• 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!

Stupidity of the American Voter?

Boo Radley said:
J, the only one showing emotion is you. I might link something as inaccurate as the American Thinker or The Weekly Standard, but they are appealing to emotion and not logic. Your stereotypical response is not reason based. Not at all.
Click to expand...

More hilarity...:lamo Boy AT, and WS must really get under your hide....hahah...The only emotion I am showing is laughing at you and your foolishness.
 
Boo Radley said:
Sure we can. And we have before as well. And paying more would actually help the economy, giving people more money to spend, far more than cutting taxes would achieve. And I know what Walmart pays BTW.
Click to expand...

And the offset in higher prices is what? Giving people more money to spend is the liberal phrase, conservatives say people have the right to earn more money. When wages go up so do costs. The problem seems to be that you don't hold the Federal Govt. to the same standards that you hold businesses. What you will never understand is that there never will be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite because liberals always claim to be spending in the name of compassion yet never getting compassionate results unless dependence is a compassionate result. Why is it that the govt. never cuts spending and always needs the money more than the private sector?
 
Conservative said:
Sorry to jump in here, Boo, but the only one showing emotion really is you because you judge everyone else by your own standards having no concept of someone else's living expenses or what is a fair wage for others. You are the one buying the liberal spin and ignoring the actual reality. What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who can never admit when they are wrong? Tell me what qualifies you to determine what is a fair wage for someone else?
Click to expand...

I haven't done that. I suggested we use the standard of what people were paid in the past adjusted for inflation. That's an objective standard. And one being tossed around by some on both sides. Not an emotional one. ;)
 
j-mac said:
More hilarity...:lamo Boy AT, and WS must really get under your hide....hahah...The only emotion I am showing is laughing at you and your foolishness.
Click to expand...

If you say so, but note you still haven't answered any point objectively.
 
Boo Radley said:
I haven't done that. I suggested we use the standard of what people were paid in the past adjusted for inflation. That's an objective standard. And one being tossed around by some on both sides. Not an emotional one. ;)
Click to expand...

Since you don't know what the expenses are of others why use past standards as most of those people in the past have moved on into upper income brackets. we have a new class of minimum wage workers every year something you don't seem to understand. Objective is something you don't understand because you never will understand the finances of someone else.
 
Conservative said:
And the offset in higher prices is what? Giving people more money to spend is the liberal phrase, conservatives say people have the right to earn more money. When wages go up so do costs. The problem seems to be that you don't hold the Federal Govt. to the same standards that you hold businesses. What you will never understand is that there never will be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite because liberals always claim to be spending in the name of compassion yet never getting compassionate results unless dependence is a compassionate result. Why is it that the govt. never cuts spending and always needs the money more than the private sector?
Click to expand...

No, when you work for someone you earn the pay. You work and the employer gives you pay. You've earned it, but it is given from the employer. No one called it a gift or unearned. And we are the government. By electing representatives, they can vote in our name.
 
Boo Radley said:
Jobs have been increasing here under liberals, and there is no reason to believe government will do anything that will help or hurt jobs. In fact, as I've told you before, the only way government can do that is to hire people, thus growing government.
Click to expand...

Your post here needs a two part response...

1. There is plenty of reason to believe that the things government does effects jobs...Regulation for one.

2. Governments don't have to directly hire to effect the job market...Monetary policy, Regulation, Taxation, etc. All of these things directly effect jobs, and the economy.

But you know that....
 
Boo Radley said:
No, when you work for someone you earn the pay. You work and the employer gives you pay. You've earned it, but it is given from the employer. No one called it a gift or unearned. And we are the government. By electing representatives, they can vote in our name.
Click to expand...

You didn't say that, you said give not earn. People making minimum wage have to earn higher income but liberals want to give it to them for what, an arbitrary "fair" wage?
 
Conservative said:
Since you don't know what the expenses are of others why use past standards as most of those people in the past have moved on into upper income brackets. we have a new class of minimum wage workers every year something you don't seem to understand. Objective is something you don't understand because you never will understand the finances of someone else.
Click to expand...

A new class? I'm not sure what you mean. Develop that fully if you will before I response. Try to leave me out of it and just make your case.
 
Boo Radley said:
A new class? I'm not sure what you mean. Develop that fully if you will before I response. Try to leave me out of it and just make your case.
Click to expand...

translation, I refuse to admit i am wrong and thus need more time to come up with another foolish claim. People move up in wages by making more money staying a very short time making minimum wage. Those people making minimum wages in the past aren't making minimum wage today if they are worth anything at all. The fact remains, you want the employer to give people more money rather than having those people earn more money. Nice diversion, tell me how it is that you know what the living expenses are for all those people making minimum wage?
 
j-mac said:
Your post here needs a two part response...
Click to expand...

