• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: SOTU Address:

Speaken of nonsense. Do you proofread your post before you hit the send button? Explain where this pile of straw comes from what i posted.

You made the point that increasing min wage would increase the amount of money in the economy, that's nonsense. You've merely taken it from one person and given it to another. That does not increase the amount of money in the economy any more than transferring a dollar from your right pocket to your left. If the money stays with the employer it does not disappear.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

You made the point that increasing min wage would increase the amount of money in the economy, that's nonsense. You've merely taken it from one person and given it to another. That does not increase the amount of money in the economy any more than transferring a dollar from your right pocket to your left. If the money stays with the employer it does not disappear.

You’re putting the dough it into the pockets of low-wage workers; low-wage workers spend a larger percentage of their income than middle-income/upper-income workers.

So, thinking about that dynamic, you can see why historically raising minimum wages has not had much of an macroeconomic effect. Low-income workers have drawn the short straw over the last 20, 30 years. It’s time for the pendulum to swing the other way.:peace
 
Re: SOTU Address:

You’re putting the dough it into the pockets of low-wage workers; low-wage workers spend a larger percentage of their income than middle-income/upper-income workers.

So, thinking about that dynamic, you can see why historically raising minimum wages has not had much of an macroeconomic effect. Low-income workers have drawn the short straw over the last 20, 30 years. It’s time for the pendulum to swing the other way.:peace


It makes much sense on many levels.
 
Translation: Fenton doesn't have an argument so he's going to try the label argument again.



Usually every post you get rebutted, but this one in particular:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...kes-around-100-injured-10.html#post1061471112

Because....


No, what you did was take an occurrences and blow it well past its actual meaning. Thus, if we all did what you did, we can take actual occurrences, we can speculate on all kinds of crazy ****. See how easy that was?

Well if your definition of a rebut is " it's Bush's fault " and the usual menagerie of left wing nonsense then I guess "every post" of mine has been rebutted. But the most likely explanation to your self proclaimed victory is that it's a typical and childish tactic of those with your "gifts'' to arbitrary claim victory after writing a post full of egocentric derived nonsense.


Now that is stupid

Now I'll explain to you why your argument is a bunch of stupid, to which you will have no reply but to try attempt ANOTHER lame label attack.

First of all, terrorist groups have always been out of direct control of the states that sponsor them. From the Contras, the Hamas, to the Mujahedin. They do not take direct orders and often do what they want. Second, use of a nuclear weapon by such a group would be relatively easily traced by to a likely target source and be met with international force. So if the Mullahs or Kim Jung Un decide to be a total idiot and give weapons they've never given to anyone to terrorists who then use them, they end their regimes. Everything both the Mullahs and the Kim Dynasty has done has been to preserve their power. Giving people you cannot control weapons of mass destruction creates a huge risk to their decades of power consolidation. And as we saw in Iraq, the best weapons Iran gave to terrorists fighting the US led forces were shaped charges...which have existed since WWII. You are essentially arguing that Iran, despite having issues with control over Hezbollah, would give terrorists groups their pinnacle of Iranian weapons knowing full well that any usage would point back to Tehran and ultimately lead to their destruction. It is as if you have no understanding of any history at all of anything the Islamic Republic Mullahs have done in their entire period in power.

Second, to steal sufficient material to actually make a dirty bomb would largely be impractical. And it is simply easier to just rob poorly guarded research reactors around the world as well as FSU material sites. Despite the Nunn-Lugar CTR and the actions of people like Mr. Turner in securing these sites, there are still dozens of these lying around FSU and former Soviet aligned nations. Heck, even South America has sizable deposits from its time of doing research. To actually steal and smuggle fissile material out of a state like North Korea where the state is everywhere is essentially impossible. Terrorists go for easy targets. And it is much, much, much easier to just break into or bribe a guard, make off with a few dozen pounds of radioactive or fissile material.

Stupid huh ? You think is so stupid that's it's not even taken into consideration by our current defense and State department ? That this scenario is so completely unlikely that the DOD hasn't invested any time or assets to possible fissionable material gone awry ? The only thing more ridiculous in your above paragraphs is your self proclaimed knowledge of every thing terrorist or that it's ( essentially impossible ) to get fissile material out of North Korea....because you have a reference point of some type other than the likely explanation that you pulled that information out of your ass.

Oh and by the way, Uranium for reactors is about 3% enriched as opposed to weaponized uranium which is closed to 95%. But you knew that, right ?

