SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

Dickieboy said:
Because as you so accurately stated 'Most jobs pay more then the minimum amyway'. Why bother? Further, this will have no effect on moving folks 'over the poverty line'...as income moves (up or down) so does the poverty line and these entry level earners are what creates this line.

That's not a good idea. Why bother? Because there are people living under the poverty level. What you're saying is that because most people make more than minimum, those that aren't, should live in poverty when we can actually lift them out where they can spend money back into the economy. I can't believe this:doh Since most people are making more, what you're saying is let the rest go to hell. Why??? Why would you advocate that. Obama and Romney BOTH agreed that the minimum wage should be attached to inflation. If we did that, people would be making more money and less dependent on welfare. By keeping them where they are, you're forcing them to take assistence. Or do you want them out on the street?

AlabamaPaul · Feb 14, 2013

Adagio said:
That's not a good idea. Why bother? Because there are people living under the poverty level. What you're saying is that because most people make more than minimum, those that aren't, should live in poverty when we can actually lift them out where they can spend money back into the economy. I can't believe this:doh Since most people are making more, what you're saying is let the rest go to hell. Why??? Why would you advocate that. Obama and Romney BOTH agreed that the minimum wage should be attached to inflation. If we did that, people would be making more money and less dependent on welfare. By keeping them where they are, you're forcing them to take assistence. Or do you want them out on the street?

Unless you have traveled somewhat, you haven't seen poverty, and many in the US haven't either...

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

humbolt said:
Nope. And no, I certainly wouldn't want you to tax your brain. Why start something like that now?

Good. Then maybe you'll avoid the "catchy phrase". We wouldn't want you to come off as a hypocrite would we?

Eighty Deuce · Feb 14, 2013

Re: SOTU Address:

Adagio said:
Did you or did you not bring up lies and Bush?? Lets see: "I doubt seriously that you would have allowed Bush to get away with this BS" :doh

Here's why you're wrong. You're judging Obama before he's finished. He just started his second term. Your premature judgment shows that it's nothing but partisan BS. You can say Obama is a failure, and liberalism is a failure, all you want but that doesn't make it a failure. You judge something AFTER it's done. NOT before it's done. If Obama lowered unemployment to 2% you'd still deny his success and you know it. You're a partisan hack, and that's it. Why don't you face it, and admit that just hate the guy. At least you'd be honest about it. I could criticize Bush during his term, and with good reason, but ultimately he'll be judged by history. How did he leave the country for the next guy. Bush left a wreck. I don't think that's going to happen with Obama. Time will tell.

I understand reality far better than you could imagine. I don't subscribe to any ideology as you do. Ideologies cannot demonstrate why they're true. They're baseless. You don't understand that REALITY. Until you do, you're in no position to question me. If something isn't working, I'm willing to change it. You aren't. You'll jam it like a square peg in a round hole to hold to the ideology. That's not reality. You don't force reality to fit your ideology. You adapt the philosophy to meet reality.

See what I bolded ? Many of us feel that all of your long-windedness is just partisan BS as well. As "brevity is the soul of wit", it lends further credence to those who feel all you have done is rant. If you can't say it in 3 lines or less most of the time, quit.

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

Re: SOTU Address:

ocean515 said:
I think the question could be answered, or ignored.

The rest is fluff.

The fact is, you made a claim about failure, and I asked for an explanation for the economic results in California, where no Republican legislation or action has taken place in over 14 years.

You have chosen to ignore the question.

So be it. I'll accept you have none to offer.

The fact is, you made a claim about failure,

Actually you brought up the failure issue.

I think the question could be answered, or ignored.

Fine. I'll ignore you in the future. You obvously didn't understand a thing.:2wave:

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

Re: SOTU Address:

Eighty Deuce said:
This is rubbish, top to bottom. Liberals don't believe in freedom of choice. Freedom of opportunity. They abhor the accountability inherent with real freedom. Quite the contrary, they want mandated results, using the confiscatory power of government, to take the fruits of the labor of one, and redistribute to another. That ain't freedom liberals. That's theft.

The guy who I quoted in my sig line knew a bit about that.

This is rubbish, top to bottom.

Liberals don't believe in freedom of choice. Freedom of opportunity. They abhor the accountability inherent with real freedom. Quite the contrary, they want mandated results, using the confiscatory power of government, to take the fruits of the labor of one, and redistribute to another. That ain't freedom liberals. That's theft.