Good

1. There is plenty of reason to believe that the things government does effects jobs...Regulation for one.
Click to expand...

I've addressed this before with other studies, and challenged you to note specific regulations, to which you have never responded. So for this one, I'll site a source that links or mentions a couple of studies: Heritage isn't the only one making this argument. A Phoenix Foundation study claimed that, "a 5 percent reduction in the federal regulatory budget would yield 5.9 million new jobs over five years." But the Public Citizen report points out that this leads to a ludicrous conclusion: "a 16 percent decrease (a figure the authors chose to parallel the amount by which they say federal spending had exceeded revenue since 2000) would result in the creation of 18.8 million new jobs over five years. In contrast, there are only about 11.3 million unemployed Americans."

Regulations Don't Kill Jobs, They Save Lives | Sean McElwee

2. Governments don't have to directly hire to effect the job market...Monetary policy, Regulation, Taxation, etc. All of these things directly effect jobs, and the economy.

But you know that....
Click to expand...

These have minimal effects at best. Largely promoting business and not hurting. Taxation is something I have given you studies on that show little to no effect and have linked you to Forbes arguing that conservatives were wrong on this. I can link them again if you want. But, the key is here, these are not emotional arguments, but factual ones, with support.

But for your reading pleasure:

If you increase the tax rates on these job creators, then the tax that they pay on everything EXCEPT jobs will go up. They still won't have to pay taxes on the money that they spend for employee compensation. A tax increase will give them an incentive to invest in the business, because it is the cost of NOT investing that goes up, not the cost of investing. It won't give them an incentive NOT to invest in job creation. This will not be an incentive for killing jobs - this will be an incentive for creating
jobs - take money out of the column that is taxable, put it in the column that is not taxable. Simple mathematics. Not political rhetoric, but mathematics.

If you decrease the tax rates on these job creators, then there will be no added incentive to create jobs. The taxes paid on employee benefits for these job creators is zero either way. What this does is decrease the taxes that they have to pay on the money that they aren't using to create jobs anyway. The cost of paying for jobs does not go up, but the cost of NOT creating jobs goes down. It is an incentive for them to keep more profits that are taxable. It is in no way an incentive for them to spend the money on job creation. Again, mathematics, not rhetoric.

If you don't understand the previous four paragraphs, please re-read them, because this is important to our economy today.

Taxing the Job Creators:What Is the Truth? - Economics Online Tutor
 
Conservative said:
translation, I refuse to admit i am wrong and thus need more time to come up with another foolish claim. People move up in wages by making more money staying a very short time making minimum wage. Those people making minimum wages in the past aren't making minimum wage today if they are worth anything at all. The fact remains, you want the employer to give people more money rather than having those people earn more money. Nice diversion, tell me how it is that you know what the living expenses are for all those people making minimum wage?
Click to expand...

Well, when you start admitting your errors, I'll reconsider. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, when you start admitting your errors, I'll reconsider. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Got it, when I make an error and it is proven to be an error I will do exactly that. When are you going to prove that you know what the living expenses are of those people you want to "give" a wage increase to
 
Conservative said:
translation, I refuse to admit i am wrong and thus need more time to come up with another foolish claim. People move up in wages by making more money staying a very short time making minimum wage. Those people making minimum wages in the past aren't making minimum wage today if they are worth anything at all. The fact remains, you want the employer to give people more money rather than having those people earn more money. Nice diversion, tell me how it is that you know what the living expenses are for all those people making minimum wage?
Click to expand...

If there is anyone who should know about making minimum wage....its a Texan (Capital of the minimum wage worker....oh sorry....tied with Mississippi for that honor).
 
disneydude said:
If there is anyone who should know about making minimum wage....its a Texan (Capital of the minimum wage worker....oh sorry....tied with Mississippi for that honor).
Click to expand...

Hey, Disney, how about those election results in November?? Guess the American electorate isn't as stupid as Gruber believed but then again wonder how many in California he studied?

Keep spreading that false information ignoring that California has more than triple the number of people making minimum wage as TX and the cost of living is much higher. When will you admit that distort the data and ignore the California minimum wage? Could it be that Gruber was right?
 
