Minimum Wage
-
But they're all paths to the same goal...a complete elimination of economic disparity between individuals.
Well, I neither believe nor like the idea of a society of "the averages" as it seems from time to time the "pure socialists" want (I'm quoting pure socialists here because relative to my domestic political scene I don't consider myself socialist, but relative to the US scene I probably would be considered as such, or at least a right-leaning democrat). On the other hand I do believe it'll be too expensive for a society in the long rung to simply let the capitalistic market run it all. A balance is needed I feel.
-
Cmon, you're smarter than that
He's not. Anything that has a close resemblance to improving the poor people lifestyle is socialism to him.
-------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Not bitter when my ideology wins or loses because I'm pro-Democracy and believe the country rightly gets what it votes for.
You're a better man than me, I'd throw democracy out in a heart beat to be shed of these leftist bastards - just as they do to be shed of us. Its time to start playing the game the way they like to play it, by their rules and damn the consequencies.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You're a better man than me, I'd throw democracy out in a heart beat to be shed of these leftist bastards
Not me. I firmly believe that people are capable of governing themselves, but part of that governance requires a deeper understanding of the consequences of ideologies and therefore honest debate. Conservatism has already largely prevailed. My primary concern has always been the fact that we lived in the midst of a constitutional crisis that was largely ignored by the public and actively endorsed by the left. Namely, judicial activism derived from the notion that the constitution is flexible and that law is arbitrary. The single most important task of the president was to purge the supreme court of that sort of thinking and he successfully did that. Yes, I disagree with leftist laws (especially since they're often unconstitutional), but I don't go berzerk when they win now and then. I do, however, go berzerk when they exploit the legal system in order to legislate laws that didn't originate from a legislature. That it downright tyrannous. I believe the only thing left for conservatives (besides finalizing a judicial cleanup) is to break up the education system's left-ideological monopoly which pumps out brainwashed leftists by the boatload.
-
And did the US go in and overthrow that Democracy? No, it didn't. Just because the collective opinion of a group of people is at odds with our own does not mean we implicitely oppose Democracy. It means that we oppose terrorist groups whether elected or not. Ironically, you're the one who has been critical of our elected officials (even though you don't live here) while endorsing such things as war crime tribunals for them. That's hardly pro-Democratic, now is it?
My point was only to show that your characterization of the "leftist" is ridiculous and futile. It doesn't mean I like or have anything positive thing to say about the Palestinian government. Of course I'm critical of some of your elected officials - so are you. And I think I'm entitled to have an opinion given that US is a super power and it's politics have huge consequences for a big part of the world, and given that my own country has soldiers in Afghanistan an Iraq (our prime minister is very glad for Bush to say the least). I think the endorsing war crime tribunals part is pretty exaggerating what I said. It's right I said something to that extent on the Saddam issue, but of course I'll let the US democracy decide upon that. But honestly I'm very suspicious of Bush and his croonies, and I would like a thorough investigation of it all.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Me: Not bitter when my ideology wins or loses because I'm pro-Democracy and believe the country rightly gets what it votes for.
Good for you. As Stan says "you are a better man than him" so at least you have that going for you. :-D
"Christianity is not about tolerance"
Stan Shannon in the Soap BoxThats because you're a f****ing leftist idiot.
Stan Shannon in the Soapboxled mike
Apparently I'm a better man than you, since you discounted our democratic government when Democrats had no power and now seem oddly content with it.
-
He's not. Anything that has a close resemblance to improving the poor people lifestyle is socialism to him.
-------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
When that "anything" involves government redistribution of wealth...yes.
-
My point was only to show that your characterization of the "leftist" is ridiculous and futile. It doesn't mean I like or have anything positive thing to say about the Palestinian government. Of course I'm critical of some of your elected officials - so are you. And I think I'm entitled to have an opinion given that US is a super power and it's politics have huge consequences for a big part of the world, and given that my own country has soldiers in Afghanistan an Iraq (our prime minister is very glad for Bush to say the least). I think the endorsing war crime tribunals part is pretty exaggerating what I said. It's right I said something to that extent on the Saddam issue, but of course I'll let the US democracy decide upon that. But honestly I'm very suspicious of Bush and his croonies, and I would like a thorough investigation of it all.
Rohde wrote:
My point was only to show that your characterization of the "leftist" is ridiculous and futile. It doesn't mean I like or have anything positive thing to say about the Palestinian government.
Actually, you're only reinforcing my argument. You're equating condemnation of a terrorist state to condemnation of Democracy.