You're right. Everything you just said from top to bottom is rubbish. Conservatives as we know are opposed to freedom of choice. They love opportunity, but only for a select group of people. They're more than willing to deny opportunity to those that don't fit their idea of who's deserving of opportunity. I posted this once, but it bears repeating: "Conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values. The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict.

Liberals fully understand the accountablity of freedom. What they abhore is the hypocrisy of the conservative when it comes to that very thing. The idiocy of the conservative is that he actually believes his own BS. It's true. Take this statement for example: "they want mandated results" That's one of the dumbest lines fosterd by conservatives. NOBODY expects mandated results. No two people are the same, so why would they assume that they would deliver the same results? They actually are dumb enough to swallow this. What they want is equal opportunity. NOT equal results. The very idea of that is ludicrous but they'll believe it. They'll believe whatever their told. They all have authoritarian personalities and need to be lead by an authority. Of course appeals to authority are always invalid, but they'll buy a bridge if they think a liberal thinks it's a bad idea.

, using the confiscatory power of government, to take the fruits of the labor of one, and redistribute to another. That ain't freedom liberals. That's theft.

No. It's actually called taxation. And that's what we do to provide the infrastructure that a capitalist society requres to function. Capitalism sits on top of a bed of socialism. It always has. That's what our taxes go for. Perhaps you can find a country that doesn't tax the population. You should move there. I'm sure you'll be happy. Go Galt for us. Please:2wave:

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

AlabamaPaul said:
Unless you have traveled somewhat, you haven't seen poverty, and many in the US haven't either...

I have. I've lived in the Philippines. Are you suggesting that people in the US...the richest nation in the world, should live that way? I thought we were better than that. In fact, we are. We don't let our people starve, and die in the streets. At least some of us share that view. It's kind of the Christian thing to do...or so I'm told.:roll:

AlabamaPaul · Feb 14, 2013

Adagio said:
I have. I've lived in the Philippines. Are you suggesting that people in the US...the richest nation in the world, should live that way? I thought we were better than that. In fact, we are. We don't let our people starve, and die in the streets. At least some of us share that view. It's kind of the Christian thing to do...or so I'm told.:roll:

People in the US should live in any manner they choose...

Eighty Deuce · Feb 14, 2013

Re: SOTU Address:

Adagio said:
Liberals don't believe in freedom of choice. Freedom of opportunity. They abhor the accountability inherent with real freedom. Quite the contrary, they want mandated results, using the confiscatory power of government, to take the fruits of the labor of one, and redistribute to another. That ain't freedom liberals. That's theft.

You're right. Everything you just said from top to bottom is rubbish. Conservatives as we know are opposed to freedom of choice. They love opportunity, but only for a select group of people. They're more than willing to deny opportunity to those that don't fit their idea of who's deserving of opportunity. I posted this once, but it bears repeating: "Conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values. The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict.

Liberals fully understand the accountablity of freedom. What they abhore is the hypocrisy of the conservative when it comes to that very thing. The idiocy of the conservative is that he actually believes his own BS. It's true. Take this statement for example: "they want mandated results" That's one of the dumbest lines fosterd by conservatives. NOBODY expects mandated results. No two people are the same, so why would they assume that they would deliver the same results? They actually are dumb enough to swallow this. What they want is equal opportunity. NOT equal results. The very idea of that is ludicrous but they'll believe it. They'll believe whatever their told. They all have authoritarian personalities and need to be lead by an authority. Of course appeals to authority are always invalid, but they'll buy a bridge if they think a liberal thinks it's a bad idea.

No. It's actually called taxation. And that's what we do to provide the infrastructure that a capitalist society requres to function. Capitalism sits on top of a bed of socialism. It always has. That's what our taxes go for. Perhaps you can find a country that doesn't tax the population. You should move there. I'm sure you'll be happy. Go Galt for us. Please:2wave:

You missed the part about "brevity". And the wit that comes with it.

Again, read the words of Jefferson. I know it hurts liberals to comprehend such, but give it a whack.

