Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-20-2014, 3:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Froggy View Post
You said a mouth full there have you looked at the person in that position now? I think that describes Mr Obama to the T. Unless you care to prove me wrong by posting 10 things that Obama has done that has been beneficial for the American people. What do you think of his latest decree he stated 26 times in the past that this is unconstitutional and not within the power of the presidency.
Saying Obama is incompetent requires that you tell me what acts were incompetent. I can't argue points you don't make

I supported the ACA not because it would lower costs or was a good solution to the HC issue. I supported the ACA because it broke the previous status quo, which was not a good solution, discriminated, and accelerated inflation of costs. Now the issue is pushed to the forefront, which is where it should have been all along.

Benghazi or F&F? Not of significant consequence to the public at large. Immigration? Reagan and GHWB used executive orders to force the issue on Congress. You really need to be more specific if you are trying to compare Obama's alleged incompetence to Bush's Iraq war blunder. Stock market and employment numbers are up. Although I don't really hold Bush accountable for the long term cause and effect of our economic issues. That's a problem with incompetence of the American public believing you can send the economy overseas and not cause domestic job issues. Demonizing the poor for $17T debt when the poor don't actually have any of that $17T.
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       11-21-2014, 5:31 AM Reply   
Maybe Benghazi and F&F would be more a significant consequence for you if your family was there. I have listed 10 areas where Obama's presidency has failed and the American people have suffered. I asked for 10 things that have benefited the people you give NONE maybe thats too hard how about 5? As for his latest decree it has NO precedent. Reagan and Bush never over stepped the Constitution as Obama does. Read the article below.


REAGAN AND BUSH 41 PROVIDE NO PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S AMNESTY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
Tonight, President Obama will override Congress and effectively declare amnesty for at least several million illegal immigrants. As Scott has noted, Obama himself has repeatedly admitted he lacks the constitutional power to make this move.

Some of Obama’s defenders claim that the president was mistaken when he acknowledged his lack of power to override the immigration laws. One supporter (I don’t remember who) said that Obama received bad legal advice. Apparently, the “constitutional lawyer” was misled by his legal team.

The most common argument in favor of Obama’s power to declare amnesty by executive order is that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did it. Juan Williams, among others, has made this claim.

It is baseless. Unlike what Obama is about to do, Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 issued immigration regulations that were expressly authorized by a law passed by Congress.

In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The Act required him to adjust the status of certain illegal immigrants to the category of “alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence.”

The Act also authorized the Attorney General to allow other illegal immigrants who did not qualify for the amnesty to remain in the U.S. if needed “to assure family unity.”

Accordingly, in May 1987, the Justice Department issued regulations that interpreted the the term “family unity” as calling for the maintenance of the “family group.” Family group was defined as including “the spouse, unmarried minor children under 18 years of age who are not member of some other household, and parents who resided regularly in the household of the family group.” Thus, not all spouses and children were included.

This regulation was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the assertion of a generalized right to suspend “oppressive” immigration laws. Rather, the administration made it clear that it was carrying out the direction of Congress. It even cited the section of the law that provided this direction (section 245(d)(2)(B)(i) of the 1986 Act).

House Democrats, including one of the authors of the 1986 Act, criticized Reagan for interpreting too narrowly the executive authority they had granted him. They wanted all spouses and children to receive amnesty in the name of family unity. If anything, then Reagan acted too cautiously, exercising less than the full discretion afforded him by Congress.

Enter President George H.W. Bush. In 1990, he expanded the Reagan DOJ’s interpretation of “family unity” to encompass all spouses and children. Like Reagan, Bush merely interpreted the 1986 Act, as Congress called on the executive to do.

Bush’s interpretation was the more expansive one that Democrats had urged the Reagan administration to adopt. Both the Reagan and Bush interpretations were reasonable, though differing, attempts to effectuate congressional intent.

Obama, by contrast, will not be fulfilling a congresional mandate to interpret a new statute. He will be overriding the immigration law in the name of “prosecutorial discretion” on the ground that Congress hasn’t enacted a new statute.

It will be an unprecedented, unlawful, and dangerous assertion of executive power. It might well create a constitutional crisis.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-21-2014, 5:53 AM Reply   
You just listed 10 things. There is nothing about any of those ten that have anything to do with the American people suffering. If Obama had balanced the budget then a lot of Americans would be suffering.
Old     (cowwboy)      Join Date: Jul 2008       11-21-2014, 7:20 AM Reply   
I have mostly stayed out of this subject. But damn this has got to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen.

Quote:
If Obama had balanced the budget then a lot of Americans would be suffering.
So if you make a budget many will suffer??? Wow... I have no reply to that beyond wow.
Old     (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       11-21-2014, 7:53 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Jason, The fact that WMDs were not found and destroyed, and at this point no one cares proves that WMDs were not sufficient reason to invade Iraq and pay the price we paid. Remember I said that supported Bush at that time? The difference is that I am intelligent enough to recognize when I'm wrong and not indulge in foolish denial of the truth. I never believed that Bush's motive was WMDs from the start even though I was in support of the war. I searched Usenet and found a post I made in Apr 1993 regarding this. My reasoning and Bush's was flawed. Mine because I was naive of the culture of Iraq. But there is no explanation for such incompetence at the executive level and the position of the most powerful person on the planet who has billions of dollars of advisors, military, and CIA intelligence at his disposal.

I believe what I wrote then was true regarding WMDs being a ruse. But it was fatally flawed plan because the culture consisted of an oppressed majority that would be itching to extract retribution on their oppressors. Bush had to know that we would be there forever to suppress this. And that was probably exactly what he wanted. But he never anticipated that we could never gain enough control to turn the situation to our advantage. Instead it just turned into a protracted costly endeavour with few to no benefits. Except enriching the heck out of Cheney's cronies. Who may have been the true force behind all of this anyway.
I think it was far more simple than that. IMO, the reason nobody cared about the ceasefire agreement terms is because there was never any risk any of it would find its way to the US. Nobody had the stones to attack our soil with it. So, president after president let it slide. However, 9/11 changed that. Now there was an organization willing to attack our soil. Now it was time to remove the risk of the remaing Iraqi stockpile. GWB should have immediately stormed in dessimated their military, secured the viable stock, and left. He didnt, he instead postured for the rest of the world by following the UN process. The hope was to get rid of the risk as well as show the world we were not going to tolerate terrorism and non-compliance with agreements put in place to protect. Remember, we asked Saddam to simply allow the UN to finish. He refused. If it was just a Cheney cronies money grab, this offer would have never been on the table. There were many attempts by the US and the UN to avoid war.

So, the fail spiral started by not acting immediately, and unannounced. They let Iraq move all their viable Sarin to Syria. Then, when they finally took action they found the research labs, and the stockpile locations but no viable stock. They should have walked away at this point admitting they were too late. But no, they continue the fail spiral by spinning the action into a humanitarian democracy project.

Recognizing the risk of the WMD and moving to mitigate that risk was not poor judgement. The UN process he chose to follow and the subsequent fail spiral will show poorly in history books. Then again, as much revisionist history I see being spouted from the younger on here makes me wonder if the facts will actually ever make it into history books.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-21-2014, 10:39 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowwboy View Post
So if you make a budget many will suffer??? Wow... I have no reply to that beyond wow.
I never said that. So you should have no reply at all.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       11-21-2014, 1:00 PM Reply   
When Americans were sold on the idea that Saddam had WMD's you know damn well that nobody was talking about Sarin gas. We were told they had some kind of nuclear bomb capabilities. The gas that Saddam had was meant to be used on Iraqis from the wrong sect of Islam, not Americans. If GWB had been straight and told us that we should spend 2 trillion to find some sarin gas we would have all collectively told Bush to go back to his office and eat a bullet.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       11-21-2014, 2:45 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
When Americans were sold on the idea that Saddam had WMD's you know damn well that nobody was talking about Sarin gas. We were told they had some kind of nuclear bomb capabilities. The gas that Saddam had was meant to be used on Iraqis from the wrong sect of Islam, not Americans. If GWB had been straight and told us that we should spend 2 trillion to find some sarin gas we would have all collectively told Bush to go back to his office and eat a bullet.
This is not true. They(Powell) even showed images of what they thought were mobile chemical labs to make gas, in the effort to gain UN support.
Old     (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       11-21-2014, 3:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
When Americans were sold on the idea that Saddam had WMD's you know damn well that nobody was talking about Sarin gas. We were told they had some kind of nuclear bomb capabilities. The gas that Saddam had was meant to be used on Iraqis from the wrong sect of Islam, not Americans. If GWB had been straight and told us that we should spend 2 trillion to find some sarin gas we would have all collectively told Bush to go back to his office and eat a bullet.
Sarin is a WMD, and a nasty one at that. The ceasefire agreement that the entire argument for war was based on stated Sarin specifically. The UN request to continue the destruction of the remaining WMDs was Sarin specific. Our argument to the UN stated Sarin specifically. Yet you knew damn well that nobody was talking about Sarin. Got it...

If we were concerned about "nuclear bombs" (I think you may be referring to radioactive "dirty" bombs) then we would need not bother the UN with enforcing an agreement that did not cover such things.
Old     (bftskir)      Join Date: Jan 2004       11-21-2014, 6:31 PM Reply   
Is cutting peoples heads off an approved method of war? You know not against the rules of the war rules? Like gas is against those rules just is not approved...gas is bad...cutting off heads ok. Who made these stupid rules?
Old     (rdlangston13)      Join Date: Feb 2011       11-22-2014, 8:23 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
Just like Texas.
EXACTLY!! Just like Texas. So many similarities between Texas and the middle east it is unreal. People blowing up other people because they are of the different opinions about borders, it's super hot all the time. Just dirt and dust everywhere, a complete barren landscape plagued by decades of drought and heavy pollution from big industry. In fact if you have any family that has moved to Texas recently I would be doing everything I could to get them to move out. A bunch of ignorant SOBs in Texas.