Boo Radley said:
Good



I've addressed this before with other studies, and challenged you to note specific regulations, to which you have never responded. So for this one, I'll site a source that links or mentions a couple of studies: Heritage isn't the only one making this argument. A Phoenix Foundation study claimed that, "a 5 percent reduction in the federal regulatory budget would yield 5.9 million new jobs over five years." But the Public Citizen report points out that this leads to a ludicrous conclusion: "a 16 percent decrease (a figure the authors chose to parallel the amount by which they say federal spending had exceeded revenue since 2000) would result in the creation of 18.8 million new jobs over five years. In contrast, there are only about 11.3 million unemployed Americans."

Regulations Don't Kill Jobs, They Save Lives*|*Sean McElwee
Click to expand...

For the record I am not against all regulation, but do you really believe that we need thousands new ones per year?

"For generations, economic liberty and dynamism defined America and set us apart from the rest of the world. Now, if a new study from the Brookings Institution is right, it’s fading rapidly into a memory."

- See more at: Overregulation Is Killing America

Please read this, it says it far better than I can...

These have minimal effects at best. Largely promoting business and not hurting. Taxation is something I have given you studies on that show little to no effect and have linked you to Forbes arguing that conservatives were wrong on this. I can link them again if you want. But, the key is here, these are not emotional arguments, but factual ones, with support.

But for your reading pleasure:

If you increase the tax rates on these job creators, then the tax that they pay on everything EXCEPT jobs will go up. They still won't have to pay taxes on the money that they spend for employee compensation. A tax increase will give them an incentive to invest in the business, because it is the cost of NOT investing that goes up, not the cost of investing. It won't give them an incentive NOT to invest in job creation. This will not be an incentive for killing jobs - this will be an incentive for creating
jobs - take money out of the column that is taxable, put it in the column that is not taxable. Simple mathematics. Not political rhetoric, but mathematics.

If you decrease the tax rates on these job creators, then there will be no added incentive to create jobs. The taxes paid on employee benefits for these job creators is zero either way. What this does is decrease the taxes that they have to pay on the money that they aren't using to create jobs anyway. The cost of paying for jobs does not go up, but the cost of NOT creating jobs goes down. It is an incentive for them to keep more profits that are taxable. It is in no way an incentive for them to spend the money on job creation. Again, mathematics, not rhetoric.

If you don't understand the previous four paragraphs, please re-read them, because this is important to our economy today.

Taxing the Job Creators:What Is the Truth? - Economics Online Tutor
Click to expand...

So you want to use taxation as a blunt tool to force business to hire....this just shows how little you know about business.
 
Grant said:
If employers are winning why are so many corporations leaving the country? Why are businesses suffering? In fact any business person can tell you the answer but the theorists don't want to listen.

The current president has never been in any business in his life yet seems to know what business is all about and can even give millions of taxpayer dollars to start-up companies of which he also knows nothing. Or feels he can decide who banks lend their money to. It's people who have no knowledge of business who want more rules, regulations and, in doing so, drive out all business from their areas.
No, you have none.
Click to expand...



After having been in business for two decades, I can say that in a room full of MBA's and lawyers, experience is king. When you have to, by law and morality, make payroll with YOUR money, things change. When you have to tell the kids, 'no, we can't afford that..." because YOU made zero that week in order to pay your staff you lose a lot of sleep. When you have to sit across from a friend and fellow worker and tell him there is no more work for him because some brainless vote buying asshole has ****ed up the economy again, you become more sympathetic to the plight of joblessness, as when you have to lay people off, and "guarantee" your job would be there is in serious doubt.

Mr. Obama has never had a private sector job, his life has been all through the taxpayer one way or another....that separates him from me more than does the pacific separate me from Japan. He is inexperienced, incompetent, and arrogant enough to be dangerously stubborn.

The government claims there is no big issue, that not that many jobs are leaving the country, and people there believe it, while here, Ottawa boasts of all the American companies moving to Canada especially since Obamacare; one of the appealing aspects of locating here is universal health care, where the taxes and wages are about the same, they have no mandate they have to meet, therefor they can use that money elsewhere.

These are called "unforeseen circumstances" by some, but "downstream run off" to the economists, MBA's and businessmen who have had to lay people off.
 
Conservative said:
Hey, Disney, how about those election results in November?? Guess the American electorate isn't as stupid as Gruber believed but then again wonder how many in California he studied?

Keep spreading that false information ignoring that California has more than triple the number of people making minimum wage as TX and the cost of living is much higher. When will you admit that distort the data and ignore the California minimum wage? Could it be that Gruber was right?
Click to expand...