Terrorists 'acquire nuclear container to smuggle uranium' - Telegraph

" Dafna Linzer wrote in the Washington Post: “Of all the clues that Osama bin Laden is after a nuclear weapon, perhaps the most significant came in intelligence reports indicating that he received fresh approval last year from a Saudi cleric for the use of a doomsday bomb against the United States. For bin Laden, the religious ruling was a milestone in a long quest for an atomic weapon. For U.S. officials and others, it was a frightening reminder of what many consider the ultimate mass-casualty threat posed by modern terrorists. Even a small nuclear weapon detonated in a major American population center would be among history's most lethal acts of war, potentially rivaling the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [Source: Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, December 29, 2004] "

Nuclear Terrorism FAQ - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

You again seem extremely worried about the wrong things.

If you are seriously worried about terrorists getting fissile material, you'd be for more funding for the Nunn-Lugar CTR as well as taking over what Mr. Tuner has been forced to fund: the securing of fissile material throughout the world. Turner funded it because the US government wouldn't do it. He funded a massive operation to secure tons of material from Belgrade.

I don't see why you are still here. You are outmatched in every way.

You do not understand the history
You do not understand terrorism
You do not understand state relations with independent actors
You do not understand the past 30 years of Iranian and North Korea government
You do not understand the threats posed by the fall of the Soviet Union
You do not understand any of the military equipment

I can keep going on and on and on about things you just do not get. Why you keep subjecting yourself to being destroyed over and over again by someone in possession of vastly superior amounts of knowledge then you is beyond rational thought

Actually, the fact that there are people out there bloviating over topics they know nothing about, people that have devolved to the point that their pathology inserts itself into their self righteous affirmation of victory "worry" me more than uranium walking off from a Iranian nuke plant. And that's not much. I can just pop in and expose your self appointed victories for the guess work they are. In your own head you may be an expert. In reality ? You have no clue to what your'e talking about.

Oh and " I'm still here" to point out the asinine comments of people who pretend to be something there not, pretend to know something they're completely ignorant of and who make broad generic accusations and like to proclaim themselves the victor by inserting their opinion. Yea, "I do not understand military equipment "...LOL

I, actually understand just about everything. Truth is by default alone I'm more intelligent than you and if you wan't to stop proclaiming your self winner and really talk about something that's challenging then I'm all ears.

So yes you could go on and on about things, but why don't you order yourself a trophy as "best-est DP debater in the world " and be done with it.
 
Actually Tom Clancy would be an independent organization free of governments that is well funded that hires former Soviet scientists to build nuclear weapons from fissile material stolen from FSU sites across Eastern Europe to blackmail governments into doing what they want or risk having nuclear weapons that have already been smuggled into their respective nations exploding in large population centers.

Seriously dude, you can't even that right.

Tom Clancy is for the most part a writer of FICTION and I'm not a fan so keep your weird obsession to yourself. Re-read you bold type....LOL

So you are literally saying that Obama should have said no to the demands of people for freedom?
So you are literally saying that Obama should have actively helped dictators put down revolutions asking for the same freedoms that Americans enjoy?
So you are literally saying that Obama should have turned his back on people despite praising the democracy of the Iraqis?

Libya is still not Anti-American. Please get some basic knowledge about something before replying. Your ignorance here is astounding.

Drama is not a substitute for knowledge.

Yes, ours is not a perfect world where Democracy tames a society still wrapped up in a 7th Century religion who are hell bent on destroying the Zionist. It's been the policy for decades but hey, Obama's in and he wants to try something new.

Your naivete seems to know no bounds also. FREEDOM ? How pathetic. Morsi and the Muslim Brother hood are ALL about "Freedom" I mean you believed Obama's nonsense when he associated freedom and Democracy with what actually occurred in Egypt and Libya ? Are you always this gullible ? And how can you be, especially after the Muslim Brotherhood taking over in Egypt, so sure Libya will stay Pro-American ?

Your a expert I realize but the Libyan Govt seems to be having some trouble with their terrorist population killing American Ambassadors......wait, do you still think that was a protest ? When they're over run with Islamic Fundamentalist you can politely say you had no idea what the hell you were talking about ok ?


This coming from the guy who is afraid of a 50 year old subsonic bomber over the actual threats the Russians pose. You really have no idea do you?

Afraid ? I simply posted the fact to show you were full of ****. Those bombers managed to make it to the Island of Guam " hope it don't tip over Mr Johnson " with well over 800 kilotons of nuclear war heads strapped to their wings. Guam is high on the list of islands that are of strategic importance to the united states. But you already knew that.....no, no you didn't.

Also with my 43 years of age, a chronic and obsessive reading habit, a near 140 IQ and the innate ability to snuff out bull **** form posters like you there is very little I have "NO IDEA" about, your proclamations not withstanding.

If that is actually what they want, why didn't they just use their massive chemical weapon stockpiles during the previous wars? And of course, Fenton will have no answer to that. Iran's stockpiles of chemical weapons would be well more than necessary to wipe out Israel. Iran has had the power in the past to make good on its threats. It did not. Furthermore, there is no Islamic Decree against using chemical weapons of mass destruction. There is one against nuclear weapons.

It's chemical weapons stock pile ? Wow, you really are dense aren't you ? Iraq had chemical weapons too Cochise, and they tried to build a Nuclear reactor in the early 80's. Israel took it out. Why ? With your extensive self proclaimed knowledge of EVERYTHING can you possibly think of any reason Iran would wan't a Nuclear weapon ? Your Islamic decree ? You can take that and 5 bucks and get a coffee at Starbucks....

It's actually quite funny. That a theocracy hell bent on the destruction of the Zionist state would first build a bomb...because that's what Iran is doing....and then decree that it's use is a violation of their charter. Lol......

And people like you vote..

I guess it's wrong to promote Democracy in the Middle East.
I guess it's wrong to promote the freedoms America enjoys and then actually help people get them.
I guess it's wrong to give people the chance at self rule.

Your'e either exposing more of your seemingly never ending supply of naivete or your being dis-indigenous. Either way this part of your post is " Exibit A " in the case AGAINS democracy. The fact that someone with your supposed "Middle Eastern and Terrorist Expertise" could make 3 statements, each more void in reason than the last.
Yes, it's wrong to initiate "Democracy' in a Country that had a Zionist hating Islamic group waiting in the wings for their chance to take over. And don't think for a minute Obama didn't know that the result of the Arab spring was the putting into power of historically violent groups who would eventually move away from "Democracy" and "freedom" and into a theocratic-dictatorship.

Things like running scenario's for the possibilities of enabling a huge power vacuum in a Country filled with Islamic Fundamentalist is usually the responsibility of our DOD.....But no, Obama gets to play the "act dumb card". To bad he's held up by countless useful idiots who think it's beyond his administration to expect the obvious.

It's funny that you equate what happened in Egypt to "Freedom". It's an over simplistic evaluation at best. It's also VERY simplistic to think you can force Democracy into a culture that has yet to egress from the 7th Century and expect " the freedoms America enjoys ". It's only Freedom to you because to call it what it is ( The Installment of a Zionist Hating Islamic Group ) counters your increasing erroneous statements.

Everyone knows that you are exaggerating to suit your hatred. Get over it.

Still funny you call me naive, yet you can't even explain the problem China and Japan have had over the islands.
Still funny you call me naive, yet you don't even realize that the real threats Russia can level at us don't include a 50 year old subsonic bomber.
Still funny you call me naive, yet you think that regimes who have spent decades never risking their necks would suddenly end their regimes for what amounts to effectively little

Fenton, you are done and it is obvious.

Who's everyone ? You and all of the other self proclaimed victors who can't stop themselves from posting excuses, inaccurate data from subjective web sites and paragraphs filed with make believe data ? And Russia's real threat ? Did I say that the bomber was their only means of causing massive destruction to American soil ? I brought up the possibility of them dumping their bonds in an earlier post.

Are taking credit for that ? And I'm not done, I'm just getting started. As long as there are goofy liberal posters attempting to push their lies and misinformation as legitimate data I'll be here. I wouldn't miss the coming paradigm shift for anything.

FYI: Don't even bother with your Russia comment, we both know you can't do it.

Also, it's pretty clear you do not have the skill or knowledge to actually address what I write. If you did, you would. But clearly you cannot.

The skill to address what you write ? This is a skill ? Wow

Actually your'e one of the easier posters here to slap down. You claim arbitrary victory for some of the most ridiculous comments and then make generic broad brush definitive statements. I think your'e probably about 19 years old, thoroughly immature and self-conscious.
 
Dontcha just love the ole obtuse defense some on this forum throw up?:thumbs:

:lamo They have no defense. that's the whole thing. That's why they always attack. They have to. They can't defend their ideology. They never use logic. The have an idea and then they have to look for things to support the idea and then claim that makes the idea true. They only use inductive reasoning, and the ideology must be true so they need to find things to support it.

"The problem with any ideology is that it gives you the answer before you’ve looked at any of the evidence. You’ve got to mold the evidence to give you the answer that you’ve already decided you have to have".Bill Clinton on Ideology

They're what are called Identity Philosophers. Identity philosophers, may say that ‘truth’ is meaningful and that it means correspondence to the facts. They may even acknowledge the existence of foolproof criteria by which to determine whether or not a statement is true. But they believe, and this is what makes them identity philosophers, that they owe their primary allegiance to some group to which they belong. The thrust of their attack against truth is not that we cannot know what is true. It is that truth is but one value amongst many, and not the one that counts most for building a just society. They believe that when it comes to a choice between truth and solidarity, it is solidarity that counts—so that we are not merely justified in misrepresenting the truth, (as did Bush and Cheney) but that it may actually be our duty to do so if the solidarity of our community hangs in the balance. But no one, I hope, would accuse identity philosophers of tolerating or respecting the views of others. The best and most recent example of this is John McCains reasons for holding up Hagels nomination. Hagel went against the group ( Republicans) on Iraq, and it ruffled their little feathers and they all have long memories. How dare Hagel have the audacity to go against Bush on the war. What a classic Putz McCain is. Party before country. Welcome to the Republican Caucus aka Douchbagistan.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