The problem with politicians is they are all bat **** crazy and it is an extreme rarity to find any of them willing to compromise on anything. Bush sucked, Obama Sucks, Clinton Sucked and so on and so forth. We need something like what's in the book Term Limits to happen.
Old     (bftskir)      Join Date: Jan 2004       11-22-2014, 1:11 PM Reply   
No Clinton got blown
Old     (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       11-22-2014, 4:38 PM Reply   
"Since you are clearly at the presidential briefing why dont you share with us what goes on in them? "

Watesports- Obviously, I don’t need to be there to know. The WH keeps logs of the President’s agenda and much of that information is Public. He has attended less than 45%. Bush rarely missed them.

http://www.g-a-i.org/wp-content/uplo...-9.29.2014.pdf


"Terry, it boils down to one simple question. Would we have gone to war in Iraq if Gore had won vs Bush."
Interesting question, WWGD? (What Would Gore do?)

John,
Gore is a weasel, shyster, snake oil salesman without any morals. He would do whatever is best for him as evidenced by his Global Warming/Climate Change scam that has made him billions. But, let’s say any other Democrat whose platform is that of Peace.

The President at the time-- as would any sitting President--was getting input from several Intell sources that encouraged him to invade Iraq. That advice led the Congress to pass the Iraq Resolution in which they cited a number of issues that include various humanitarian, terrorists, and WMD concerns. I remember videos from that intell that showed what the semi-truck trailers that were carrying the WMDs looked like.

Iraq Resolution Included:
Violations of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Pursuing/possessing/using biological and Nuclear weapons
Attempted assassination of GHWB
Attacking US war planes
Supporting Al-Queda with money, aid and harboring, and training camps
Paid bounty to families of suicide bombers
And the....
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

It was passed unanimously in the Senate and 360-38 in the House and signed by President Bill Clinton which resolved to make regime change in Iraq a matter of US Policy. The support among Libs came from the humanitarian angle. There had been an on-going reign of terror that has been called genocide that included the Killing/gassing of 185,000 Kurds. There was torturing and indiscriminate imprisonment of Iraqi citizens. And then there is ODF.

“On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
President Clinton stated in February 1998:
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production....
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits....
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal....
President Clinton ~ 1998”


And let’s remember that US directed/aided Regime change has been adopted by BHO when he helped and supported the overthrow Mubarak in Egypt where the vacuum was filled by Al-Queda affiliate, The Muslim Brotherhood and BHOs attempts to overthrow Assad in Syria-asked Congress for permission to go to war.

There was overwhelming support world-wide with the exception of the usual suspects, Russia, China, France, and Germany, including:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Kuwait, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Uganda.

Now, most of this information has been sanitized by the new Obamacrats after the fact, but the sentiment to go to war was bi-partisan. So, I would say, Yes, It is just as likely that a Democrat would have taken us to war.
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       11-23-2014, 10:37 AM Reply   
Wow Terry, you are delusional, keep drinking the cool-aid, you probably believe that the economy would not have gone into a Depression if the people did not bail out the Big banks, do You? Do you also believe the Earth is 10k years old? Going into Iraq in 2003 was STUPID!
You list 44 countries who "supported us", when the fact is that there were only THREE countries that stepped up with military support! And you talk as though those 3 countries would have gone into Iraq without the US support. This is Not true, Those 3 countries would Not have gone in without the US and the US would not have gone in without Bush as President. Russia, China, France, and Germany obviously made the right choice, we could probably learn from them or at least ask them why they don't support taking over a country. Also, Clinton bombed or sent troops into other countries besides Iraq, he didn't go for an invasion. Ironically Obama wants to get out but has to send 1500 troops back into Iraq.
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       11-24-2014, 6:07 AM Reply   
Its ALL Bush's fault? Does it ever get old? What about the guy/ party that has been running this country for the last 6 years ? How many terms do they get to make a positive difference? I remember the campaign of 2008 Hope and Change??? Is there any hope? Ask some of the 90 million unemployed about hope? There certainly has been change unfortunately not much for the better. The most honest and open administration in history well is it? Here are some famous quotes. You can keep your doctor and will save 2500 a year for health care , 57 states , Army corpse man ,If I had a son he would be just like Trayvon, I will be more flexible after the election. And lets not forget the Beer Summit,Ferguson and now Jonathan Gruber? This is the MOST corrupt and Incompetent administration in history, nobody fears us the enemy laughs at us, the economy is in a death spiral more people on food stamps than ever before and 50% of the voters are on government aid. So what do? We do give Amnesty to 5 million Illegal aliens that should not be here in the first place. Yes its Bush's fault. If he would have been a better president there would be no way a Con man like Barack [Barry] Hussein Obama could ever be elected for any position short of dog catcher outside of IL.

Last edited by Froggy; 11-24-2014 at 6:09 AM.
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       11-27-2014, 10:37 PM Reply   
I am a little late to the party but I suppose the most recent article and reports in the NY Times detailing the weapons recovered and destroyed must be fake

The United States recovered thousands of old chemical weapons in Iraq from 2004 to 2009 and destroyed almost all of them in secret and via open-air detonation, according to a written summary of its activities prepared by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international body that monitors implementation of the global chemical weapons treaty.

The 30-page summary, prepared after quietly held meetings between the organization’s technical staff and American officials in Washington in 2009, was provided to The New York Times by the Pentagon on Friday.

It included a table disclosing limited details on 95 separate recoveries and destructions of chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, for a total of 4,530 munitions from May 2004 through February 2009 — a period of often intense fighting in Iraq.
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       11-27-2014, 10:57 PM Reply   
Obama has brought Chicago politics to the National level.

He has taken the country backwards. He's trying to steal all the money out of hard working people's hands and control where it all goes. He has used race, class warfare, and blame to tear this country apart. There is more racial tension in years all started by this administration and news media. He's now about to do even more damage allowing illegals to stay in this country. Anyone who thinks this is a positive is blind. Anyone who thinks as of right now this country is better off than it was when Obama started is nuts. Anyone who thinks Busch is the complete reason wears still not climbing up is also certifiable. Bush had to clean up messes left by his predecessor as well. IF we want to play the blame game on Iraq let's take it back to where it started with Clinton.

The solution is simple reward hard work, eliminate those who chose not to work. In no way shape or form should anyone not working ever be able to live in government aide for life generation after generation. The only people still involved in a race war are those in office pushing the agenda to the media. There has never been more divide in this country because of their actions. It's sickening Thai is Chicago Politics at its finest. Create al kinds of "false crisis" to distract from all the thievery and bs that is actually taking place. This is the reason Chicago and Illinois rank dead last in the nation for anything worth a crap and number one in the nation for murder. Come see how the "amnesty" has worked in Chicago over the past years making it a safe hold for illegals. See how that has helped. Democrats have been sucking everything dry for years and look where we are at as a state and city. The nation is ¾ of the way to the same

Last edited by xstarrider; 11-27-2014 at 11:03 PM.
Old     (bftskir)      Join Date: Jan 2004       11-28-2014, 12:38 AM Reply   
Can you provide a link to the opcw report or the nyt article?
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       11-28-2014, 6:11 AM Reply   
Swat as a person that worked in Chicago for 30 years and know where the Obamas came from I think you summed it up perfectly. Lets not forget who is in charge of Chicago now . Rahm Emanuel Obama's former chief of staff '' Never let a good crises go to waste''. How is that working out ?
Old     (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       11-29-2014, 2:35 PM Reply   
Joe,
You have all the requirements to be an Obamacrat. That is, those Dems who would burn the US to the ground if they could rule the ashes.

Jump to conclusions
Don’t read for content/change the subject
Resort to only emotional arguments
Try to mislead with partially true/alleged facts

Earth 10K?-No I am not a fundamentalist Christian and in fact not religious at all.
Iraq was stupid- I didn’t address whether or not it was smart. My post addressed if others would have made the same mistake-- Not, if it was the right choice.

Three countries stepped with military support- Of the 48 countries on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       11-29-2014, 6:42 PM Reply   
Terry said, "Three countries stepped with military support- Of the 48 countries on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete."
HaHaHaHa Why are you even arguing with me? This is weak at best, from the article You Posted:
columnist Laura McClure, noting the large amounts of foreign aid being offered in exchange for supporting the Iraq War, referred to Bush's coalition as the "Coalition of the billing".[8]
In the second debate in 2004 U.S. presidential election, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry questioned the size of the coalition participating in the initial invasion, saying, "...when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better". Bush responded by saying, "Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there're 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops". The phrase "You forgot Poland" subsequently became a sarcastic shorthand for the perception that most members of the coalition were not contributing much to the war effort compared to the main three allies. The majority of the population in most countries involved did not, according to surveys, support the endeavour or their nation's participation.[9]
Late U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, then ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, referred to the coalition by the acronym COW, expressing his concern that the United States was being "milked" as a "cash cow". A Canadian Member of Parliament, Carolyn Parrish, referred to Canadian support for the U.S. national missile defense program as the "Coalition of the Idiots".[10]
In Dude, Where's My Country?, Michael Moore argues that the very idea of a "coalition of the willing" was inaccurate. In making his case, Moore notes that most of the countries contributing troops to the coalition were small countries with practically no economic clout, and that the countries' general populations opposed the invasion.
Keep drinking the kool-aid, Bush's coalition was a facade no matter how you spin it!
Now, try to answer the first question I asked you, do you believe that the economy would not have gone into a Depression if the people did not bail out the Big banks?
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       11-30-2014, 8:19 AM Reply   
Joe are you really using John Kerry self-proclaimed “war hero''. Robert Bird who worked his way up to Exalted Cyclops in the KKK. Ultra lib Carolyn Parrish who made an ass of herself on national television by stomping on a George Bush doll before being thrown out of Ottawa only to loose her reelection bid. And Michael Moore with slanted liberal documentaries he has made millions twisting the truth . This is who you choose to back your argument? Why not throw in Al Gore An Inconvenient Truth . Where are all the liberals that were proven right with their statements and predictions? I believe the government had to bail out the banks since it was their policies and restrictions that forced them to be in trouble in the first place. The country would be better off today if the government would have backed the people with low interest loans with extended terms instead of promoting massive foreclosures by bailing out the banks only after they foreclose.