Eighty Deuce · Feb 14, 2013

Adagio said:
I have. I've lived in the Philippines. Are you suggesting that people in the US...the richest nation in the world, should live that way? I thought we were better than that. In fact, we are. We don't let our people starve, and die in the streets. At least some of us share that view. It's kind of the Christian thing to do...or so I'm told.:roll:

But apparently not the liberal thing to do ....

Barack says things are better than when he took office. OK. He's got 17 million more Americans on the Gubmit food stamp teat, 6 million more on the disability teat, and over 8 million who have lost enough spirit in trying that we don't even count 'em as caring about employment anymore.

I hope the hard numbers didn't pee on your one-lib parade here. The truth can be painful, eh ?

You go BARACK !! You da MAN !!!!! Let's have more of this kinda success !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fenton · Feb 14, 2013

Adagio said:
Demogoguing??? Did you not see the number of people in the gallery at the SOTU that have had family members the victims of gun violence? Do you think that they don't want to see something done about this?? Are you really that cold to call their loss demogoging? Tell that to them. To their face. Go ahead.

Tell them to their face ? What are you eleven years old ? Yes, you Libs, which would include Obama and his ilk . demagogue issues and use the blood of innocents to push a very old liberal agenda. Gun control.

Obviously those in the gallery agree with Obama's nonsensical gun control regulation that would do nothing to stop gun violence by criminals. Also cold is again, using the deaths of 20 innocent children to push a gun agenda. Enough of your false concern.

Adagio said:
They don't. The Bush years are over and the Republicans are losing badly. They are having their own civil war. They don't know who they are. Why would we want a bunch of irrational ideologues in charge of the country?? We've all seen what happens when you have control of the government. The results came in.

LOL !!! Losing what ? The collapse in 2008 was due to liberal democrat HUD and CRA regulations put on lending institutions and the GSEs that caused them to lower their underwriting standards and buy up massive amounts of toxic debt. It's over your head I know but it's the truth.

Millions of abject morons elected the least qualified candidate in 2008 to come in and address the collapse of the Democrat mandated bubble. He passed a horrible health care law, and gave public sector unions and bankrupt green energy companies billions and lied about shovel ready jobs. So after hearing you and your ilk whine about " Bush the idiot" your solution was to elect an ACTUAL idiot who created a massive structural debt and increased dependency and has a shrinking economy to show for it.

Nice...

Adagio said:
No. I defend the parents of 20 six year olds. That's the difference between you and me. You defend the NRA. Do you also defend their Enemies List?? And the blood drenched psycho that runs it? They couldn't even defend that. They took it off their website. If they weren't ashamed of it, why take it down??

No, the difference between you and me is you feign concern over dead children and Teachers to push your agenda and you legitimize it by making ridiculous statements like... " blood drenched psycho that runs it "

I actually DO care about the safety of our citizens and would allow law abiding people to defend themselves and also armed security guards in schools. You see I DONT want more dead children, you and Obama see it as an opportunity. I imagined more than a few high fives going around the white house when the body count came in.

Classy...

Adagio said:
Well he didn't crash our economy. He didn't launch a war on a lie. He didn't let bin Laden get away with murder. He didn't let the auto industry disappear. In fact, he turned the economy around, he ended one war, and is ending another. He got bin Laden, and our auto industry leads the world. The Dow is at 14,000.

Your so ignorant of so much, it's what makes you a Liberal. Obama's at 16 trillion and counting with 1 trillion dollar defecits, a rising dependent class, a shrinking economy, with the Fed pumping out billions every month , monetizing our debt and inflating the bond market. 8,500,000 people have disappeared out of the work force. Those jobs are gone.

Health care is rising, Banks and corporations are holding on to their reserves and capital because only an idiot would invest in Obama's economy. In 2008 the Fed started paying banks interest on their reserves, ( the money THEY HAVE TO HAVE ON HAND BY LAW ) So under Obama's FED nominee has encouraged the banks NOT to lend by paying them interest on they're massive reserves.

The Fed also controls the amount of reserves banks get to hold. With massive spending 900 billion last quarter and massive capital injections the economy shrank. You have nothing to brag about, your President is destroying the economy.

The Dow ? That's what you point too ? ... It's ironic that Libs are so desperate in cherry picking out any good economic data they are no cheering the rich getting richer. Do you understand WHY the DOW is at 14,000 ? It's called capital injections by the Fed on a short term basis by spending 85 billion a month on MBS and Treasuries...