You made the point that increasing min wage would increase the amount of money in the economy, that's nonsense. You've merely taken it from one person and given it to another. That does not increase the amount of money in the economy any more than transferring a dollar from your right pocket to your left. If the money stays with the employer it does not disappear.

Working is not a zero sum game. When you employ somebody you pay him for his services. It absolutely increases the amount of money in the economy since those people now have more money to spend which is exactly what they will do right into their local economy. Those companies will need to provide enough in the way of employment to satisfy the demand for what they are selling. Sure they are paying more. But that is offset by an increase in sales. The more sales they have the more people they'll need to employ. I'm sure you like the idea of the money staying with the employer. Cheap labor works to his benefit doesn't it? But it does nothing for the employee. He needs them, so pay them a living wage. Everybody should get a fair days pay for a fair days work. What you advocate is keeping everybody's pay low. What does that do for the worker?
 
Tom Clancy is for the most part a writer of FICTION and I'm not a fan so keep your weird obsession to yourself. Re-read you bold type....LOL



Yes, ours is not a perfect world where Democracy tames a society still wrapped up in a 7th Century religion who are hell bent on destroying the Zionist. It's been the policy for decades but hey, Obama's in and he wants to try something new.

Your naivete seems to know no bounds also. FREEDOM ? How pathetic. Morsi and the Muslim Brother hood are ALL about "Freedom" I mean you believed Obama's nonsense when he associated freedom and Democracy with what actually occurred in Egypt and Libya ? Are you always this gullible ? And how can you be, especially after the Muslim Brotherhood taking over in Egypt, so sure Libya will stay Pro-American ?

Your a expert I realize but the Libyan Govt seems to be having some trouble with their terrorist population killing American Ambassadors......wait, do you still think that was a protest ? When they're over run with Islamic Fundamentalist you can politely say you had no idea what the hell you were talking about ok ?




Afraid ? I simply posted the fact to show you were full of ****. Those bombers managed to make it to the Island of Guam " hope it don't tip over Mr Johnson " with well over 800 kilotons of nuclear war heads strapped to their wings. Guam is high on the list of islands that are of strategic importance to the united states. But you already knew that.....no, no you didn't.

Also with my 43 years of age, a chronic and obsessive reading habit, a near 140 IQ and the innate ability to snuff out bull **** form posters like you there is very little I have "NO IDEA" about, your proclamations not withstanding.



It's chemical weapons stock pile ? Wow, you really are dense aren't you ? Iraq had chemical weapons too Cochise, and they tried to build a Nuclear reactor in the early 80's. Israel took it out. Why ? With your extensive self proclaimed knowledge of EVERYTHING can you possibly think of any reason Iran would wan't a Nuclear weapon ? Your Islamic decree ? You can take that and 5 bucks and get a coffee at Starbucks....

It's actually quite funny. That a theocracy hell bent on the destruction of the Zionist state would first build a bomb...because that's what Iran is doing....and then decree that it's use is a violation of their charter. Lol......

And people like you vote..



Your'e either exposing more of your seemingly never ending supply of naivete or your being dis-indigenous. Either way this part of your post is " Exibit A " in the case AGAINS democracy. The fact that someone with your supposed "Middle Eastern and Terrorist Expertise" could make 3 statements, each more void in reason than the last.
Yes, it's wrong to initiate "Democracy' in a Country that had a Zionist hating Islamic group waiting in the wings for their chance to take over. And don't think for a minute Obama didn't know that the result of the Arab spring was the putting into power of historically violent groups who would eventually move away from "Democracy" and "freedom" and into a theocratic-dictatorship.

Things like running scenario's for the possibilities of enabling a huge power vacuum in a Country filled with Islamic Fundamentalist is usually the responsibility of our DOD.....But no, Obama gets to play the "act dumb card". To bad he's held up by countless useful idiots who think it's beyond his administration to expect the obvious.

It's funny that you equate what happened in Egypt to "Freedom". It's an over simplistic evaluation at best. It's also VERY simplistic to think you can force Democracy into a culture that has yet to egress from the 7th Century and expect " the freedoms America enjoys ". It's only Freedom to you because to call it what it is ( The Installment of a Zionist Hating Islamic Group ) counters your increasing erroneous statements.