Last edited by Froggy; 11-30-2014 at 8:27 AM.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-30-2014, 8:43 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Froggy View Post
And Michael Moore with slanted liberal documentaries he has made millions twisting the truth .
Kind of like Rupert Murdoch's Benghazi News.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       11-30-2014, 9:27 AM Reply   
Do we even need to argue with Froggy anymore guys? He's obviously a complete and utter moron who has been brainwashed. He's burying himself deeper every time he speaks with more rhetoric. His only supporter is a jaded cop who thinks that we're all criminals because the criminals are the only people he ever deals with. Swatguy actually said that we should "eliminate those who chose not to work". I can only assume that eliminate means kill. Should we start with the senior citizens or the children Swatguy? Do we start sweatshops again so our kids aren't killed for not having a job? When we start executing people for choosing not to have a job, will we start with white people or do we limit it to only blacks and Hispanics? After the poor people are all dead and we no longer need so many police officers and Swatguy is laid off, do we kill Swatguy? You can't argue with idiots because they don't have the intelligence level to think outside of their tiny little set of variables.
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       11-30-2014, 5:42 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
Do we even need to argue with Froggy anymore guys? He's obviously a complete and utter moron who has been brainwashed. He's burying himself deeper every time he speaks with more rhetoric. His only supporter is a jaded cop who thinks that we're all criminals because the criminals are the only people he ever deals with. Swatguy actually said that we should "eliminate those who chose not to work". I can only assume that eliminate means kill. Should we start with the senior citizens or the children Swatguy? Do we start sweatshops again so our kids aren't killed for not having a job? When we start executing people for choosing not to have a job, will we start with white people or do we limit it to only blacks and Hispanics? After the poor people are all dead and we no longer need so many police officers and Swatguy is laid off, do we kill Swatguy? You can't argue with idiots because they don't have the intelligence level to think outside of their tiny little set of variables.
I am far from a jaded cop. I am a realist not some mush who thinks everyone loves everyone and everyone deserves a mansion. I am not someone who thinks everyone deserves a good life handed to them for doing nothing. I am not someone who thinks my money should pay for generations of families who have never even submitted a job application or graduated. Eliminated meant eliminated from government aid as a lifetime paycheck for continuing to do nothing paycheck after government paycheck while single parents who actual bust their butt to work hard get screwed over and over. The ideology that everyone is "deserving" of a great life on the face is absurd. If you do nothing you should get nothing. How do you motivate anyone to make more of themselves if there is no reason too or consequence to not ? Retired folks who have worked their lifetime and earned their time to relax are much deserving. They have used the system as it was designed. Those who have done nothing to progress or take a step forward don't desrve a penny from anyone.

For the people who get laid off or downsized I truly believe in aiding them. The problem is this aid no longer is "aid". It's a lifetime paycheck and an excuse to sit back and do nothing. Those who use the system as designed to hold them over while trying to actually find work are not the problem. maybe one day you'll realize how many people are leeches on society. They are definitely not the majority. The problem is the government treats them like they are and takes from the majority of hard working people more and more each day to give to those who do nothing. If you can't see that you're a lost cause. The truth is hard to handle for the libtards and never politically correct to say on tv.

Happy Winter

Last edited by xstarrider; 11-30-2014 at 5:51 PM.
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       11-30-2014, 5:50 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bftskir View Post
Can you provide a link to the opcw report or the nyt article?
Little late but here you go

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/23..._r=2&referrer=
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       12-01-2014, 6:33 AM Reply   
Eric since you called me out I will direct this to you. One again the liberal mindset is to ridicule and name call without stating any facts. Why cant I ever get any liberal to have a conversation presenting FACTS to back their argument? You sir fit the liberal mindset perfectly. Instead of listening and understanding an opposing viewpoint you choose to go to left field with wild explanations of accusations of what conservatives are really saying. You should open your eyes and clean out your ears it is you that has drank the Koolaid. You did say one thing that I think is true ''You can't argue with idiots because they don't have the intelligence level to think outside of their tiny little set of variables.''
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-01-2014, 7:21 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Froggy View Post
Why cant I ever get any liberal to have a conversation presenting FACTS to back their argument?
The issue isn't you getting the facts. It's that you don't know a fact when you see one. I gave you a link to a bunch of facts, and you ignored it. Not that you should really need anyone to tell you that employment is up or the stock market is soaring. It's in the news practically every day. Most your so called facts didn't even have anything to do with the state of the country in general. And you have zero ability to equate how deficit spending in an economic slump affects the lives of average Americans. What about your Benghazi fact? Turns out that only Fox News tools ever bought into that load of BS. Not to mention that even if the Faux News lies were true it had absolutely zero impact on the nation at large.

And who were the people that thought during a govt shutdown the biggest news of the day was Obama punishing the public by closing a national monument? To use Swatguys vernacular... "Conservatards". "Conservatards" couldn't smell BS even if it was under their nose. That's why they are such tools of the media. That's why conservatards think that poor people live in mansions given to them by the state. That's why conservatards think that people should get jobs when there aren't any to be had. That's why a conservatard House in Congress can get away with saying they won't do their job because they don't like how the President does his job. And that's why only a conservatard would think that a report on "aging weapons" is meaningful. Bush went to war in the face of many calling BS on WMDs. Do you really believe that if they found anything of significance that it would have been destroyed in secret and pushed under the rug? No way. It would have been the biggest news of the day.

One of the biggest problems in this nation isn't imports of people. It's imports of products made by impoverished labor in other countries that undermine jobs in this country. If conservatards had the ability to understand the economic impacts of policy then they would be progressives. Poor people who vote Democrat are not progressives or "libtards". They are simply people who are looking for help. They don't understand the cause and effect of economic policy anymore than conservatards. The problem isn't govt lying to the people, even though it does. It's the American people who only understand what benefits them in the short term. Govt simply feeds on that. That's why most all economic policy is designed to benefit only in the short term, but creates a problem in the future. Except when you talk about raising the minimum wage. Then conservatards point out how that isn't a long term fix. As if they suddenly had some understanding of economics.

This thread is a black hole. I'm doing my best to extricate myself from it. But the idea that the only thing dragging this nation down is poor people and socialism is F'ng stupidity. The conservatard mentality is that America should be a nation of wealthy conservatards that get all their stuff from slave labor living in abysmal conditions in some other country.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-01-2014, 7:36 AM Reply   
I'll exit with a "fact". Bush raised deficit spending by pretty much historic amounts in terms of percentage in his last two years of office. Obama has cut deficit spending by pretty much historic amounts in terms of percentage. Of course you have to give Bush credit for raising deficit spending so high that it gave Obama the ability to cut it so drastically.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...cit_chart.html
Attached Images
 
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       12-01-2014, 8:52 AM Reply   
You libs keep trying to make Obama look good by comparing him to Bush. I have already stated that Bush left a lot to be desired especially in the last two years under Democratic control of the congress. So I will ask you again can you name 10 things that Obama's administration has done in the last 6 years that has been good for the average american? Here is another chart if its not Obama then who raised the National debt?



So if Bush was a over spender how does that make Obama look better?

John do you really believe this economy is good?
Employment is up? Compared to what the bottom or when unemployment was really under control.
Do you really think Benghazi was no big deal?
If the Dems have improved things so much how do you explain the last election?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-01-2014, 10:11 AM Reply   
Froggy....

- A GOP led investigative committee just released a report that put the Benghazi issue to rest. The brouhaha was a total Fox News fabrication.

- Employment is up period.

- The last election is a result of the right being puppet mastered into action while the left is basically apathetic. It's a cycle that will keep swinging back and forth. The American people have no clue as to what they want. They just react to the media.

- My opinions on the economy go way beyond Bush and Obama and the policies that they are responsible for. I mainly play the "blame the president" game because that's the only kind of politics that the currently highly vocal right wingers understand. Although the huge mistake regarding the consequences of the invasion of Iraq is Bush's screw up and that isn't part of the game. When you try and discuss the multitude of factors that really are impacting the economy most people's eyes just glaze over.

I fully understand that debt is the consequence of deficit spending. The right wing fixation on the result instead of the cause is why they don't really have a grasp on how to fix anything.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-01-2014, 10:35 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Froggy View Post
So if Bush was a over spender how does that make Obama look better?
The point I've been trying to make all along is that you cannot evaluate the performance of a President in a vacuum. You can only understand how well a President is doing by comparison of other Presidents. A President isn't a miracle worker and cannot fix a nation on his own. IMO Obama is a very pragmatic man who has done it best to bring forth issues within the limits of what's possible to address economic problems in our nation.