LOL...Con...its always fun to watch you shuffle and dance around the facts. I know if makes you uncomfortable knowing that Texas (and Mississippi) have the worst record in the country on people working for minimum wage....straight out of those BLS numbers you love so much (well...maybe not love so much when the numbers don't match your rhetoric).
 
disneydude said:
LOL...Con...its always fun to watch you shuffle and dance around the facts. I know if makes you uncomfortable knowing that Texas (and Mississippi) have the worst record in the country on people working for minimum wage....straight out of those BLS numbers you love so much (well...maybe not love so much when the numbers don't match your rhetoric).
Click to expand...

BLS gives those working at or below the FEDERAL minimum wage. Several states, including California, have minimum wages higher than the Federal min wage. Therefore very few Calfiornia workers will make the Federal min wage and will not be represented in the BLS data.
 
j-mac said:
For the record I am not against all regulation, but do you really believe that we need thousands new ones per year?

"For generations, economic liberty and dynamism defined America and set us apart from the rest of the world. Now, if a new study from the Brookings Institution is right, it’s fading rapidly into a memory."

- See more at: Overregulation Is Killing America

Please read this, it says it far better than I can...
Click to expand...

I don't know and I think you or Edward Morrissey does either. The point is, without looking at specific regulation, we can't make a blanket statement. And I think that's the trick being used here. It's easier to say too much, and shoot a number than to break down each legislative effort to see if it is justified or not. So, if I don't want to do that work, or I want to merely get a mob behind me, I don't get specific. Generalizations are far easier. I think that is what Morrissey is doing in the editorial you offered. Oddly effort, the article I gave you suggests regulations are just what he says he wants done: "Put simply, business failures enable resources to be unlocked for the use of more efficient and successful businesses."

You see having to do things differently inspires innovation and not the opposite.



So you want to use taxation as a blunt tool to force business to hire....this just shows how little you know about business.
Click to expand...

No where did I say that. I'm saying it doesn't hurt economy or cost jobs. It's a clear and direct statement.
Click to expand...
 
pinqy said:
BLS gives those working at or below the FEDERAL minimum wage. Several states, including California, have minimum wages higher than the Federal min wage. Therefore very few Calfiornia workers will make the Federal min wage and will not be represented in the BLS data.
Click to expand...

Then by definition....they are making more than the Federal Minimum wage. Bottom line...Texas and Mississippi have the worst record in the nation for people working for minimum wages.
 
disneydude said:
Then by definition....they are making more than the Federal Minimum wage. Bottom line...Texas and Mississippi have the worst record in the nation for people working for minimum wages.
Click to expand...

And yet, despite the higher wages in California, it does have the highest supplemental poverty rate in the Nation. Even more than D.C.. An accomplishment Proglibs can most certainly be proud of.
 
Boo Radley said:
j-mac said:
I don't know and I think you or Edward Morrissey does either. The point is, without looking at specific regulation, we can't make a blanket statement. And I think that's the trick being used here. It's easier to say too much, and shoot a number than to break down each legislative effort to see if it is justified or not. So, if I don't want to do that work, or I want to merely get a mob behind me, I don't get specific. Generalizations are far easier. I think that is what Morrissey is doing in the editorial you offered. Oddly effort, the article I gave you suggests regulations are just what he says he wants done: "Put simply, business failures enable resources to be unlocked for the use of more efficient and successful businesses."
Click to expand...

REGULATION NATION: Obama oversees expansion of the regulatory state | TheHill

All the experts say that regulation is smothering business activity...That you think somehow it doesn't matter is laughable.

You see having to do things differently inspires innovation and not the opposite.
Click to expand...

Once again by the force of government...Not through efficiency, or making things better....You're confusing innovation with being forced to do something....But I understand, you see government as the answer.

No where did I say that.
Click to expand...

Really?

So when you said - "A tax increase will give them an incentive to invest in the business, because it is the cost of NOT investing that goes up, not the cost of investing. " How can that not be taken as anything other than government forcing business to hire if they don't want to get taxed....?
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
No, when you work for someone you earn the pay. You work and the employer gives you pay. You've earned it, but it is given from the employer. No one called it a gift or unearned. And we are the government. By electing representatives, they can vote in our name.
Click to expand...

We are not the government. What an idiotic thing to say. Unless you are one of the two million busybody bureaucrats hired to spy on us, harass us with IRS questions/audits or the EPA to de-industrialize the nation you are not the government.

Government is evil. Most people are not. I can make an exception in your case if you want to continue to believe you are the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom