control, which is all Religion is. That's why the main selling points of many Abrahamic Religions are:

1.) Conformance.
2.) Subservience.
3.) Fear.

They use those because they work, especially on the people unintelligent enough to combat against those things.

Anyway, the social/religious framework (on those occasions it worked successfully) was nothing more than a means and mechanism by which poor people would help one another out...primarily so the rich and very rich wouldn't have to.

Beyond that, such mechanisms are not codified and otherwise very inconsistent. Governmental frameworks, ideally, are both codified and consistent. Here is your income, here are the benefits you qualify for.

Quote:

Why should I continue giving my money to a church when I have none left after taxes?

You shouldn't have given it to them in the first place. Look at how much of it gets squandered on their pointless infrastructures. Not to mention those denominations with paid clergy. Blah.

Quote:

Charity is dead.

"God is dead."-Nietzsche

Quote:

Besides, people in churches were way better at finding the truly needy because they WANTED to, not because they had to pay back student loans by pushing papers around a desk. God gave us free will and people like you are taking that free will away when you vote for leaders who force us to give under the threat of jail time.

Basic state educational institutions should be free for those who qualify on their academic merits as well as income, problem solved with student debt.

I mean, people actually say that it literally, can't be done. How could it not be done? We literally do exactly that for K-12 students in the vast majority.

The Religious take that free will away every time they try to codify their personal beliefs and force them on the masses via Governmental restrictions. Anti-Abortion. Anti-Gay Marriage. Anti-this. Anti-that. Be the, "Freedom party," with the right hand whilst using the left to restrict people on freaking social matters. Again, blah.

Quote: Mission146

Good. The church could be replaced by nothing and it would be an improvement. It would also be fitting, there's nothing in the sky, so we'll have nothing on the ground to celebrate and worship the nothing that is in the sky.



They never could depend on each other. Tell me, what percentage of Americans were Protestants (or some other Abrahamic faith) back when slavery was legal? We tried it the Religious way, the Religious way does nothing but fail.

The Religious way is nothing but a means to control, which is all Religion is. That's why the main selling points of many Abrahamic Religions are:

1.) Conformance.
2.) Subservience.
3.) Fear.

They use those because they work, especially on the people unintelligent enough to combat against those things.

Anyway, the social/religious framework (on those occasions it worked successfully) was nothing more than a means and mechanism by which poor people would help one another out...primarily so the rich and very rich wouldn't have to.

Beyond that, such mechanisms are not codified and otherwise very inconsistent. Governmental frameworks, ideally, are both codified and consistent. Here is your income, here are the benefits you qualify for.



You shouldn't have given it to them in the first place. Look at how much of it gets squandered on their pointless infrastructures. Not to mention those denominations with paid clergy. Blah.



"God is dead."-Nietzsche



Basic state educational institutions should be free for those who qualify on their academic merits as well as income, problem solved with student debt.

I mean, people actually say that it literally, can't be done. How could it not be done? We literally do exactly that for K-12 students in the vast majority.

The Religious take that free will away every time they try to codify their personal beliefs and force them on the masses via Governmental restrictions. Anti-Abortion. Anti-Gay Marriage. Anti-this. Anti-that. Be the, "Freedom party," with the right hand whilst using the left to restrict people on freaking social matters. Again, blah.

My goal in life is to convince you and Axel to become born again christians.

My post was directed at BoyMimbo because I believe he said he is a Christian.

Quote: boymimbo

My political leanings are left because of my beliefs in a just society where people who have gifts (not just the rich and healthy) help out the people who lack them.

Like Cuba, where they will give you all kinds of gifts. And if you try to escape they will gift you a bullet in the ass.

Quote: Mission146

Good. The church could be replaced by nothing and it would be an improvement. It would also be fitting, there's nothing in the sky, so we'll have nothing on the ground to celebrate and worship the nothing that is in the sky.

I completely disagree with you on the role that religion has played in society, both positive and negative. I, however, would never attend a church that forces any of these traits (Comformance, Subservience, Fear). In my opinion, churches should be about love, forgiveness, and charity.