The Fed's Bond buying is going to stop this year, they've done everything they know how to to spur a recovery but alas, really gullible simple people elected Obama twice and our economy will continue to shrink with world wide economic implications. Germany's economy shrank, that's just in. Spain, Italy Greece. These are the poster children of the Liberal movement. And it's nothing but a continuation of mediocrity and misery.

Don't preach to me about cold heartedness when your "limitations" have been hoisted upon the shoulders of so many American families struggling under Obama's shrinking economy and exploding debt to make ends meet. You voted for hium, your complicit in their prolonged misery as Obama focus's on "gun control"

Adagio said:
Were you impressed with these?

Oh you left an impression. Just another morally bereft Liberal who's too egocentric to grasp basic economic principles and who's chosen to act concerned over the deaths of innocent women and children just to push a gun control debate. You don't "care" unless there is blood, I care enough to allow them there right to defend themselves.

Liberals lie, they're typically selfish and sad and angry little people. You guys quit counting dead soldiers and crying about the war when Obama took over, your ILK lowered the flags for Whitney Houston's drug overdose but when a decorated sniper loses his life trying to help a fellow soldier deal with PTSD your expectantly quiet.

GROW UP....

Dickieboy · Feb 14, 2013

Adagio said:
That's not a good idea. Why bother? Because there are people living under the poverty level. What you're saying is that because most people make more than minimum, those that aren't, should live in poverty when we can actually lift them out where they can spend money back into the economy. I can't believe this:doh

Do you not understand the minimum wage is what establishes the ‘poverty level’? By changing the minimum wage we will merely move the poverty level and the same ‘class’ of earners will remain under the poverty level…consider the hourly wage for the current poverty level for ONE is $5.52. Considering this is it your assertion that a family should be able to thrive off one minimum wage income?

Since most people are making more, what you're saying is let the rest go to hell. Why??? Why would you advocate that. Obama and Romney BOTH agreed that the minimum wage should be attached to inflation. If we did that, people would be making more money and less dependent on welfare. By keeping them where they are, you're forcing them to take assistence. Or do you want them out on the street?

I do agree that MW (if we MUST have it) be adjusted to inflation/cpi/whatever but since it is often argued (by ‘lefties’) that there has been no recent inflation surge AND that MW has kept up with inflation since ~1990 (both from increases and monetary policy) it would be no different if linked TODAY (check it out at below links). This would have no effect on the assistance you refer to as MANY who are currently garnering it make above the minimum income now…

U.S. Department of Labor - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - Minimum Wage
CPI Inflation Calculator

Conservative · Feb 14, 2013

Adagio said:
Really? Bush's lies sent 5000 Americans to their death. And you want to talk about moral authority??:shock: So the election of Obama is somehow worse than lying the country into a war that cost American lives?? You have a pathetic sense of morality. Your hatred for Obama is so great that it's worth sending American troops to die rather than have Obama as president?? You actually hate him more than you love the troops??

Now your just tossing sour grapes. You lost. You're views are out of touch with the country. It's not a White Mans country anymore. Get used to it. AS for having a leg to stand on...hehe. We have the White House. You don't. Suck on that for the next four years. :2wave:

Bush lies? Anything to divert from the Obama failures? By the way, Democrats controlled the Senate and voted 76-23 to authorize the force to remove Saddam Hussein. Again the leftwing sites make you look foolish. Have you no pride?

Conservative · Feb 14, 2013

Adagio said:
Really? Bush's lies sent 5000 Americans to their death. And you want to talk about moral authority??:shock: So the election of Obama is somehow worse than lying the country into a war that cost American lives?? You have a pathetic sense of morality. Your hatred for Obama is so great that it's worth sending American troops to die rather than have Obama as president?? You actually hate him more than you love the troops??

Now your just tossing sour grapes. You lost. You're views are out of touch with the country. It's not a White Mans country anymore. Get used to it. AS for having a leg to stand on...hehe. We have the White House. You don't. Suck on that for the next four years. :2wave:

Look at all these Bush lies? I particularly love the Bush lies prior to 2001 when he was Governor of TX and how many in the Clinton Administration bought those lies, right?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 |

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 |

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 |

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 |

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 |

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 |

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 |

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 |

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 |

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 |

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 |

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 |

Fenton · Feb 14, 2013

Conservative said:
Look at all these Bush lies? I particularly love the Bush lies
prior to 2001 when he was Governor of TX and how many in the Clinton Administration bought those lies, right?