Who's everyone ? You and all of the other self proclaimed victors who can't stop themselves from posting excuses, inaccurate data from subjective web sites and paragraphs filed with make believe data ? And Russia's real threat ? Did I say that the bomber was their only means of causing massive destruction to American soil ? I brought up the possibility of them dumping their bonds in an earlier post.

Are taking credit for that ? And I'm not done, I'm just getting started. As long as there are goofy liberal posters attempting to push their lies and misinformation as legitimate data I'll be here. I wouldn't miss the coming paradigm shift for anything.



The skill to address what you write ? This is a skill ? Wow

Actually your'e one of the easier posters here to slap down. You claim arbitrary victory for some of the most ridiculous comments and then make generic broad brush definitive statements. I think your'e probably about 19 years old, thoroughly immature and self-conscious.

The skill to address what you write ? This is a skill ? Wow

Yeah. Actually it does take some skill to address what another poster writes. I would think a guy with a "near 140 IQ" would already know that and put that lofty IQ to use. But no...you're only motivated by a "slap down". Your entire approach to debating is dicto simpliciter. One sweeping generality after another. And then it's followed by the predictable insult. But then, logic isn't your game. Sad waste of that high IQ.:roll:
 
:lamo They have no defense. that's the whole thing. That's why they always attack. They have to. They can't defend their ideology. They never use logic. The have an idea and then they have to look for things to support the idea and then claim that makes the idea true. They only use inductive reasoning, and the ideology must be true so they need to find things to support it.

"The problem with any ideology is that it gives you the answer before you’ve looked at any of the evidence. You’ve got to mold the evidence to give you the answer that you’ve already decided you have to have".Bill Clinton on Ideology

They're what are called Identity Philosophers. Identity philosophers, may say that ‘truth’ is meaningful and that it means correspondence to the facts. They may even acknowledge the existence of foolproof criteria by which to determine whether or not a statement is true. But they believe, and this is what makes them identity philosophers, that they owe their primary allegiance to some group to which they belong. The thrust of their attack against truth is not that we cannot know what is true. It is that truth is but one value amongst many, and not the one that counts most for building a just society. They believe that when it comes to a choice between truth and solidarity, it is solidarity that counts—so that we are not merely justified in misrepresenting the truth, (as did Bush and Cheney) but that it may actually be our duty to do so if the solidarity of our community hangs in the balance. But no one, I hope, would accuse identity philosophers of tolerating or respecting the views of others. The best and most recent example of this is John McCains reasons for holding up Hagels nomination. Hagel went against the group ( Republicans) on Iraq, and it ruffled their little feathers and they all have long memories. How dare Hagel have the audacity to go against Bush on the war. What a classic Putz McCain is. Party before country. Welcome to the Republican Caucus aka Douchbagistan.

Hagel looked like an incompetent, unprepared moron.

Spare us the political smear campaign disguised as philosophical crap, posing as an intellectual doesnt make you one.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

You’re putting the dough it into the pockets of low-wage workers; low-wage workers spend a larger percentage of their income than middle-income/upper-income workers.

So, thinking about that dynamic, you can see why historically raising minimum wages has not had much of an macroeconomic effect. Low-income workers have drawn the short straw over the last 20, 30 years. It’s time for the pendulum to swing the other way.:peace

Small businesses have also drawn the short end of that stick, people seem to think that all the minimum wage workers are employed at giant conglomerates that have more money than they know what to do with. That's just not true. Raising the min wage to $9 will do nothing but hurt the very people hiring low skilled workers.

I'll give you an example from my own situation. I run a metal stamping plant. My largest vendor is a plater, I make the parts they coat them. They employ low skilled (mostly temps) workers to hang my parts on a rack. Now they have a few long term people that are good at the job and they can make up to $10/hr. The majority are temps making min wage and for the most part aren't worth that. Now this company stands to see their labor costs go up dramatically, at which time I will undoubtedly see a price increase. Things being as they are I cannot eat those increased costs, I'm already cut to the bone. I will approach my customers with a price increase at which time they will laugh hysterically. The bottom line is I WILL lose work, not maybe, I WILL lose work, period. And so will the plater. So at the end of the day this will not only cost some of those min wage workers their job but will in all likelihood cost some one in my shop theirs. My lowest paid employee makes $14/hr.

What drives me crazier than anything else is that at the end of the day, those that support this increase will point to Mcds and say "see, everything worked out fine". Neither my employees nor the platers will ever even be acknowledged. I've been through this before and it doesn't end well.
 
Yeah. Actually it does take some skill to address what another poster writes. I would think a guy with a "near 140 IQ" would already know that and put that lofty IQ to use. But no...you're only motivated by a "slap down". Your entire approach to debating is dicto simpliciter. One sweeping generality after another. And then it's followed by the predictable insult. But then, logic isn't your game. Sad waste of that high IQ.:roll:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...kes-around-100-injured-12.html#post1061474390

It's embarrassing how badly Fenton argues.