Quote: boymimbo

I completely disagree with you on the role that religion has played in society, both positive and negative. I, however, would never attend a church that forces any of these traits (Comformance, Subservience, Fear). In my opinion, churches should be about love, forgiveness, and charity.

I certainly hope our disagreement won't discourage you from responding to the longer posts more directly related to the economic subject matter. I find that to be the more interesting conversation, anyway. God either exists or he doesn't, I don't think he does, nothing I can do about it either way.

I also agree with you on the nature of churches. I agree that it's largely denominational, even within certain denominations, it may come down to the methodology of the specific church or clergyman. That's why I have a very high opinion of the LDS (Mormons) and the congregants of that faith. I have a high opinion of most that adhere to one form of Judaism or another. I have a very low opinion, generally, of Apostolics...again, I could be convinced otherwise. I've been to three different Apostolic churches, and in my personal and very limited experience, the only denomination I have seen with more nonsensical rules and a greater, "Rule by fear," attitude is probably the Baptists.

The NYT has a bombshell tonight:

Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit

This happened last June. I've bolded my favorite part of the article...

Quote:

WASHINGTON — President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.

Quote: Mission146

Me? I'd collude the hell out of it. You'd be surprised how easy local collusion is. Hotels do it all the time, in fact, it's not even always unspoken. I'd raise my prices gradually in advance of the MW going up and try to hoard some money to weather the storm. After that, even though there is going to be a price hike, it won't seem as dramatic, since everyone locally and in the industry will have already raised prices somewhat.

I believe of course in collusion in most industries and that industries will collude if given the opportunity to do so, especially if they are providing a local service with little competition. We imagine this supply/demand curve based on a perfect number of suppliers and the perfect number of consumers. But when the suppliers are small, price fixing will occur which then results in prices being much higher than the supply/demand would dictate, forcing consumers to have to pay more whether it be for fuel, sleep, or groceries.

Quote: Mission146

I disagree, there's greater spending from those who now have increased wages, but you're not focusing enough on those who made more than the old minimum wage, less than the new minimum wage and whose employers only bring them up to the new minimum wage. On a percentage of income basis, those people often find themselves spending a greater percentage of their incomes to get the same goods.

That may be a valid argument, and makes sense but there is no evidence that concludes that you are right or wrong, but a gradual minimum wage increase I believe has little effect.

Quote: Mission146

I'm going to agree, but I don't think that getting people off of Government welfare programs is necessarily a worthy goal on its own. For one thing, like I said, I think you raise the floor up, but you have more people at or near the floor. What happens is that the weakening of an individual's relative spending power taken as a percentage of income goes down the closer that the person is to the NEW minimum wage without getting any kind of raise.

Getting people to work and not on welfare programs (for a single person) I think is a very worthwhile goal.

Quote: Mission146

Further, anyone between the OLD and NEW minimum wage who just goes up to the new minimum wage sees a disproportionate decrease to relative spending power...and now they also don't have food stamps anymore! In other words, they're worse off in just about every conceivable way. If the wages go up 20%, the prices go up 30% AND they lose food stamps...well, it's not hard to do the math on what happens to them.

Why would relative prices go up more than the relative cost of labor? If you pay $12 vs $10 why would you need to raise prices 30% unless you're terrible at pricing? Most food is based in farms, which are not subject to MW laws. The supply chain would be subject to MW increases but much of the cost is in machinery and processing, not labor. And in jurisdictions where minimum wage has gone up, we simply have not seen the inflation that you suggest would occur.

Quote: Mission146

The positive aspect of food stamps...

I don't think there's anything positive about SNAP. You can still progressively tax and spend the money on things that are needed.

Quote: Mission146

Think of it like a toll if you want to drive across a state and the toll is $40. Everybody pays the same $40, but that $40 is a greater percentage of annual income for someone making $22,000 per year than someone making $100,000 per year. Now, if you think about someone who works some service job at one of the service plazas, the tolls they have to pay just to get to and from work represent a not inconsiderable percentage of their income. For someone making $500,000 per year who takes the same toll road everyday, it's a pittance, percentage-wise.