The ACA has helped a lot of people who have been historically disadvantaged and hurt a lot of people who have been historically advantaged. As as professional who has been continuously employed for decades I have enjoyed the advantage of the govt paying for 40% of my HI over those decades. Most people who have been receiving this exact same benefit don't even begin to understand that they have gotten it. They also don't understand that when the govt gives it's own tax revenue to the HC industry with no price controls they are causing excessive inflation, which further impacts the disadvantaged. I was for the ACA, not because I believed I would pay less but because I felt that something had to be done to break the status quo. Other modern western societies have universal HC at half the per capita cost of HC in this nation. We will ultimately get there kicking and screaming because it's the only way to control costs.

There is nothing that anyone can point to that Obama has done to the detriment of the nation when compared to other Presidents. How ironic that right wingers defend getting Saddam's WMDs at any cost because of the unknown, but then freak out when money is wasted investing in trying to find alternative energy. Yes, you can always find a scandal when you look for it because there are plenty to be found. Like maybe... Halliburton, Cheney, and $2T wasted in Iraq.

Obama was exactly correct when he brought up the issue of income inequality as a indicator of serious underlying economic problems. But sure enough Faux New's Bill O mocked the idea as if it meant a plumber should make the same as a brain surgeon. Bill isn't that stupid, but he knows the viewers that line his pockets are and he was telling them exactly what they wanted to hear.
Old     (whiteflashwatersports1)      Join Date: Dec 2012       12-01-2014, 11:30 AM Reply   
John Anderson rules - Froggy sucks!!
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-01-2014, 12:07 PM Reply   
I should have looked closer at Froggy's chart. It's blaming the debt on Reagan and the two Bush's. Apparently he didn't understand what it was saying.
Old     (bftskir)      Join Date: Jan 2004       12-01-2014, 12:39 PM Reply   
Lol
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-01-2014, 12:46 PM Reply   
" income inequality as a indicator of serious underlying economic problems" Fair enough but why not bring the lower incomes up instead of bringing the middle-class incomes down?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-01-2014, 1:23 PM Reply   
Totally agree Ron. Raising the minimum wage is one way to do that. But it's like putting a bandaid on a gaping wound. But at least it's better than nothing. Most minimum wage jobs are jobs that cannot be exported. So it's not like the employers can fire the people and send the jobs overseas.

The problem with income equality starts with the notion that as Americans we do not value hard work. We value consumption and cheap goods. If we valued hard work we wouldn't pit domestic jobs with domestic manufacturers against impoverished labor and manufacturers who can pollute, pay low wages, have no old age economic protections, and no health coverage. It's a complex problem and the deeper the US govt is in debt the harder it will be to dig out of it.

If the govt had no debt then we could just tariff imported products to level the playing field. But the fact the world benefits from our trade deficit is also what makes us able to print, borrow, and spend while keeping a strong dollar, which is also the world reserve currency. It would be extremely difficult to transition to a place where we are not exporting our economy while at the same time holding so much debt. Not to mention the obstacle that the extremely wealthy would present since they are the one's that benefit the most from the Fed expanding the money supply and the govt going into debt.

We are in between a rock and a hard place WRT protecting domestic jobs. I don't have the answers, but at least we should get a grip on the basic economic principles at play before thinking that poor people are simply poor solely because of their own actions. There isn't enough room in the economy for everyone to be prosperous. That's why we strive to at least create an economy where the basic essentials are obtainable. And HC is the most difficult problem to solve in that regard.

Just look at a city like Detroit. You had an eco system where people had decent jobs. Not everyone was in a union. But the poor were able to survive with the essentials. That was a true trickle down economy. Poor people were stable because they could make adequate money to live with their needs met. When the good jobs left so did the mobile more skilled people. There was nothing to trickle down and the poor less mobile were stuck. Crime rose and the place is run down. A healthy economy doesn't mean that less skilled people have fancy cars and big houses. It means they have enough to make do and have HC services available to them when they are sick. If anyone is nostalgic about the good old days when people worked hard and made an honest living, then they should know that we threw that away by seeking out the cheapest possible means of production. We have discovered the consequences of the sin of gluttony.
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       12-01-2014, 4:20 PM Reply   
John John john,,,,,,,where do I begin. Your thoughts are so flawed it's not even worth arguing over. Detroit failed because it's democratic "leaders" exploited the very people they conned into believing in their bs. They used these people for every cent they could until their fat pockets were lined and their voters no longer served their purpose. Using Detroit as an example is the funniest thing I ever heard.....it's the epicenter of proving that democrats haven't a clue on how to manage money, business, Let alone a successful country. Why don't you explain the reasons behind why those good jobs left? Oh yea because again more gov't regulations, more epa standards, and higher taxes all forced them out. Who instituted all of those. Oh yea their democratic leadership.

This quote pretty much says it all. "I was for the ACA, not because I believed I would pay less but because I felt that something had to be done to break the status quo". Support for something that doesn't make any sense just because it's something different. This is exactly what they count on. Why not challenge it and and have faith in something you actually believe in. That is the exact problem you describe in your responses of people not steeping up and valuing hard work. Your blind support of something just because it's not something else displays this to a t. ........,,why don't I just support the ACA n screw it........ Instead you should not support it until you feel there is something superior in place that will succeed. Instead now your stuck with something that needs and overhauling before it even gets in place.

Governmental healthcare is only going to decrease healthcare standards and peoples options. The right to choose dr's is something I value more than anything. Their are different levels and teirs of Dr's. I lived in a country for 2yrs which had government healthcare. Their care was atrocious. You can kiss seeing a specialist and getting the best of the best for the surgeries you need. The wait times for important surgeries are also lengthened. Our health care system as it stands now is the tops in the world for care. I am not saying it's flawless, but we don't need the government telling us how to handle our health, complety overhauling it, and taking choices away from us. Unflrtunately this is the precise result of the ACA.
Old     (bftskir)      Join Date: Jan 2004       12-01-2014, 7:57 PM Reply   
I have a friend who had major health issues he had no insurance because he couldn't afford it and they wouldnt insure him (pre aca) he did get the care he needed and the hc system ran a bill up well over 1 million $ ....who do you think paid that bill?
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       12-02-2014, 6:54 AM Reply   
John you sound like a guy well schooled probably making above average income living the life its unfortunate you cant see past your own little world and see whats happening now. Bush made a mess just like Carter made a mess the difference is Regan made massive changes and the country benefited. Obama has not only continued with Bush's failed policies but has expanded them and added to the degradation of the country. I can post hundreds of Democrat, Obama failures but it wont make any difference unless it effects your world . Your view on the ACA proves there is no way to change your thinking . When the government takes away the 40% they are paying will you still support it? Benghazi was put to rest? So what was the outcome ? Was it the video? Was it a protest like Ferguson and the ambassador and the others were accidentally killed or as Hillery stated what difference does it make now?
Old     (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-02-2014, 8:11 AM Reply   
Raising minimum wage is the same as printing money. The cost of the additional wages is just added to the products that those people need. Capitalism prices items based on what the public can afford to pay for them. Giving people more money just makes their expenses go up and they are no better off.

The change in our country is largely the fault of the consumer. We dictate markets with our "spending vote".

And finally, there will always be poor people. The best way to take care of our poor is through charity, not taxation and government controlled handouts.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       12-02-2014, 10:26 AM Reply   
Low wage earners aren't the primary reason that prices go up. Top wage earners have had astronomical pay increases. These increases drive prices as well and they already have. Take a meal at McDonalds for instance. The last time minimum wage was increased, the basic meal number 1 cost 2.99. Now it costs 5.99 but the average cost of labor for McDonalds in that same time frame hasn't changed. The only thing that changed was the profit margin. Prices have already increased in anticipation of a more expensive labor force. Until we raise wages for the poorest of the poor they will only be left behind. There will be a breaking point if this is left unchanged. Do you really want to have to carry a gun everywhere you go? Hire a security company to protect your belongings for more than you can afford? When the poor can no longer make a living and the social safety net is gone people will have only one choice left. You eventually have to start poaching the king's deer. You may have the deer or maybe the fallout leaves you as one of the poachers. Either way, the country will not be a better place for you. Prices are determined by how much people will pay but people in this situation doesn't necessarily include ALL people. Not all prices will go up with inflation either. I know that my mortgage will stay the same. This fallacy that poor people are better off earning a lower wage for their hard work is propaganda promoted by employers like Walmart and the fast food industry used to keep their labor force as cheap as possible because a store clerk job can't be outsourced to China. Costco is managing to keep their prices low with a higher paid staff. The state of Oregon or Washington (which?) that raised their minimum to 15 hasn't suddenly fallen into economic chaos. To say that these other businesses/states can't do the same is pure BS. You don't always have to raise prices. Often times you simply need to reduce the CEO/majority share holder's income from 2 billion down to a paltry 500 million per year. Rough I know but I'm sure they can get used to it.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       12-02-2014, 10:57 AM Reply   
LMAO. Wow.
Old     (Cabledog)      Join Date: Dec 2013       12-02-2014, 2:25 PM Reply   
The 2014 Washington minimum wage is $9.32. Washington's minimum wage applies to workers in both agriculture and non-agricultural jobs, although 14- and 15-year-olds may be paid 85% of the minimum wage ($7.92).

www.lni.wa.gov/workplacerights/wages/minimum/

WA minimum wage has not gone up to $15hr yet. It is also only for limited areas and it being challenged in the courts which means it is a long ways out. For the haters, we start all of our employees at $15hr or higher (its much harder than McD's) and provide health benefits (before the ACA), PTO, paid holidays, etc. All it's going to do for most Washingtonians I employ or know is raise the cost of goods and commodities in advance of any perceived benefit.

