Minimum Wage
-
Red Stateler wrote:
So why didn't you help him out and drive him to another job each day?
Hmmm... let's see... I didn't have a car at the time, so I couldn't drive him. And when I did have a car, I was working in another city 300 miles away. Oh, and before you ask, I was not making enough of a wage myself to support him while he looked for another job.
And in this city 300 miles away, there were no jobs that he could have possibly taken?
-
And in this city 300 miles away, there were no jobs that he could have possibly taken?
Did you read the ENTIRE message? Let me quote myself...
Tim Carmichael wrote:
Oh, and before you ask, I was not making enough of a wage myself to support him while he looked for another job.
-
What do the following have to do with "corruption" or "founding principles"? -We had like 6 more states that eroded freedom by outlawing gay marriage. -We had how many people vote Democrat because of the war in Iraq that was started by the President those same people voted into office. -Marijuana is still illegal while one states most controversial question was whether or not alcohol could be sold in grocery stores. That's a list of reasonable conclusions made by the public that you personally object to and therefore believe they should be overriden by your own whimsy.
Red Stateler wrote:
What do the following have to do with "corruption" or "founding principles"?
the one with "freedom" speaks to founding principles the others do not. They merely indicate peoples inability to govern themselves which of course we must do to be free. So it is a Catch-22. Of course you left out the one about corruption.
Red Stateler wrote:
by your own whimsy.
I don't do whimsy :rolleyes:
led mike
-
Red Stateler wrote:
What do the following have to do with "corruption" or "founding principles"?
the one with "freedom" speaks to founding principles the others do not. They merely indicate peoples inability to govern themselves which of course we must do to be free. So it is a Catch-22. Of course you left out the one about corruption.
Red Stateler wrote:
by your own whimsy.
I don't do whimsy :rolleyes:
led mike
led mike wrote:
the one with "freedom" speaks to founding principles the others do not.
That's pretty stupid considering gay marriage wasn't legal at the time of our founding. It also happens to be an example of the endorsement of judicial activism, since in the couple of cases where gay marriage was legalized, it was done so by liberal judiciaries and not through the legislative process. You can't get more against founding principles than that, especially considering Jefferson didn't trust the judiciary for this very reason.
led mike wrote:
They merely indicate peoples inability to govern themselves which of course we must do to be free. So it is a Catch-22. Of course you left out the one about corruption.
This goes back to my assertion that leftist ideology, which springs forth from atheism, fancies itself implicitely superior to opposing ideologies and believes that it deserves a special unquestionable and ultimately depostic place in our society. Americans, through conservative self-governance, turned this country from a handful of colonies to a hyper-power in the course of only 200 years. Naturally, since the success doesn't mirror your leftist ideals, you consider that a failure. Perhaps you would be more comfortable in Cuba?
-
Did you read the ENTIRE message? Let me quote myself...
Tim Carmichael wrote:
Oh, and before you ask, I was not making enough of a wage myself to support him while he looked for another job.
I didn't say or suggest to support him, did I? I asked if there was a job in the city you lived in as in one he could take so that he could support himself and you could help him get started by driving him to work. Basically what I'm getting at is that you want the government (i.e. others) to support him while you were unwilling.
-
You're absolutely right, Stan, I decided that 30,000,000 other people should be screwed economically just so my brother could benefit from making an extra $0.50 an hour... And, you always buy only products made entirely in the USA at certified non-sweat shops that employ only fully qualified people (meanly non-illegal immigrants). And that includes computer products, utensils, gasoline, automobiles, etc... Or are you screwing the rest of the world by using these products? Come clean, now...
Tim Carmichael wrote:
You're absolutely right
Yeah, I know.
Tim Carmichael wrote:
And, you always buy only products made entirely in the USA at certified non-sweat shops that employ only fully qualified people (meanly non-illegal immigrants). And that includes computer products, utensils, gasoline, automobiles, etc... Or are you screwing the rest of the world by using these products?