Bad example. Prices are set by the government, and the toll cost of someone getting to work represents at most a $1 toll (I'm thinking a 20 mile drive, for example on I-90 in New York). If that toll goes up to $1.10 due to labor the worker is still paying an extra $40 / year to earn an extra $2,000.

Quote: Mission146

I consider myself a Socialist and I do not want a MW sustainable for a family.

$30k/year for a family of 3 is not very sustainable. It means shopping at Value Village, having no luxuries, and struggling. It's the poverty line.

Quote: ams288

The NYT has a bombshell tonight:

Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit

This happened last June. I've bolded my favorite part of the article...

Quote:

WASHINGTON — President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.

Ok then. You said they had a bombshell? Still waiting on that

Quote: Mission146

Boymimbo,

First of all, terrific stuff! This is an excellent post to respond to!



1.) Agreed, obviously.

2.) Agreed, to an extent. In this instance, it really depends upon the state. Some states mandate that there must be paid breaks for x number of hours worked in a shift with exception to certain job types. (Mainly those in which the person working is the only employee on the premises...generally in those jobs the employee can eat whenever he/she wants, anyway.)

Secondly, I've not really looked into the healthcare laws under the ACA re: employment, but it occurs to me that, short of making some people part time, you really cannot remove the healthcare in some instances.

I agree with sick/personal/vacation day reduction. Of course, even if someone got a total of eighteen PTO days per year, taking ALL of them away only puts a small dent in the increase to the overall payroll cost. That's particularly true when you're talking about a wage increase of as much as 80%.

3.) That's the one that hurts everybody.

4.) I generally agree, but I think, from a MicroEconomic standpoint, people often forget how localized this is. In other words, state or federal unemployment levels are not necessarily relevant for something along those lines. More important are local employment levels. If you have a fast food place that employs perhaps as many as sixty people that closes, then those sixty people are going to have trouble replacing that income in a small town.

5.) I wouldn't really blame the employers too much, especially if it comes in the light of an unprecedented percentage increase to the minimum wage. They really don't know what to do, don't know what increased prices the market will bear...they just know that their businesses have (in some cases) gone from trending profitable to trending unprofitable essentially overnight. That's a lot to deal with.

Me? I'd collude the hell out of it. You'd be surprised how easy local collusion is. Hotels do it all the time, in fact, it's not even always unspoken. I'd raise my prices gradually in advance of the MW going up and try to hoard some money to weather the storm. After that, even though there is going to be a price hike, it won't seem as dramatic, since everyone locally and in the industry will have already raised prices somewhat.

I'd add one, even though it goes along with #2:

6.) Many workers will be reduced to part-time, when feasible.



1.) Agreed.

2.) I disagree, there's greater spending from those who now have increased wages, but you're not focusing enough on those who made more than the old minimum wage, less than the new minimum wage and whose employers only bring them up to the new minimum wage. On a percentage of income basis, those people often find themselves spending a greater percentage of their incomes to get the same goods.

Worse still is the situation for those people who made slightly more than the new minimum wage who do not see a wage increase at all. The spending power of their money goes down and...that's it.

Essentially, you're bringing up the floor, but you're also putting more people at or closer to the floor...from a spending power standpoint.

3.) Agreed.

4.) I disagree. I think it may have correlated that way on a federal basis, but I don't know that minimum wage increases caused that. There are any number of different factors, especially MicroEconomically, that could lead to the same result.



I'm going to agree, but I don't think that getting people off of Government welfare programs is necessarily a worthy goal on its own. For one thing, like I said, I think you raise the floor up, but you have more people at or near the floor. What happens is that the weakening of an individual's relative spending power taken as a percentage of income goes down the closer that the person is to the NEW minimum wage without getting any kind of raise.

Further, anyone between the OLD and NEW minimum wage who just goes up to the new minimum wage sees a disproportionate decrease to relative spending power...and now they also don't have food stamps anymore! In other words, they're worse off in just about every conceivable way. If the wages go up 20%, the prices go up 30% AND they lose food stamps...well, it's not hard to do the math on what happens to them.