Now, I'm feeling bad for destroying him. It's not even a challenge anymore.

He also allegedly has an IQ of 140...but posted his response in the wrong thread twice.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Small businesses have also drawn the short end of that stick, people seem to think that all the minimum wage workers are employed at giant conglomerates that have more money than they know what to do with. That's just not true. Raising the min wage to $9 will do nothing but hurt the very people hiring low skilled workers.

I'll give you an example from my own situation. I run a metal stamping plant. My largest vendor is a plater, I make the parts they coat them. They employ low skilled (mostly temps) workers to hang my parts on a rack. Now they have a few long term people that are good at the job and they can make up to $10/hr. The majority are temps making min wage and for the most part aren't worth that. Now this company stands to see their labor costs go up dramatically, at which time I will undoubtedly see a price increase. Things being as they are I cannot eat those increased costs, I'm already cut to the bone. I will approach my customers with a price increase at which time they will laugh hysterically. The bottom line is I WILL lose work, not maybe, I WILL lose work, period. And so will the plater. So at the end of the day this will not only cost some of those min wage workers their job but will in all likelihood cost some one in my shop theirs. My lowest paid employee makes $14/hr.

What drives me crazier than anything else is that at the end of the day, those that support this increase will point to Mcds and say "see, everything worked out fine". Neither my employees nor the platers will ever even be acknowledged. I've been through this before and it doesn't end well.

Do your customers NEED the metal components you make? With a federal minimum wage law - where else will they get the metal pieces any cheaper? China? China's manufacturing costs are rising also plus transportation costs. Mexico - possible, but what about delivery costs?

Then there is a study carried out in 2004 by the Fiscal Policy Institute
States with Minimum Wages above the Federal Level have had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth

and an article, which provides anecdotal confirmation for the fact that higher minimum wages don't always cost jobs
For $7.93 an Hour, It’s Worth a Trip Across a State Line

Washington State unemployment was 7.6 percent in January
 
Last edited:
Re: SOTU Address:

Do your customers NEED the metal components you make? With a federal minimum wage law - where else will they get the metal pieces any cheaper? China? China's manufacturing costs are rising also plus transportation costs. Mexico - possible, but what about delivery costs?

Mexico, no doubt about it. It is just as easy to ship to California, Washington (state), Missouri or any other state from Mexico as it is from Ohio. When they passed the steel tariffs in 2002 I hemorrhaged work and it all went to Mexico. Just by crossing the border you could buy steel for 1/3 of what I was paying. Within 18 months 2 of my 3 largest customers moved entire plants to Mexico.

Then there is a study carried out in 2004 by the Fiscal Policy Institute
States with Minimum Wages above the Federal Level have had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth

and an article, which provides anecdotal confirmation for the fact that higher minimum wages don't always cost jobs
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/us/11minimum.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

You'll note that that both links speak to fast food and retail, both industries that have local competition not foreign. In my case my competition does not face the same increases that I do and thus I will lose work and workers. It's as I said earlier, my employees and those of the platers never seem to make it into the discussion. McDs is still hiring so everything is OK.

With the current proposal we are also not looking at a normal bump, In the past we've seen jumps of 11-12%, now we're looking at 24%, and this in an absolutely miserable economy, I can't speak to retail and fast food but the people I know that hire min wage are still in shock and are dusting off exit strategies. It again reminds me of the steel tariffs. We were just coming off of a recession, 911 caused an even bigger downturn and sure enough the govt was right there to kick us in the short hairs while we were down. Exactly what I'm hearing from the platers, they're hanging on by a thread, great time for a 24% pay raise.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

A picture speaks a thousand words ................

michael_ramirez_new_michael_ramirez_for_02142013.gif
 
So yes you could go on and on about things, but why don't you order yourself a trophy as "best-est DP debater in the world " and be done with it.

Dude, you can't quote stuff from other threads and just bulldoze this one. That's 3 quotes from a different thread.

You claim arbitrary victory for some of the most ridiculous comments and then make generic broad brush definitive statements. I think your'e probably about 19 years old, thoroughly immature and self-conscious.

That's 7 quotes from a different thread, all from the same member. Are you ok?
 
Re: SOTU Address:

For all the whizz-bang liberals who claim that raising the MW will grow the economy.

"MW for Dummies": In order to grow the economy, one must increase productivity, which then increases income, and more importantly, standard of living. Raising the MW does not do this. Paying someone more to produce the same quantity of goods or services must then be offset by an increase in the price of the goods or services, as ther was no increase in productivity. Which means that the customer must now pay more of their disposable income to buy those g and s. Which leaves the customer with two choices 1) Purchase less; or 2) find a way to raise the price of their labor, if possible, so that they can also pass it on to someone else.