It must be exhausting to support a ideology that is built on a foundation of lies, blame, deception and ignorance.

But at it's best that's essentially what Liberalism is. The destructive policies and changes they pit into place have to wrapped in falsehoods and BS because in the light of day those changes or policies cant stand on their own merit.

And now we see the results of just the threat and inevitabillity of those changes taking place.

And its more suffering, chronic unemployment, increased Govt dependency and an exploding debt and defecit.

Their explanation ? A cowardly and pathetic blaming of a man who hasn't been in the white house for over four years.

They perpetuate fallacies and talking points to try and convince theirselves of their superiority.

For them ideology and blind allegiance take priority over truth and integrity.

For us truth defines our ideology, not the other way around.

They're desperately defensive now because its so apparent that voting in a egocentric media creation to run our Country was about the stupidist decision anyonz could make.

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

AlabamaPaul said:
People in the US should live in any manner they choose...

People don't choose to live in poverty. They don't like it? Who would? We have a history of people denying other people that opportunity to live as they choose. And it was conservatives that did everything they could to keep it that way. There never would have been a civil rights movement if there hadn't been segregation and discrimination in the first place. It took an Act of Congress to change that because if theres anything a conservative wants its maintaining existing institutions. First it was slavery, then Jim Crow, Segregation. Poll taxes. Denying women the right to make decisions over their own health issues. Denying Gays the same rights as straights. Right, people should live in any manner they choose. So why don't conservatives just get out of the way?

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

Eighty Deuce said:
But apparently not the liberal thing to do ....

Barack says things are better than when he took office. OK. He's got 17 million more Americans on the Gubmit food stamp teat, 6 million more on the disability teat, and over 8 million who have lost enough spirit in trying that we don't even count 'em as caring about employment anymore.

I hope the hard numbers didn't pee on your one-lib parade here. The truth can be painful, eh ?

You go BARACK !! You da MAN !!!!! Let's have more of this kinda success !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record. If conservatives would get out of the fkg way, maybe we could get something done. It's all about obstructionism with the conservatives. Until then, the number of people needing food stamps will increase, and more people will be looking for work. Here's a suggestion: Instead of putting up one abortion bill after another, try putting up a jobs bill. Remember Boehner saying it was jobs jobs jobs?? What do they do. Abortion, planned parenthood. What the hell do those have to do with jobs??

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

justabubba said:
who said a $9 minimum wage would take those earners out of poverty
you are attempting to conflate the minimum wage with a living wage ... other than being defined in monetary terms, they are quite different

Poverty is considered around $14,000. $9 is over $17.

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
This is simply an attempt by the left to mandate that users of low wage labor pay a "tax penalty" for not paying a "living wage".

Right that's it. It's all a great plot. Why don't you quit the cynical garbage, and think about it from the perspective of the wage earner for a change? We're seeing the greatest increase in corporate profits ever, and you're concerned about Wal-Mart paying $9/hr? That would take 700,000 Wal-Mart employees out of poverty and those people would have more money to spend back into the economy. 700,000. And that's just WalMart.

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

Conservative said:
So which govt agency or law required you to pay higher than the minimum wage? You didn't need the govt. to tell you what to pay your employees, why? Are you that much smarter than all other business owners? Thanks for showing that we don't need the govt. to set wages for private industry as good businesses hire good employees whereas bad businesses fail. Such is life

We need government to set a minimum wage so people like you don't exploit the workers. Pay a man a living wage, or you aren't worth being in business in the first place.

EarlzP · Feb 14, 2013

Re: SOTU Address:

Travis007 said:
If Obamas plan worked ( which it cant....hes actively destroying the economy) then why hasnt it worked?.... compared to GWB Obama is a disaster...thats stone cold fact..

you do know the USA has been downgraded.?...is that fact lost on you?... what comeback do you have?