The positive aspect of food stamps is that food stamps are a derivative of tax dollars which (ideally) disproportionally come from the rich, and more importantly, the very rich. When you look at a price increase relative to income, that disproportionally affects poor people, always has, always will. The reason why is because some of their income must go towards base goods, (read: no other choice but to buy) so any increase in the cost of those base goods decreases their overall spending power.

Think of it like a toll if you want to drive across a state and the toll is $40. Everybody pays the same $40, but that $40 is a greater percentage of annual income for someone making $22,000 per year than someone making $100,000 per year. Now, if you think about someone who works some service job at one of the service plazas, the tolls they have to pay just to get to and from work represent a not inconsiderable percentage of their income. For someone making $500,000 per year who takes the same toll road everyday, it's a pittance, percentage-wise.



I consider myself a Socialist and I do not want a MW sustainable for a family. I don't think it should be because then there is very little motivation to go to school or take anything other than the most menial of jobs. I think you need some more Government oversight with respect to how much childcare should cost, but it should otherwise be an expectation that a family of three or four is going to need multiple wage earners if they are at minimum wage level jobs.

I mean, you can make an argument that both people should not have to work full-time necessarily, and I wouldn't have a problem with that, but the notion that the literal easiest possible jobs to get, some of which don't even require a H.S. Diploma, should ALWAYS pay sufficiently to sustain a family of three or four is a notion that I disagree with. Besides, they qualify for forms of Government assistance which, as a percentage, disproportionately affect the rich and very rich, so that's cool with me.

Can you name one successful Socialist country?

You sure like to put your hands into other people's pockets. It's all fine until OPM runs out.

Quote: boymimbo

I believe of course in collusion in most industries and that industries will collude if given the opportunity to do so, especially if they are providing a local service with little competition. We imagine this supply/demand curve based on a perfect number of suppliers and the perfect number of consumers. But when the suppliers are small, price fixing will occur which then results in prices being much higher than the supply/demand would dictate, forcing consumers to have to pay more whether it be for fuel, sleep, or groceries.

They absolutely will. The funny thing, perhaps, is that grocery is the one industry that actually doesn't really do it to as great of an extent. Believe it or not, you have stores of different quality levels, real or perceived, but even grocery stores within the same chain largely index their local prices to the area's cost of living.

Granted, much of that has to do with transportation costs and what they must pay the employees on direct. But, end of the day, they are one of the few industries that will actually charge less if they have to pay less.

Quote:

That may be a valid argument, and makes sense but there is no evidence that concludes that you are right or wrong, but a gradual minimum wage increase I believe has little effect.

You would think not, and I have no photographic proof, but my favorite anecdote to go back to is when the MW went from $5.15 to $5.85 in a particular state. I went through Burger King's drive-thru just to look, told a friend I drove to work, "Watch this happen." Sure enough, a large pop/soda was $1.19 the one day and the very next day it was either $1.49 or $1.69. I know it was at least $1.49. Either way, you're talking a 125.21% total product cost relative to original cost whereas wages were 113.59% relative to original.

There were other price increases too, consumer staples in grocery stores. Eggs went from $0.99 to $1.19, 120.2% of original cost.

That's what I'm saying. The industries affected by the increase use a gradual increase to make a higher net profit on product assuming that actual gross sales will be down because of the price increase itself. In other words, they use it as a justification to make more money than they did in the first place.

Now, when it comes to a sudden and violent increase, they really can't do that because the volume isn't going to be there. A large pop, for example, can't go from $1.89 to $3.40 overnight just because it can't. You can't have a Value Combo that goes to fifteen bucks...I wouldn't think. The $5 foot long can't immediately become the $10 foot long.

But, they'll increase those prices as rapidly as possible. If not profit margins, the owners will at least want net profits to stay the same. Remember, the spending power of the owners themselves, on those profits, will also go down as a result of the general price increases.