Rohde wrote:
Of course I'm critical of some of your elected officials - so are you. And I think I'm entitled to have an opinion given that US is a super power and it's politics have huge consequences for a big part of the world, and given that my own country has soldiers in Afghanistan an Iraq (our prime minister is very glad for Bush to say the least).
Criticism is appropriate, but your and others goes beyond criticism. One has to distinguish between dissent and disloyalty and leftists (American ones...since you have no loyalty to us) frequently cross the line and prefer despotism over Democracy, so long as that despotism complies with their own beliefs.
Rohde wrote:
I think the endorsing war crime tribunals part is pretty exaggerating what I said. It's right I said something to that extent on the Saddam issue, but of course I'll let the US democracy decide upon that. But honestly I'm very suspicious of Bush and his croonies, and I would like a thorough investigation of it all.
You're not even American. You're not Iraqi. Your concern is localized to your own personal entertainment.
-
Apparently I'm a better man than you, since you discounted our democratic government when Democrats had no power and now seem oddly content with it.
Red Stateler wrote:
since you discounted our democratic government when Democrats had no power
Way to back up that claim. :rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
now seem oddly content with it.
When did I say that? You just keep making stuff up, that's what your good at. :laugh::laugh:
"When your argument falls apart...resort to name-calling."
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the SoapboxWhereas "liberal" is just a moron.
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the Soapboxtypical left-wing pseudo-intellectual crackpot
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the SoapboxYour logic is really really bad.
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the SoapboxI'm kind of incoherent today.
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the Soapboxled mike
-
Red Stateler wrote:
since you discounted our democratic government when Democrats had no power
Way to back up that claim. :rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
now seem oddly content with it.
When did I say that? You just keep making stuff up, that's what your good at. :laugh::laugh:
"When your argument falls apart...resort to name-calling."
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the SoapboxWhereas "liberal" is just a moron.
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the Soapboxtypical left-wing pseudo-intellectual crackpot
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the SoapboxYour logic is really really bad.
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the SoapboxI'm kind of incoherent today.
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the Soapboxled mike
led mike wrote:
When did I say that? You just keep making stuff up, that's what your good at.
Come on, now. Don't be a Vincent. Be honest.
-
Rohde wrote:
My point was only to show that your characterization of the "leftist" is ridiculous and futile. It doesn't mean I like or have anything positive thing to say about the Palestinian government.
Actually, you're only reinforcing my argument. You're equating condemnation of a terrorist state to condemnation of Democracy.
Rohde wrote:
Of course I'm critical of some of your elected officials - so are you. And I think I'm entitled to have an opinion given that US is a super power and it's politics have huge consequences for a big part of the world, and given that my own country has soldiers in Afghanistan an Iraq (our prime minister is very glad for Bush to say the least).
Criticism is appropriate, but your and others goes beyond criticism. One has to distinguish between dissent and disloyalty and leftists (American ones...since you have no loyalty to us) frequently cross the line and prefer despotism over Democracy, so long as that despotism complies with their own beliefs.
Rohde wrote:
I think the endorsing war crime tribunals part is pretty exaggerating what I said. It's right I said something to that extent on the Saddam issue, but of course I'll let the US democracy decide upon that. But honestly I'm very suspicious of Bush and his croonies, and I would like a thorough investigation of it all.
You're not even American. You're not Iraqi. Your concern is localized to your own personal entertainment.
Red Stateler wrote:
frequently cross the line and prefer despotism over Democracy, so long as that despotism complies with their own beliefs.
No I do not. Then you are misunderstanding me or I'm not explaining my POW good enough.
Red Stateler wrote:
You're not even American. You're not Iraqi. Your concern is localized to your own personal entertainment.
No. I'm just interested in a, dare I say it, better world - whatever loftie goal that is. And we rich people in the west have the means for helping a lot of poor people in the world. I think we should do that.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Not bitter when my ideology wins or loses because I'm pro-Democracy and believe the country rightly gets what it votes for.
You're a better man than me, I'd throw democracy out in a heart beat to be shed of these leftist bastards - just as they do to be shed of us. Its time to start playing the game the way they like to play it, by their rules and damn the consequencies.
Thank God for disproportional force.
So, your willing to throw out democracy to 'win'. If your willing to become the 'evil whore' to beat the 'evil whore', what exactly have you won?
-
So, your willing to throw out democracy to 'win'. If your willing to become the 'evil whore' to beat the 'evil whore', what exactly have you won?