In the end. you have not grown the economy. You will have a mix of inflation, job losses where an employer cannot meet the increased labor costs where there was no increase in productivity, and a reduction in standard of living, where folks now can only make do by purchasing less.

Where customer demand then shifts to products and services, now costing less, where foreign labor is the beneficiary, you have really shot yourself in the foot.

"Whoo-Hooo" eh liberals ? Been a while since I have seen such long-winded dumbassery as in this thread.
 
You claim this:

:lamo They have no defense. that's the whole thing. That's why they always attack. They have to. They can't defend their ideology.
Then in the SAME post:
They're what are called Identity PhilosophersWhat a classic Putz McCain is. Party before country. Welcome to the Republican Caucus aka Douchbagistan.

OH THE HYPOCRISY!
 
If you attribute most of fiscal year 2009 to George W. Bush then, after adjusting for inflation, federal spending under Obama has actually dropped by 0.1 percent. Politifact checked the numbers and agreed: “Using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years,” they write. “Using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease.”

Since the fiscal year of the United States runs from October to September, fiscal year 2009 began on October 1, 2008 and ended for GW Bush on January 20, 2009. Bush had nothing to do with the Obama stimulus, the takeover of GM/Chrysler, the Afghanistand supplemental, the bailout of AIG, and spending the 350 billion of the 700 billion TARP money left for Obama. In addition Obama had all the department heads in place to spend the 2009 budget which by the way HE signed in March 2009 so let me know how the 2009 spending was mostly Bush?

Again, you are nothing more than a talking head of the DNC to please tell me is this an act or are you really that misinformed and naive?
 
Is that a threat or a promise? You provide data and everyone knows that data can and usually is manipulated to produce a desired result. What you do in all you posts is attempt to swamp the post with ridiculous data that is biased to begin with. Didn't you post a video from the CATO Institute? That's a Libertarian Think Tank. I already know that their views stem from Hayek and Mises. Do you think I haven't read them? They're economic reductionists. They practice Economism. Absolutely none of the posts I've put up have been addressed by you at all. None. You obviously see everything in monatary terms. You believe that all facts, interests, and goals can ultimately be defined in economic terms—or, in other words, that economic facts, interests, and goals are the only ones that really exist. Do you deny that?? If you didn't, you would consider the human effect of the things you talk about. But you don't. For you freedom is a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its end.



That's your problem. You don't understand that it's you that is making a fool out of yourself. The last campaign proves my point. You and your ilk were rejected because you presented yourself as stupid, and totally out of touch with the country. You keep pounding on outdated ideas that have been falsified. You put up morons for candidates and then blame the rest of us for not accepting idiots to run the country. You're playing checkers, and we're playing chess. You offer simple minded answers to complex problems, and offer racist policies, you alieanate the entire nation through insults and discrimination and then wonder why nobody votes for your ideology. You talk about us being poorly informed and yet all of you are devoted to Fox Noise, which has been shown to pander to the most ignorant fools in America. You tell me that we don't understand history?? We reject your historical revisionism. We've seen it through the likes of Glenn Beck, David Barton, the Texas School Board. You say we don't understand economics, and yet Paul Krugman won a Nobel for Economics. We aren't all Austrians as Ron Paul would think. We know who Hayek was, and although you and your ilk talk about him, you fail to understand that he rejected you. You have morons like Mark Levin spouting the virtues of Edmund Burke...a Tory from Britain who was the leading voice of the Anti-Enlightenment. That's Anti American, since we were a product of the Enlightenment as articulated by Jefferson and Paine.

As for Liberals having all the answers, and never the solutions, you don't even get that right. We look at a problem and apply human intelligence to address the problem. If it doesn't work, we change. That's because we can. We aren't locked into a rigid ideology. You on the other hand never even bother to recognize that a problem exists. If you don't look at it, it will just go away. Laissez Faire. The Market will work it out.

The very concept of conservatism is embedded with dogma, that we see as not just ridiculous but sometimes dangerous. We don't make up Enemies Lists like conservatives from Nixon to Wayne LaPierre. We find you childish, petulant children. A bad joke that lingers on like the stench on the stranded boat in the Gulf. And no matter what we do to drag you into the 21st century, you dig your heels in and scream and bite and snarl and crap your pants until eventually you accept the new ideas as your own. And the process starts all over with the next issue. In short...you're a pretty disgusting bag of bile, that we always end up having to put up with. You're a scared, paranoid bunch that we all wish would go away so we can move forward as we were meant to do.:peace

Data from the U.S. Treasury can never be manipulated, it is what it is just like your bank account is what it is. I use BEA.gov, BLS.giv, and the Treasury data, not CBO, not leftwing sites. All my data can be verified but why would you ever waste your time when it is so easy to buy what you are told by leftwing partisans who have no problem making you look foolish.