Eric, like you said there will always be poor people. I used to be one and started at the crappy McDonalds and Walmart minimum wage jobs you reference. I guess I could have stayed there forever and taken on an attitude of entitlement but, like most rational people I recognize them for what they are; entry level jobs. Instead I worked my way through school and slowly moved up over a period of several years. Today I live a comfortable life as the VP of a telecommunications company. This is the American way. Nothing was handed to me for free, I earned it through hard work as a legal citizen. The perception is there are too many of today’s poor many of which are not legal citizens sitting around being complacent and expecting everyone else to pay for them. People are generally good and will help their fellow man, if they help themselves. I have no empathy for those that don’t, won’t, or do it illeaglly. Bigger government and more entitlements isn’t the answer.

John, LMAO on the Detroit analogy. A democrat using Detroit for an example. Now that's funny.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       12-02-2014, 4:02 PM Reply   
Do you really think that someone who works at McDonalds for example at 12 dollars per hour is being handed something for free????? This asinine line of thinking is what is wrong with this argument. When I got my first job at minimum wage it was 3.35 per hour. Today's 7.50 per hour is equivalent to what 1.80 per hour was worth back then. That means that by the time my children are old enough to get their first job minimum wage will be worth 75 cents per hour when compared to my 3.35 per hour adjusted for inflation. Do you really think that I should allow someone to employ my child for such a paltry sum? Am I going to allow someone to hire my kids for so little? Will I have to pay more for gas to get my kids to work than they bring home in their paychecks? Do you guys hate your children or are you just delusional in thinking that it isn't going to happen to your kids? This isn't about handing anyone anything for free. People in minimum wage jobs work hard too. The arrogance in thinking that because you are the VP of a telecommunications company means that you work harder than a roofer is beyond ignorant. I'm not saying that we should all make the same amount of money but to imply that anyone is worth so little that they can't even pay for the fuel it takes to get to and from work is ridiculous. There is middle ground here. Why are you so afraid of it?
Old     (Cabledog)      Join Date: Dec 2013       12-02-2014, 4:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
Do you really think that someone who works at McDonalds for example at 12 dollars per hour is being handed something for free????? This asinine line of thinking is what is wrong with this argument. When I got my first job at minimum wage it was 3.35 per hour. Today's 7.50 per hour is equivalent to what 1.80 per hour was worth back then. That means that by the time my children are old enough to get their first job minimum wage will be worth 75 cents per hour when compared to my 3.35 per hour adjusted for inflation. Do you really think that I should allow someone to employ my child for such a paltry sum? Am I going to allow someone to hire my kids for so little? Will I have to pay more for gas to get my kids to work than they bring home in their paychecks? Do you guys hate your children or are you just delusional in thinking that it isn't going to happen to your kids? This isn't about handing anyone anything for free. People in minimum wage jobs work hard too. The arrogance in thinking that because you are the VP of a telecommunications company means that you work harder than a roofer is beyond ignorant. I'm not saying that we should all make the same amount of money but to imply that anyone is worth so little that they can't even pay for the fuel it takes to get to and from work is ridiculous. There is middle ground here. Why are you so afraid of it?
Did you read my post? If you did then you have comprehension issues. My first job was $3.35 too. I wasn’t ignorant enough to think it would be my career. I like the way you try to put words in my mouth but, I did not say people in minimum wage don't work hard. Only that it should be a step to something better not the final destination. I also don't remember saying anything about roofers. Nice try, I was a tradesmen after college (like a roofer), that’s how I got into telecom and as I said, worked my way up. How is that arrogance? Oh that’s right, entitled people nowadays don’t want to earn it the old fashioned way over time. An example of arrogance would be telling you that my gas is free since you brought it up. Paid for by the company, with a vehicle allowance too. Haven’t bought a tank other than for the boat & toys in 10 years... See how that's different. Stop being so jealous of those CEO's and invest or strive harder to better yourself if you don’t like it. I make nowhere near that kind of money but I don’t hate them and feel entitled to take it because they do. Actually it is encouraging to see that the sky is the limit. Why should they give away what they have earned any more than you should. But to you they didn’t earn it right?

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid Eric. if it was easy everyone would be doing it...

My apologies for derailing the thread.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       12-02-2014, 6:18 PM Reply   
Eric. if you want to add credibility to your argument, stop using McDonald's as a example. You obviously have NO CLUE about the restaurant business
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       12-02-2014, 7:26 PM Reply   
Can you guys make an intelligent argument in your rebuttals or are condescending responses with no actual content the only weapons in your arsenal? I never said that I want minimum wage workers to earn the equivalent of 20 dollars an hour when I was working for 3.35. I simply want the minimum wage that my kids earn in their first job to equal the 3.35 that I earned in my first job when adjusted for inflation. That wage would currently be around 12 or so. That is the wage they will be earning with their hard work and that is the wage that they should be paid.

I used roofers as an example because roofers are often times paid minimum wage. I don't see how using that example is in any way deceptive. Fast food is difficult as well. I would never trade what I do in exchange for working fast food even if the pay was better. The Mcdonalds example that I used could have been any one of millions of products that have quadrupled in price or more since I was 16.

Why does everyone have to go to this ridiculous jealousy argument? Why do you think that I would be jealous of some geezer billionaires with sociopathic disorders? I don't want to be a Koch brother, a Walton kid, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet. None of those losers can wakeboard. I just don't like the business practices they use and I don't like the way that they purchase our elected officials derailing government for the rest of us. We all hate the government but you guys don't want to admit that the problem isn't the puppets who are elected but rather the puppet masters. Get rid of the masters and government can be by the people and for the people again. The problem is that the only way to accomplish this is to get the puppets to turn on their masters. When you start kissing Donald Trump's rear because you want the sky to be the limit, you prevent this from ever happening. This need to have everything instead of just having enough isn't healthy for our world. When I say "enough", I don't mean some kind of communist version of enough. I don't have any problem with people who want nice things and a flashy lifestyle. I make money and I have nice things. Better than most. The issue I have is when you quit buying things and start to buy power. I don't want anyone to have power over me. I don't want individuals to have this much control over my government. This isn't how democracy or even capitalism is supposed to work.
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       12-03-2014, 5:51 AM Reply   
Eric What are you talking about ? Walmart pays almost $12.00 an hour the fast food industry pays 9.08 an hour . The entry level non skilled jobs you speak of are just that most people including you don't stay there long. As skill level increases so does wages. I especially like your prediction of the future if wages are not increased

'' Prices have already increased in anticipation of a more expensive labor force. Until we raise wages for the poorest of the poor they will only be left behind. There will be a breaking point if this is left unchanged. Do you really want to have to carry a gun everywhere you go? Hire a security company to protect your belongings for more than you can afford? When the poor can no longer make a living and the social safety net is gone people will have only one choice left. You eventually have to start poaching the king's deer.''

This is happening now in Ferguson not because of low paying jobs NO paying jobs is closer to the truth. IMO the liberal mindset is to cure injustice by taking somebody else's labor,possessions and money at the same time keeping their own. I am happy to just be left alone without the government or other people telling me how to live. If you want to help the poor whats stopping YOU?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-03-2014, 8:01 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
Raising minimum wage is the same as printing money. The cost of the additional wages is just added to the products that those people need. Capitalism prices items based on what the public can afford to pay for them. Giving people more money just makes their expenses go up and they are no better off.
Excellent point about printing money. Printing money is exactly what the US does to maintain it's prosperity and the value of the dollar around the world. Most recently the Fed was printing $80B a month to buy bonds above market value. Printing money helps the wealthy the most and then trickles down. The people who get the least benefit from monetary expansion are the minimum wage earners. So "printing money" in the form of increasing minimum wage is not an argument in support of your belief. Of course conservatives don't like the fed printing money. And they don't really demonize the fed that much. But when you "print money" in the form of increased minimum wage for the poor, well... that's just taking it too far.

Your economic theory is based on the fallacy that when the minimum wage is increased all products and services that depend on minimum wage earners immediately increase. First of all if that actually happened the increase in cost would be borne by all economic classes, which will still result in a net increase for the poor. But that doesn't actually happen. Most of the essential expenses for poor families are not minimum wage dependent jobs. Housing, heathcare, transportation, utilities, and even most food products are not minimum wage dependent. Poor people who have to budget to get buy can avoid purchasing services that are minimum wage.