Show some sources to prove your statements, the fact is you can not show any credible source not one. Remember chain e-mails are not credible sources

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

Bronson said:
Have you ever started or run your own business? Your entire post is nothing more than flimsy strawmen and rhetoric. You fail to see the Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities associated with raising the minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage increases poverty, it doesn't alleviate it. The association with wages and poverty is slim at best. As I pointed out in a previous post. It has more to do with skill and education. If you raise the minimum wage, it crowds out the lowest skilled and least educated workers. Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be entry level jobs. It is not supposed to be a "living wage". If workers are struggling with minimum wage jobs at the moment, and they are underemployed, that's just more evidence that our Economy sucks because of Obama's failed policies. The absolute worst time to raise the minimum wage is also during a recession, because there is a contraction in jobs available, hence more competition for fewer jobs. Youth and minorities end up becoming crowded out of the Labor Market.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/1999/0201.pdf

Have you ever started or run your own business?

Yes. For 30 years.

You fail to see the Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities associated with raising the minimum wage

You fail to see the benifits in paying a living wage to your employees.

Raising the minimum wage increases poverty, it doesn't alleviate it

Demonstrate the truth of that.

It has more to do with skill and education

That doesn't demonstrate the truth of what you said.

It has more to do with skill and education.

Neither does that. You fail to recognize the most all minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs. People generally are ambitious and look to get ahead. So they dont' plan on making a career out of minimum wage. But that job may very well provide enough money to go and get the education and skills that would enable him/her to get a better job.

If you raise the minimum wage, it crowds out the lowest skilled and least educated workers.

No it doesn't. Again demonstrate what makes that true. What do you base that on? We're talking about entry level jobs. What you offer is a sure fire way of keeping people in poverty and never being able to move forward. You've already admitted that it's about education and skills. That takes money. A raise in the minimum wage can help them afford the training and get them off of assistence as well. You would keep them poor and relient on welfare to survive.

Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be entry level jobs. It is not supposed to be a "living wage".

That's right. It's an entry level job. But he still has to live, and until a person can get the training to get a better job, this is what he has. A person with no hope of mobility and finds himself stuck in a minimum wage job,and he has no incentive. With a better pay, he can afford to get the training to get a better job. It also means that he will spend his money back into the economy. A person with no money won't. The entire economy suffers as a result of people on minimum wage.

If workers are struggling with minimum wage jobs at the moment, and they are underemployed, that's just more evidence that our Economy sucks because of Obama's failed policies.

No. It's not. It's evidence of people like yourself standing in the way of opportunity for people. You can't very well make a case for failed policies until they've actually been implemented and then evaluate the results. He's just started his second term. The jury is still out. You're partisanship is prejudging the effects. How can you say that policies which have been blocked are failed policies. We haven't even tried most of them yet.

The absolute worst time to raise the minimum wage is also during a recession, because there is a contraction in jobs available, hence more competition for fewer jobs. Youth and minorities end up becoming crowded out of the Labor Market.

We are no longer in recesssion. We're in recovery. Actually the absolute worst time to cut spending is during a recession. Money needs to be injected into the economy to promote jobs and spending. If nobody is spending, then nobody is buying and if nobody is buying then companies lay people off and the problem is compounded.

Dickieboy · Feb 14, 2013

Adagio said:
Poverty is considered around $14,000. $9 is over $17.

You're right...but $7.25 results in over $15k which is ALSO above $14k...what's your point?

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

Re: SOTU Address:

Travis007 said:
You beleive the goverment needs to extract more money from the people who work, so they can spend it on the people who dont?...

thats a winning formula... not..

Obviously by your non-response response, you didn't understand a thing I said. Your response had nothing to do with what I said. Like I said, "I see freedom as valuable for it's own sake, not for its economic potential. It's obvious you don't agree." The question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is profitable—whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its end. You're an economic reductionst. Why would I expect anything less from you? Just don't tell us that freedom is important to you. It maybe, but that's not the most important thing is it?

Adagio · Feb 14, 2013

Re: SOTU Address:

Eighty Deuce said:
See what I bolded ? Many of us feel that all of your long-windedness is just partisan BS as well. As "brevity is the soul of wit", it lends further credence to those who feel all you have done is rant. If you can't say it in 3 lines or less most of the time, quit.

Your inablity to write effectively is noted. Obviously I don't care what you "feel". I didn't come here to make you feel good. I'm here to stick a thumb in your eye.:shock: Is that brief enough for you? :doh

SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Well-known member

Pragmatist

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Pragmatist

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member