Democrats have unapologetically done that for decades via the judicial system and you seem to have no problem with that.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
frequently cross the line and prefer despotism over Democracy, so long as that despotism complies with their own beliefs.
No I do not. Then you are misunderstanding me or I'm not explaining my POW good enough.
Red Stateler wrote:
You're not even American. You're not Iraqi. Your concern is localized to your own personal entertainment.
No. I'm just interested in a, dare I say it, better world - whatever loftie goal that is. And we rich people in the west have the means for helping a lot of poor people in the world. I think we should do that.
Rohde wrote:
And we rich people in the west have the means for helping a lot of poor people in the world. I think we should do that.
Yes...Those poor, poor oil-rich countries. What would they do if we didn't adopt socialism?
-
This will definitely show my ignorance but why is raising minimum wage is good or bad? Why do we have it at all? Ohio just passed a law that is raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.85, an overall raise of 70 cents. Will the costs of buying goods and services in my state really go up substantially to pay for this increase? I am concerned about what this might mean for people who have worked for several years to get above minimum wage or have jobs that pay more than minimum and now all base level employees and new hires have effectively gotten raise that they do not deserve. Wouldn't a raise in minimum also affect others way above the minimum wage? I certainly won't be getting a raise because of this. If costs of buying goods and services goes up enough, the minimum wage will account for nothing and it would also hurt me in that it now costs me more to maintain my lifestyle. {Modified) I would like to add that I did not vote anything on this proposal simply because I didn't quite understand what it would mean.
Brett A. Whittington Application Developer
Being from Canada, which has a minimum wage, please allow me the opportunity to get a real-life example of how raising the minimum wage can be helpful. My brother was born with a pinched optic nerve, the results of which is, he cannot drive and must rely on public transportation to get to and from work. Since he did not want to 'live off of the system' and had a desire to work, he was able to find employment through a friend at a hardware store... his vision was good enough to see items, help customers, run the till, etc., and, because it did not require a lot of reading, he could keep pace with the other employees. Since this was a small business, privately owned, he was at the whim of the owner in terms of compensation. The owner's stated policies on getting a wage increase was: when you get married or have a child. Since he did not marry, he was at the same wage (barely above minimum) for 9 years... would any of us like to not get a wage increase for 9 years? Yes, capitalistic society claims "you can always get another job", but, what if you can't and the reasons are beyond your control? Raising the minimum wage was the only way for him to get a wage increase. Or, should he have resigned himself to collecting social assistance? Just my thoughts... Tim
-
Rohde wrote:
And we rich people in the west have the means for helping a lot of poor people in the world. I think we should do that.
Yes...Those poor, poor oil-rich countries. What would they do if we didn't adopt socialism?
-
Democrats have unapologetically done that for decades via the judicial system and you seem to have no problem with that.
No problem with what? I'm waiting for you to actually say something.
-
Who said anything about the oil-countries. These despicable regimes are held alive because of our extreme need for power. I say let's adopt sustainable means for energy so these regimes can't live off of our wallet.
We were specifically talking about Iraq.
-
No problem with what? I'm waiting for you to actually say something.
*jingle jingle*
-
led mike wrote:
When did I say that? You just keep making stuff up, that's what your good at.
Come on, now. Don't be a Vincent. Be honest.
Red Stateler wrote:
Come on, now. Don't be a Vincent. Be honest.
Your trolling has become clumsy and repetitive.
-
Being from Canada, which has a minimum wage, please allow me the opportunity to get a real-life example of how raising the minimum wage can be helpful. My brother was born with a pinched optic nerve, the results of which is, he cannot drive and must rely on public transportation to get to and from work. Since he did not want to 'live off of the system' and had a desire to work, he was able to find employment through a friend at a hardware store... his vision was good enough to see items, help customers, run the till, etc., and, because it did not require a lot of reading, he could keep pace with the other employees. Since this was a small business, privately owned, he was at the whim of the owner in terms of compensation. The owner's stated policies on getting a wage increase was: when you get married or have a child. Since he did not marry, he was at the same wage (barely above minimum) for 9 years... would any of us like to not get a wage increase for 9 years? Yes, capitalistic society claims "you can always get another job", but, what if you can't and the reasons are beyond your control? Raising the minimum wage was the only way for him to get a wage increase. Or, should he have resigned himself to collecting social assistance? Just my thoughts... Tim
That's exactly what I'm talking about. If you don't subscribe to the humanistic POW of actually helping someone in an unfortunate position, then you must at least understand the economical reasoning. (with 'you' I mean people opposed to the idea of some kind of 'redistribution' e.g. via minimum wages)