Of course I understand your point... That raising minimum wage puts upward pressure on inflation. However, there are many other things that benefit the middle class and wealthy that put upward pressure on inflation. It's nonsense to use inflationary pressure to draw the line at helping the poor worker.
Old     (whiteflashwatersports1)      Join Date: Dec 2012       12-03-2014, 11:47 AM Reply   
This statement from John G is crazy - it just jumped out at me "Giving people more money just makes their expenses go up and they are no better off." I guess he is right when I earned minimum wage while in college and now I have a six figure salary I am no better off - WTF. Or I guess because nobody "gave" me that money I am allowed to be better off with it.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       12-03-2014, 12:16 PM Reply   
Isn't it interesting how when you get a six figure salary, you are earning that money, but if you get 12 dollars per hour instead of 7.50 all of a sudden that money is being handed to you in exchange for nothing. Add to that the fact that when a person is getting minimum wage they may qualify for government assistance but that same person with 12 dollars per hour can pay their own bills. These are working people doing jobs that I won't do anymore because they suck. Would you trade your job as the bigshot VP of telecommunication in exchange for a job flipping burgers if the money was the same? How do you make the leap to this kind of thinking where your job is the only kind of job that deserves compensation and everyone else should just hold their hands out hoping for you to feel charitable? Do you really have to wonder, with this attitude, why some people would rather just exit the rat race and take the government check?
Old     (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       12-03-2014, 1:38 PM Reply   
I think someone is just upset that their career is not further along than they'd like it to be. And that MUST be someone else's fault huh?
I would LOVE to flip burgers for the money that I make today. That would be pretty awesome actually!
And i have no problem at all with my kids making minimum wage as it is today. It teaches them to strive for more out of life than being comfortable on the lowest rung of the ladder.
Take a minimum wage job, prove your worth to the company and move up the ladder. making room for the new guy to start on the bottom rung. Or take a minimum wage job that sucks, and say, "I want more out of life than this crap" and make that happen. Early in my life, i took a job as an elevator mechanic. I HATED that job. That job was the biggest motivation for me to finish my college degree. So guess what, i did. and many years later, I am doing WAY better financially and I am WAY happier.
By the way, only about 4% of the hourly wage population in the US makes minimum wage. and that does not count salaried employees (which i'd argue is probably 70% or more of this forum). so the % of ALL workers would be significantly less than 4%. so minimum wage is a red herring issue.
Old     (whiteflashwatersports1)      Join Date: Dec 2012       12-03-2014, 1:55 PM Reply   
If I can teach you your job in 15-30 minutes it pays minimum wage. Period - I don't care how "hard" you work or how physically demanding a job is. It is about working smart. Acquiring the necessary skills and education for higher paying careers is being smart. Being a successful entrepreneur is being smart a successful small business owner - smart. I have friends who bust there ass all day but what they do does not require a formal education or skill that they had to develop over time. So they earn significantly less and are physically broken. But hey they were "cool" back in the day - too cool for school, or trade school etc. and too lazy to build something of their own.

I do not count myself fortunate, privileged or any of the other words used to describe me by people less financially successful. I did my school work in public education and went on to college which was paid for with loans that I have repaid. If people want to move up financially then they need to acquire the necessary skills to acquire higher paying jobs/careers. Charity, Welfare, unemployment are meant to be a hand up not a handout. A bridge to a better life or to help stabilize your life in time of need not a way of life.

Again since I can teach you to collect carts in the parking lot at Wal-Mart in 15 minutes it pays minimum wage. Period. Minimum wage buys you my old truck with 350,000 miles on it that I traded in on a brand new one. Just because you work "hard" does not mean you get a 65 inch tv. It just doesn't.

The sooner people will stop trying to raise 3 kids on minimum wage the better. That is there problem from their choices not mine.
Old     (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       12-03-2014, 2:26 PM Reply   
According to the PEW research center and the BLS, the inflation adjusted minimum wage in 2013 from 1938 is guess what? $7.25. not $12. Now, can you argue over the variables used to calculate inflation, certainly. But that's a different-different topic from 1500 new troops to Iraq, isn't it.
Old     (Cabledog)      Join Date: Dec 2013       12-03-2014, 3:12 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
Isn't it interesting how when you get a six figure salary, you are earning that money, but if you get 12 dollars per hour instead of 7.50 all of a sudden that money is being handed to you in exchange for nothing. Add to that the fact that when a person is getting minimum wage they may qualify for government assistance but that same person with 12 dollars per hour can pay their own bills. These are working people doing jobs that I won't do anymore because they suck. Would you trade your job as the bigshot VP of telecommunication in exchange for a job flipping burgers if the money was the same? How do you make the leap to this kind of thinking where your job is the only kind of job that deserves compensation and everyone else should just hold their hands out hoping for you to feel charitable? Do you really have to wonder, with this attitude, why some people would rather just exit the rat race and take the government check?
If one day you made $7.50 and the next you make $12.00 for doing the exact same job what do you call it? You have to perform first then comes the reward. Not get paid then I will show you what I’m made of. It doesn’t work like that. That’s a 47% raise. Is it fair to the guy making $12.00 now? Does he get an equivalent raise to maintain the status quo? Where does it stop? Would you be okay with someone that makes 1 million a year going to 1.47M a year just because? How would you suggest companies account for these costs other than take it from CEO’s? if they charge more for goods and services doesn’t that adversely affect the low wage employees you want to help while also bringing everyone else down. Whether you realize it or not you are advocating socialism.

Eric, all this talk about burgers is making me hungry. I would flip burgers for what I make in a hot second instead of worrying about how to make sure employees, subcontractors, and vendors will stay busy and bring home paychecks every month. But that’s the tip of the iceberg, add in profitability, procurement, forecasts, budgets, PO’s, processes, ISO, month end, audits, insurance, fleet management, hiring, firing, on and on and on….. The list never ends. Damn that reminds me I don’t have time to be on this site… My best day is once a month when we make breakfast or a BBQ for all our employees.

Man’s reach should exceed his grasp. You are always capable of more than you think. Lots of people have it better than me but thinking like that will get me nowhere. Get your glass half full and go for it. Take the same attitude that you have when you want to stomp that new trick. Kick it in the F’ing mouth as many times as it take to get there man.
Old     (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-03-2014, 3:23 PM Reply   
John, neither one of us (or anyone who has saved any money regardless of political affiliation) like the fed printing money. I was simply explaining that inflation mixed with capitalism makes free money no real gain for anyone. Sellers charge what people will pay. If society overall has more money, then sellers charge more for their product. It isn't any product class specifically. If we as a whole CAN pay more for a gallon of milk, those selling gallons of milk for profit will charge more.



Quote:
This statement from John G is crazy - it just jumped out at me "Giving people more money just makes their expenses go up and they are no better off." I guess he is right when I earned minimum wage while in college and now I have a six figure salary I am no better off - WTF. Or I guess because nobody "gave" me that money I am allowed to be better off with it.
The greatest thing about America is that you can make a six figure salary without being able to understand simple economic principles like inflation or supply and demand. LMAO!!
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-03-2014, 4:19 PM Reply   
Jason, if the fed didn't print money a lot of us might not like it either. Probably neither of us probably care for the fed printing money to buy bonds from the housing market. But if we as a nation are sending $1/2T a year overseas then new money has to enter the economy or it will dry up. The point I'm making is that economic policy is complex and you can't just single out the inflationary issue of raising the minimum wage and declare it bad when so many other inflation factors that benefit the more well to do are embraced.

Raising the minimum wage will produce a net benefit for those making it. If making more money was simply a matter of raising prices then corporations wouldn't wait until the minimum wage goes up to raise prices. They would do it right away. There are a lot of consequences to raising the minimum wage. One obvious one would be employers trying to get away with less employees. I say trying because if they could simply get away with less, then they would do it now. So I could see employers focusing more on keeping valuable more productive employees who work the hardest and letting go the lazy ones. In order to keep prices low they would work to maximize efficiency. A higher minimum wage encourages more automation. But if automation was easy then we'd be already replacing higher wage workers.

As a society we need to look at economic policy and get a grip on what we want kind of people we want to be. Do we value consumption more than people? Capitalism does. It places no value on people, so there needs to be more to economic policy than just a capitalist point of view. When you print money to compensate for sending it overseas in search of the cheapest product you are no longer operating in a pure capitalist environment anyway. When the govt prints money it needs to be for the benefit of all citizens of the country. Not just the ones who have the most money.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-03-2014, 4:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyder View Post
I would LOVE to flip burgers for the money that I make today. That would be pretty awesome actually!
This point would only be relevant if you are making $10-$12 an hour. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are relevant, I hope you find a way to make more in the future. Also I'm happy to say I've never had a job after the age of 16 that I'd love to trade for flipping burgers at the same money.
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       12-03-2014, 4:47 PM Reply   
Elevator mechanic in the city of Chicago is a 6 figure job.
Old     (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       12-03-2014, 4:48 PM Reply   
john, I don't need the benefit of your doubt. My point is the same as Darin's. I'd have a hell of a lot less responsibility and stress if all i had to do was tend to the burgers... and still make the money i make today... that would be sweet! You might understand this if you were responsible for the livelihoods of other people.
Old     (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       12-03-2014, 4:50 PM Reply   
Elevator Mechanic for Dillard's Department Stores in Houston made $15/hr.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-03-2014, 6:14 PM Reply   
Pound, I didn't give you the benefit of the doubt because you needed it. I gave it to make your post relevant. Since I don't know what you make I can only surmise that you make about what people are advocating as a rise in minimum wage. Otherwise, your post makes no sense in the context of the conversation. Are you saying that you are responsible for the livelihood of others and making $15/hr? Nobody is suggesting minimum wage be a 6 figure salary. If we are just talking gibberish then I'd like to be retired and make a $1M a year. Is that a good argument against raising the minimum wage?
Old     (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       12-03-2014, 6:58 PM Reply   
Try to keep up John. Eric asked Darrin, "Would you trade your job as the bigshot VP of telecommunication in exchange for a job flipping burgers if the money was the same?" To which I rhetorically replied that i would love to flip burgers for the salary that i make today.