Quote:

Getting people to work and not on welfare programs (for a single person) I think is a very worthwhile goal.

I disagree. It's the same money, you're just changing who it comes from to some extent. Instead of it coming from the very wealthy (by majority) now more of it comes from the moderately wealthy or upper-middle class owner of a single restaurant or handful of restaurants. It comes from the guy who maybe has one or two franchised gas stations or convenience stores. The lower to middle class will suffer most because of the price increases and the middle to lower-upper class employers will suffer most because of the wage increases.

If anything, the very rich should WANT the minimum wage to go up for just that reason. It shifts the bulk of the payroll burden to the not very rich while they get to raise their own prices in the interim. More importantly, it may have the long-term effect of decreasing their tax burdens.

Quote:

Why would relative prices go up more than the relative cost of labor? If you pay $12 vs $10 why would you need to raise prices 30% unless you're terrible at pricing? Most food is based in farms, which are not subject to MW laws. The supply chain would be subject to MW increases but much of the cost is in machinery and processing, not labor. And in jurisdictions where minimum wage has gone up, we simply have not seen the inflation that you suggest would occur.

It would go up more than the relative cost of labor:

1.) For certain subsets.

2.) Because the companies are going to do everything they can NOT to have a decrease in net profits as a result.

One subset is those who see no wage increase whatsoever. If prices go up more than 0%, then their relative expenses go up by more than 0%.

Another subset is some of the people who make more than the current, but less than the new minimum wage...in some cases. Reasons previously stated.

The only subset that really benefits is those making at or very close to whatever the old minimum wage was. They only benefit if, as you say, the prices increase by a lesser percentage than does the minimum wage. I guess that will just depend on what they buy. Although, they would benefit the most by a sharp increase because I would like to think you literally CAN'T increase prices by 80% overnight.

Quote:

I don't think there's anything positive about SNAP. You can still progressively tax and spend the money on things that are needed.

It's codified. Your income is this, you get this. If you think that some employers will not rip off the workforce and de facto not pay for all hours worked, you're living in a fantasy world...with all due respect. Besides, it disproportionately affects the very rich, which is the real goal here. I'm not going to lie or sugarcoat it.

You can still progressively tax, but what's it going to go to? Overinflated salaries? Wage increases for mayors? Road projects that consist of 5/8 hours of the day being lunchtime and/or snooze-time? No thanks. Improve the social safety nets and redistribute the income, straight up, I'll live with a pothole or two that somehow takes a week and a half of four guys around the clock to fix.

Quote:

Bad example. Prices are set by the government, and the toll cost of someone getting to work represents at most a $1 toll (I'm thinking a 20 mile drive, for example on I-90 in New York). If that toll goes up to $1.10 due to labor the worker is still paying an extra $40 / year to earn an extra $2,000.

Ever been to Pennsylvania? There's not a single toll on 76 or 43 that costs less than $1.00. You could get on and literally get off at the next available opportunity and it costs more than a buck. I think 76 is going to be a minimum of three-something from the nearest possible entrance to the next entrance assuming the two closest on the 300+ mile stretch of highway if I correctly recall...I'll take a picture of the slip next time I get one.

It's a great freaking example.

In fact, they just did a 6% hike on the toll roads in that state, $47.55 East-to-West or vice-versa:

http://www.ydr.com/story/news/2017/12/28/after-2018-toll-hike-cost-you-47-55-cash-cross-pa-turnpike/987515001/

Here's a quote:

Quote:

In a July news release, the Turnpike Commission estimated "the most common toll for a passenger vehicle will increase next year from $1.23 to $1.30 for E-ZPass customers and from $1.95 to $2.10 for cash customers."

And, why? Because it disproportionately impacts the poor, which is what they want.

Quote:

$30k/year for a family of 3 is not very sustainable. It means shopping at Value Village, having no luxuries, and struggling. It's the poverty line.

I'd increase the social safety net. The effective income would be more than that. I'd index it to a localized cost-of-living, too.

Quote: MaxPen

Can you name one successful Socialist country?