The very concept of conservatism is based upon human behavior and human achievement. It is all about accepting personal responsibility where you spend in the name of compassion but actually get compassionate results, results that actual solve problems. Not once have I ever heard a liberal blame the individual for poor choices made and for personal mistakes. It is always blame somone else for individual failures.

Love the personal attack,
you're a pretty disgusting bag of bile
which is normally the case with liberals when they cannot refute actual data. Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
If you attribute most of fiscal year 2009 to George W. Bush then, after adjusting for inflation, federal spending under Obama has actually dropped by 0.1 percent. Politifact checked the numbers and agreed: “Using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years,” they write. “Using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease.”

That argument only "works" if you discount the fact that Obama added $787 billion ARRA spending, authorized in February 2009. Obama also directed most of the actual TARP spending. Considering that to be "Bush spending" is insane and very dishonest. Federal spending went up 20% from 2007/8 to 2008/9 and Obama, via his puppet Harry Reid, has kept it at that elevated level by using continuing resolutions, while he and the MSM insist how frugal he is. Get real!
 
That argument only "works" if you discount the fact that Obama added $787 billion ARRA spending, authorized in February 2009. Obama also directed most of the actual TARP spending. Considering that to be "Bush spending" is insane and very dishonest. Federal spending went up 20% from 2007/8 to 2008/9 and Obama, via his puppet Harry Reid, has kept it at that elevated level by using continuing resolutions, while he and the MSM insist how frugal he is. Get real!

The lack of knowledge about how our govt. works, the fiscal year of the United States, basic civics, understanding of the deficit and debt by liberals is staggering as it seems they prefer buying rhetoric from the left vs. actual research. What is quite telling is how Bush is the scapegoat for everything even though he has been out of office for 4 years. It does seem that liberals are never responsible for anything and always blame someone else for their own failures.

The fiscal year of the United States runs from October to September, not the calendar year. The 2009 budget was not signed by GW Bush as it was rejected by the Democrat Controlled Congress so the govt. operated on continuing resolutions until Obama signed it in March 2009. As has been pointed out here, Obama spent TARP money, Obama presented and spent the ARRA money, Obama took over GM/Chrysler, Obama spent money on the Afghanistan surge, and of course Obama never applied the repayment of TARP to the budget deficit but recycled it instead.

Liberals always talk about the cost of the wars being off budget but they ignore that the cost of the wars are included in the debt charged to Bush. Liberals always ignore that the debt under Obama exceeds the entire Bush debt and he generated that debt in 4 years.

Don't know what it is about liberalism that generates this kind of loyalty but that loyalty is destroying the country.
 
The lack of knowledge about how our govt. works, the fiscal year of the United States, basic civics, understanding of the deficit and debt by liberals is staggering as it seems they prefer buying rhetoric from the left vs. actual research. What is quite telling is how Bush is the scapegoat for everything even though he has been out of office for 4 years. It does seem that liberals are never responsible for anything and always blame someone else for their own failures.

The fiscal year of the United States runs from October to September, not the calendar year. The 2009 budget was not signed by GW Bush as it was rejected by the Democrat Controlled Congress so the govt. operated on continuing resolutions until Obama signed it in March 2009. As has been pointed out here, Obama spent TARP money, Obama presented and spent the ARRA money, Obama took over GM/Chrysler, Obama spent money on the Afghanistan surge, and of course Obama never applied the repayment of TARP to the budget deficit but recycled it instead.

Liberals always talk about the cost of the wars being off budget but they ignore that the cost of the wars are included in the debt charged to Bush. Liberals always ignore that the debt under Obama exceeds the entire Bush debt and he generated that debt in 4 years.

Don't know what it is about liberalism that generates this kind of loyalty but that loyalty is destroying the country.

The MSM allows Obama to have the cake and blame Bush for having created and eaten it. ;)
 
I always love it when liberals us "inflation adjusted" or "he wasn't immaculated until Jan 2009". Intellectual dishonesty at it's best.

The very fact the present occupier of the White House will be known for...."It's someone else's fault" reveals all you need to know about lack of character.
 
QUOTE OpportunityCost

Not on me to hunt up the source for someone's post, its the other way around. But then you know that.

Most would have seized upon that opportunity to rebut a position....If they had solid position.Quite telling.

I was even nice about it, so no need to hit your wiseacre button.

"That was easy enough to find"
And you consider this a "wiseacre button"?Again quite telling.:mrgreen: In an ole timely way.
 
Back
Top Bottom