And let's just say that I make a little more than $15/hr. lol

The whole thing underscores my point that minimum wage jobs should not be career positions. If you raise minimum wage out of "fairness" then you're just making it more comfortable for people to NOT strive to achieve more from their lives. Like it or not we are an achievement based society. expanding, increasing and lengthening the social safety net into a security blanket just makes it comfy and cozy to stay wrapped in that blanket. Turning minimum wage into a comfortable living wage does the same thing... and i'll say it again. this whole minimum wage discussion is just a red herring anyway. It only makes up 4% of the hourly wage earners and of that 4% more than half are under the age of 25. But it makes people feel good about themselves to say, "hey, i care about you behind the counter at McDonald's" but the rest of that sentence says..."just don't raise the price of my happy meal to pay for it".
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       12-04-2014, 5:56 AM Reply   
Do you really believe the employers are going to just rollover and take the hit ? Its more likely they will raise the cost to the end user and or decrease the number of employees forcing more work on the remaining employees . Who knows the cutbacks may even go all the way up to the corporate level say Vice President?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-04-2014, 8:30 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyder View Post
Try to keep up John. Eric asked Darrin, "Would you trade your job as the bigshot VP of telecommunication in exchange for a job flipping burgers if the money was the same?" To which I rhetorically replied that i would love to flip burgers for the salary that i make today.
I am keeping up. If you read my post I am calling your point "gibberish". It literally makes no sense WRT the conversation. Besides if they make flipping burgers a 6 figure paycheck as indicated by your fantasy you can finally get your dream job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snyder View Post
The whole thing underscores my point that minimum wage jobs should not be career positions.
Gibberish never underscores a point. Some people have to live with minimum wage. So your claim about what it "should or should not be" is a personal opinion that has nothing to do with the reality of what jobs are vs. ought to be. I agree that minimum wage should not be a career, but not in the sense that people who make minimum wage are the whole problem of why it ends up being that for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snyder View Post
If you raise minimum wage out of "fairness" then you're just making it more comfortable for people to NOT strive to achieve more from their lives. Like it or not we are an achievement based society. expanding, increasing and lengthening the social safety net into a security blanket just makes it comfy and cozy to stay wrapped in that blanket. Turning minimum wage into a comfortable living wage does the same thing... and i'll say it again. this whole minimum wage discussion is just a red herring anyway. It only makes up 4% of the hourly wage earners and of that 4% more than half are under the age of 25. But it makes people feel good about themselves to say, "hey, i care about you behind the counter at McDonald's" but the rest of that sentence says..."just don't raise the price of my happy meal to pay for it".
Ah, the old flowery language argument. Raising the minimum wage to $10/hr is hardly what I'd call a comfortable living. There is nothing cozy about working full time for minimum wage. Just because you don't like your job enough such that you'd rather be flipping burgers don't mean flipping burgers and trying to support yourself on minimum wage is cozy. If the minimum wage issue is a red herring and insignificant in the big picture then why not just let it go up a bit? Is it because you just don't want to give an inch for people at the bottom as a matter of principal?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-04-2014, 8:33 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Froggy View Post
Do you really believe the employers are going to just rollover and take the hit ? Its more likely they will raise the cost to the end user and or decrease the number of employees forcing more work on the remaining employees . Who knows the cutbacks may even go all the way up to the corporate level say Vice President?
So you are against people working harder for more pay? Just when you think you understand a conservative they flip flop.
Old     (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       12-04-2014, 9:26 AM Reply   
A. I never once said i don't like my job. That's you making inferences to connect dots where there are none simply for the sake of continuing to argue on the interwebs and continuing to try (unsuccessfully) come off as some (faux)-intellectual. Flipping burgers would be an easier, less stressful job (hence why it pays so low). inversely, I do like my job, but would not do it for minimum wage, or even $10/hr.
B. If you were intellectually honest with yourself, you'd know that no one is advocating 6 figure jobs for entry level work. nice try.
C. Which is it, $10, $12, $15 for minimum wage? You say I'm not willing to give an inch, but who gets to define what an inch is here? How about a $0.75 increase? That's a 10% raise. I've already pointed out that the current minimum wage is right where it has always been when adjusted for inflation. And it's really, really easy to not make minimum wage. seriously easy. In fact if you do work full time on minimum wage, you likely qualify for all kinds of assistance (education grants, sustenance assistance, tax credits, health insurance credits, etc) so that you're not actually making minimum wage anyway.
You like to talk a lot about jobs going over seas, money going over seas, etc. You do know that personnel expenses is a critical driver of that, right? On the one hand you want to complain about that trend, but on the other hand you advocate making it worse by driving up the cost of labor. No, you can't "outsource" a burger flipper, but you can dang sure automate his/her job if the cost of paying a real person exceeds the cost of automation and/or causes the owner of the restaurant to have to raise prices beyond what the market will bear. Because like it or not, he's in business to make a profit, not break even. If he's forced to increase his personnel expenses, then he has only two options. Cut costs somewhere else, or raise his prices in hopes that he doesn't lose business. $12/hr would be a 65% increase from current minimum wage. You think he can just absorb that kind of hit to his expenses? Now who's talking gibberish.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       12-04-2014, 9:39 AM Reply   
Pound
those you argue in favor of a dramatic minimum wage increase, never mention the small business owner. It's always the huge chain/ franchise owner. But, they always leave out all of the realities/expenses associated with owning a franchise.
As I've said before, I started washing dishes for minimum wage at the age of 14. I'm 50 now and own a few locations. I put in the sweat, sacrificed family time when my kids were little, leveraged and risked my money.....etc....I will protect my profits at all cost. Profits are why I chose my profession. If minimum wage is increased, I will have to make a choice. That choice could include letting people go, finding new people to do the same jobs for less....
I cross train my staff. My cooks, cashiers, and dish washers are allowed to also wait tables and do deliveries. This increases their income, but its the customer that gives the raises not the business. It's immediate. If they do a good job, they make more money.
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       12-04-2014, 3:14 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
So you are against people working harder for more pay? Just when you think you understand a conservative they flip flop.
Where did I flip flop? Minimum wage is also minimum skill . When I was young I worked for minimum wage at K Mart . After schooling and on the job training my income has gone up with my skill level. All I ask is to be payed what I am worth . If an employer can get an equal work for less money I don't see a fault with that . Most businesses are run to make profit unlike the government that over spends without a care . A good example is the 2.1 BILLION spent on the Obama care website so far?
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       12-04-2014, 3:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
When Americans were sold on the idea that Saddam had WMD's you know damn well that nobody was talking about Sarin gas. We were told they had some kind of nuclear bomb capabilities. The gas that Saddam had was meant to be used on Iraqis from the wrong sect of Islam, not Americans. If GWB had been straight and told us that we should spend 2 trillion to find some sarin gas we would have all collectively told Bush to go back to his office and eat a bullet.


So now we have no WMD's at all and Obama is sending more troops back. You guys make no sense whatsoever. Flip flop flip flop. All day long. The U.S. is now still fighting wars based on "good" of the Middle East and trying to create stability. NOT OUR JOB. Countries all around the world have successful economies without our governmental structure. We have no reason at all to be going and fighting pushing our government structure in people. Again our government reaching well beyond its means with this President. Same with being anywhere for Ebola. We need to protect our home soil first. Your guy Obama can't figure that out either That's all the dems are pushing. It's the same nonsense after nonsense. Push to blame the predecessor. Look in the mirror there BHO your excuses are even worse that GWB. At least he went after a terrorist for our benefit as a country. What is BHO going after ? Not terrorists. If he is so opposed to Bush and blaming him for everything why does he continue to do the same things with even less of a backing? What benefits are we gaining as a country with his policy?
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       12-04-2014, 3:27 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
So you are against people working harder for more pay? Just when you think you understand a conservative they flip flop.
Here we go again with the short sighted views of not understanding the complete picture. Typical democrat cherry picking what furthers his argument and making up a false crisis. His view never once stated that. His argument is people will be losing jobs because of this, not people will be forced to work harder. Read the content just don't ceryy pick sentences. Oh wait that's not possible for dems. They need to be spoon fed and not allowed to think for themselves. Sorry. Carry on

Everyone forgets about small business owners and those who have companies that are balanced to get just enough profit to make a successful living, and always bring out the multi billionaire ceo's. A majority of Americans do not work for billion dollar companies. They are just not the norm. Small business owners are the majority and their workers make up the majority. Basing polices off the billionaires is the wrong way to go about it.

I am still waiting for the Detroit explanation he gave to be explained to benefit the country

Last edited by xstarrider; 12-04-2014 at 3:35 PM.
Old     (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-04-2014, 3:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Jason, if the fed didn't print money a lot of us might not like it either. Probably neither of us probably care for the fed printing money to buy bonds from the housing market. But if we as a nation are sending $1/2T a year overseas then new money has to enter the economy or it will dry up. The point I'm making is that economic policy is complex and you can't just single out the inflationary issue of raising the minimum wage and declare it bad when so many other inflation factors that benefit the more well to do are embraced.

Raising the minimum wage will produce a net benefit for those making it. If making more money was simply a matter of raising prices then corporations wouldn't wait until the minimum wage goes up to raise prices. They would do it right away. There are a lot of consequences to raising the minimum wage. One obvious one would be employers trying to get away with less employees. I say trying because if they could simply get away with less, then they would do it now. So I could see employers focusing more on keeping valuable more productive employees who work the hardest and letting go the lazy ones. In order to keep prices low they would work to maximize efficiency. A higher minimum wage encourages more automation. But if automation was easy then we'd be already replacing higher wage workers.