You sure like to put your hands into other people's pockets. It's all fine until OPM runs out.

Can name several more Socialist than we (the U.S.) are.

Exhibit A as to why Fox News viewers are so effing clueless:

Hannity's lead story tonight:



They truly live in a different reality than the rest of us...

By the way, to cross PA from East-West on 76 is 13.20466537 cents mean average per mile. The 20 mile example, going by that, is about $2.64.

Quote: mcallister3200

Quote: ams288

The NYT has a bombshell tonight:

Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit

This happened last June. I've bolded my favorite part of the article...

Quote:

WASHINGTON — President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.

Ok then. You said they had a bombshell? Still waiting on that

That's been this thread (and other Trump / election threads).

OMG bombshell!

Oh no, it's nothing, actually.




I'm not just blaming the liberals for doing this. There's blame on both sides.

Quote: MaxPen

Can you name one successful Socialist country?

Socialism works very well, depending what the goal of it is. If the goal is prosperity, abundance, and freedom, then socialism is a failure. But that is not the goal of socialism. Never has been. The goal of socialism is people-control, and legal plunder.

The proper function of government is to protect one's property, not take it and give it to someone else. Our founders gave us a republic, not a democracy. The majority of non-producers will always vote to take from the minority of producers.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

Quote: bobbartop

Socialism works very well, depending what the goal of it is. If the goal is prosperity, abundance, and freedom, then socialism is a failure. But that is not the goal of socialism. Never has been. The goal of socialism is people-control, and legal plunder.

Are you a Libertarian?

I only ask because the thing about certain rightists that bothers me is that some of them complain about things such as, "People-Control," but then they also want to control people when it comes to social/civil affairs. I have no problem with economic freedom advocates who are liberal on social issues, because at least that's very consistent.

Aside from that, a system of pure capitalism sets into motion a system by which labor can be exploited by the very rich. There are so many examples throughout history, even in this country, as to make such an almost undeniable fact. I think if you had capitalism that actually worked ideally such that the labor, on its own, would effectuate a reasonably decent standard of living, then maybe you wouldn't have a need for socialism or economic leftists. I mean, were everyone who works fundamentally taken care of, what would there be to complain about?

Quote:

The proper function of government is to protect one's property, not take it and give it to someone else. Our founders gave us a republic, not a democracy. The majority of non-producers will always vote to take from the minority of producers.

You're going to always have that to some extent, unless someone is going to donate their money to building roads and other Governmental functions.

Quote:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

If lambs knew how to fight rather than try to run, I bet twenty determined lambs could take a single wolf.

Quote: Mission146

Are you a Libertarian?

I only ask because the thing about certain rightists that bothers me is that some of them complain about things such as, "People-Control," but then they also want to control people when it comes to social/civil affairs. I have no problem with economic freedom advocates who are liberal on social issues, because at least that's very consistent.

I'm not a Libertarian, I'm an Americanist. The 10th Amendment takes care of social/civil affairs.

Quote: bobbartop

I'm not a Libertarian, I'm an Americanist. The 10th Amendment takes care of social/civil affairs.

The Republican Party only cares about State’s Rights when it benefits their own agenda. Just look at Jeff Sessions and his crusade against legal marijuana.

Quote: bobbartop

I'm not a Libertarian, I'm an Americanist. The 10th Amendment takes care of social/civil affairs.

Um...depending on what state you live in, I guess. Or, until something like the 18th comes around, though the 18th was amended.

Quote: gamerfreak

The Republican Party only cares about State’s Rights when it benefits their own agenda. Just look at Jeff Sessions and his crusade against legal marijuana.

No, don't say that. They're the party of freedom.

I don't want to be too divisive, but it wouldn't shock me to hear that Sessions has blazed up within the last week.

Quote: Mission146

No, don't say that. They're the party of freedom.

I don't want to be too divisive, but it wouldn't shock me to hear that Sessions has blazed up within the last week.

I'm certain that's really Dana Carvey as Ross Perot and that there is no such person as Jeff Sessions.