As a society we need to look at economic policy and get a grip on what we want kind of people we want to be. Do we value consumption more than people? Capitalism does. It places no value on people, so there needs to be more to economic policy than just a capitalist point of view. When you print money to compensate for sending it overseas in search of the cheapest product you are no longer operating in a pure capitalist environment anyway. When the govt prints money it needs to be for the benefit of all citizens of the country. Not just the ones who have the most money.
John, I dont disagree with your points, Im just saying that raising minimum wage is a net 0 gain because price is determined by what society can afford. If someone is renting low income apartments and suddenly there is greater demand because more people can afford it due to an increase in minimum wage, what happens? The price of the apartment goes up! So, while making a larger number, the actual income is no more valuable.

The ratio of earnings between a janitor and a programmer always stays the same, no matter how much you give the janitor.

Lets say you get a raise every year, and that raise precisely matches inflation. You are making more money but your earning is no more valuable.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       12-04-2014, 3:37 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by xstarrider View Post
So now we have no WMD's at all and Obama is sending more troops back. You guys make no sense whatsoever. Flip flop flip flop. All day long. The U.S. is now still fighting wars based on "good" of the Middle East and trying to create stability. NOT OUR JOB. Countries all around the world have successful economies without our governmental structure. We have no reason at all to be going and fighting pushing our government structure in people. Again our government reaching well beyond its means with this President. Same with being anywhere for Ebola. We need to protect our home soil first. Your guy Obama can't figure that out either That's all the dems are pushing. It's the same nonsense after nonsense. Push to blame the predecessor. Look in the mirror there BHO your excuses are even worse that GWB. At least he went after a terrorist for our benefit as a country. What is BHO going after ? Not terrorists. If he is so opposed to Bush and blaming him for everything why does he continue to do the same things with even less of a backing? What benefits are we gaining as a country with his policy?
What terrorists were in Iraq in 2003?

As a superpower we have a responsibility to the world. We break it we buy it. A destabilized Iraq (as the result of our quite dumb 2003 invasion) has made the world a worse place (with the exception, perhaps, of autonomous kurdish region) than when saddam was in power. A weakened saddam (post gulf war 1) was not a threat to his neighbors but could also keep a lid on his own country (albeit through human rights abuses and violence). So we got rid of that "bad guy" under the pretext of WMDs and created a massive power vacuum that allows for long suppressed sectarian violence to bubble over.

If you think about it, what happened in iraq isn't really much different than yugoslavia except that iraq is provably "our fault," whereas bosnia/serbia/kosovo "just happened." We did what we could to address yugoslavia even though it wasn't our fault, but when we are the actual provable cause of the the breakdown of social order in Iraq, we should just wash our hands of it and leave?
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       12-04-2014, 3:45 PM Reply   
I am all for discussion of what a minimum wage "should be", but this should be a State decision, not something managed and blanketed by the federal government . Same with healthcare. The cost of living varies from area to area. The wages earned and benefits received should reflect that to keep things on a level playing field. According to the belief of those wanting a federal minimum wage increase next on the table wil be a standardized house cost, next a standard vehicle cost , standardized everything cost..... Where does it end?

Let supply and demand dictate the costs like it should not federal mandates
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       12-04-2014, 4:26 PM Reply   
Shawn

I am not arguing whether our move in 2003 was the best choice. I also agree with the power vacuum statement. This is precisely what has happened in the streets of Chicago. Some of the most prominent street gang leaders and ranking officials in the game have been removed from power. Now every corner is at war with every corner. I provided a reason why it was done. All I am asking for is what benefits and reasons do all the people thumping how great the current regime is see for the Every counter point we have made has conveniently gone unanswered. All we get is blame Bush and his war . Obama has had 6 years to turn it around with his "forward thinking". When do his failed polices start to count against him? When the next republican gets in office and blames him? It's time to take responsibility for your own actions. Unfortunately ithis regime does not believe in taking any responsibility and that is the message they are pushing in the media and in their polices. Blame someone else. It's cops fault a robber is dead, it's the rich's fault we are all poor, it's Bush's fault the economy sucks , it's Bush's fault we're at war sending more troops back. When wil people finally begin to hold those responsible for failed policies responsible? I think you finally saw that in these past elections. Do you know how many weapons we put into the hands of criminals with the fast and furious? Do you know how many of the weapons were used against or own? Where's the accountability for Americans dying in Benghazi .....oh wait we get the what difference does it make response? Where is the accountability for leaving a Marine who has served his country with honor and dignity to die when we send in a strike team to save one considered to be a terrorist? Where is the accountability for more troops dying under this current regime than any other pervious?
When is the fact we have the highest unemployment rate under the current regime "their fault"
It's funny how one single child's life matters when they want to tote policy changes and immigration , but when we question why American lives die due to their decisions we get "what difference does it make".

Last edited by xstarrider; 12-04-2014 at 4:30 PM.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-05-2014, 8:15 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by xstarrider View Post
So now we have no WMD's at all and Obama is sending more troops back. You guys make no sense whatsoever. Flip flop flip flop. All day long. The U.S. is now still fighting wars based on "good" of the Middle East and trying to create stability. NOT OUR JOB.
No sure what you mean by flip flopping. There was what we would typically call stability when Saddam was in power. And I'm not sure why you brought up WMDs again. Have you actually looked at the list of WMDs destroyed in that document? It's full of empty canisters, unknown chemicals leaking from broken shell casings, and previously destroyed ordinance that is destroyed again for good measure. If you read the document you should instantly recognize why the executive administration never tried to hold it up as an example of success in finding the WMDs that were predicted.

WRT, going back and creating stability in the ME being our job. That seems to be an issue that is not specific to either right or left ideology. Both sides of the political coin are advocating doing something to stop ISIS.

And to those who seemed confused about my previous post where I called it flip flopping when using the argument that people will have to work harder for more pay against raising the minimum wage, I repeat the same bolded quote that apparently you think Froggy never said....

Quote:
Its more likely they will raise the cost to the end user and or decrease the number of employees forcing more work on the remaining employees
They will be paid more for more work. I thought that was a fundamental point that conservatives make. That you should work harder for more pay.
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       12-05-2014, 10:13 AM Reply   
John
Did you read what I wrote or did you read something else in to it? Its not a trick statement but let me break it down for you.
1- Its more likely they will raise the cost to the end user and or decrease the number of employees.
This means the employers will take action to off set additional costs to run their business. IMO that would include cutting the number of employees or increasing the price of the product to cover the additional labor cost. In this economic environment companies are hard pressed to rise their prices. For example how much would you pay for a McDonalds hamburger?

2- forcing more work on the remaining employees
This means if you cut the number of employees the ones that are still there will have to be more productive to make up for the employees that have been let go.
Nowhere did I say they will get paid more for the higher production . They will either increase their efficiency or be replaced with somebody the will. There are tons of people out of work these days.

Have you ever seen a TV show called Undercover Boss? I think you could learn a lot about the difference between the corporate work environment and the average worker.

Last edited by Froggy; 12-05-2014 at 10:15 AM.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-05-2014, 4:25 PM Reply   
Froggy, a higher minimum wage that forces more work on the employee is what I define as "working harder for more money". Not sure why that you don't believe that is the same as "paid more for higher production". Of course the word "production" never was exactly used, but I think it's fair to say more work is generally higher production.

Bottom line is that I agree with everything above. Higher minimum wage creates a demand for more efficiency and harder work. Slackers who don't get it get laid off and reeducated by reality. Then they get another job at the higher minimum wage and they work harder because they know that the higher wage means more people wanting to work and take their place.

When you ask me "what would I pay for a McBurger" you are making another important point. That price is not just a matter of what the minimum wage is. It's a matter of how much the customer will pay and the elasticity of factors in the business model. If people won't pay enough to cover the increase in wage then it puts pressure on profits. So maybe corp profits go down a bit in exchange for higher wages at the bottom.

If you really want to know how much I'd pay you are asking the wrong person. Unless I'm on the road with no access to other food I wouldn't pull into a McD/BK/Wendys if they were giving them away for free. Fast food isn't consistent with my dietary guidelines. Generally very little of my expenses go to minimum wage. And that's why it benefits people at minimum wage to get a higher wage. It isn't a zero sum game where an increase in wage is nullified by an increase in costs. As I mentioned before their major expenses are housing, transportation, healthcare, food, and clothing. None of that is significantly impacted by minimum wage. If you are struggling on a minimum wage budget then an increase in minimum wage is going to be beneficial.
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       12-06-2014, 6:30 AM Reply   
John you just dont get it and I don't think I have the words to make you understand. I can see that if it doesn't effect you personally you don't really care. Because you don't own or go to fast food restaurants then let them pay the higher wages and raise their prices . Who cares if the 10 man crew becomes a 7. Who cares if the 5 minute wait time becomes 10. Who cares if the store doesn't make a profit because the 10 dollar value meal doesn't sell. Cause and effect ,raise taxes collect less money . Change health care to save on premiums they go up 50 to 300% Don't drill for oil pay 3-4 dollars at the pump and on and on. You remind me of a counselor I met at the UIC she wanted to make gas 6 dollars a gal to conserve oil and clean the air. I found out she rides a bike to work. I wonder how she would react to a 30 dollar a day bike parking fee. As for housing, transportation, healthcare, food, and clothing. Those must be subsidized by government or family a min wage job wont be enough even at 15 an hour.

As a side note I heard that the new legal illegals that Obama decreed will not be covered by Obama care .What a great way to cut expenses fire the US citizens and replace them with illegals.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:15 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us