I buy products according to my own economic self interest. If a high quality American product is available for a reasonable price, I buy it. Otherwise, I buy an imported product. By doing that I am not screwing anyone - I'm giving them a job, a real job, not a job invented merely to justify another branch of government.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
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
bwhittington wrote:
Will the costs of buying goods and services in my state really go up substantially to pay for this increase?
Or will the person working 35 hours per week benefit from the extra $12-13?
bwhittington wrote:
If costs of buying goods and services goes up enough, the minimum wage will account for nothing...
Yep, I've argued this all along. When an employee gets a pay raise to be able to afford costlier goods, the employer must raise the cost of his goods to cover the higher expense. The employee/consumer must now ask for another raise to cover the cost of the goods. This is a never-ending, vicious cycle. We will eventually see this bubble burst as there's no way it can sustain itself forever.
"Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" - 2 Timothy 2:15
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
-
led mike wrote:
the one with "freedom" speaks to founding principles the others do not.
That's pretty stupid considering gay marriage wasn't legal at the time of our founding. It also happens to be an example of the endorsement of judicial activism, since in the couple of cases where gay marriage was legalized, it was done so by liberal judiciaries and not through the legislative process. You can't get more against founding principles than that, especially considering Jefferson didn't trust the judiciary for this very reason.
led mike wrote:
They merely indicate peoples inability to govern themselves which of course we must do to be free. So it is a Catch-22. Of course you left out the one about corruption.
This goes back to my assertion that leftist ideology, which springs forth from atheism, fancies itself implicitely superior to opposing ideologies and believes that it deserves a special unquestionable and ultimately depostic place in our society. Americans, through conservative self-governance, turned this country from a handful of colonies to a hyper-power in the course of only 200 years. Naturally, since the success doesn't mirror your leftist ideals, you consider that a failure. Perhaps you would be more comfortable in Cuba?
Red Stateler wrote:
ideology
It's not an ideology that people that elected Bush are now disatisfied with what he has done. But don't let me stop you from typing up more good looking academic sounding tripe that has nothing to do with anything.
Red Stateler wrote:
That's pretty stupid considering gay marriage wasn't legal at the time of our founding.
It wasn't? You have evidence of that?
Red Stateler wrote:
You can't get more against founding principles than that
Time for a history lesson
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among MenFirst Equality, then "Liberty" (Freedom), then "to secure these rights" we form a Government. The Two highest priorites for Government is to secure equality and freedom. Period.
Red Stateler wrote:
especially considering Jefferson didn't trust the judiciary for this very reason.
Really? Well he signed his name to this...
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
Red Stateler wrote:
fancies itself implicitely superior to opposing ideologies and believes that it deserves a special unquestionable and ultimately depostic place in our society.
That is 100% completely accurate discription.... for the right-wing religious fanatics. :laugh::laugh: You were right, you are funny.
led mike
-
led mike wrote:
the one with "freedom" speaks to founding principles the others do not.
That's pretty stupid considering gay marriage wasn't legal at the time of our founding. It also happens to be an example of the endorsement of judicial activism, since in the couple of cases where gay marriage was legalized, it was done so by liberal judiciaries and not through the legislative process. You can't get more against founding principles than that, especially considering Jefferson didn't trust the judiciary for this very reason.
led mike wrote:
They merely indicate peoples inability to govern themselves which of course we must do to be free. So it is a Catch-22. Of course you left out the one about corruption.
This goes back to my assertion that leftist ideology, which springs forth from atheism, fancies itself implicitely superior to opposing ideologies and believes that it deserves a special unquestionable and ultimately depostic place in our society. Americans, through conservative self-governance, turned this country from a handful of colonies to a hyper-power in the course of only 200 years. Naturally, since the success doesn't mirror your leftist ideals, you consider that a failure. Perhaps you would be more comfortable in Cuba?
Red Stateler wrote:
That's pretty stupid considering gay marriage wasn't legal at the time of our founding.
It sure as hell was. If something isn't prohibited by law, it is legal. Our government doesn't grant freedom; freedom is inherent, and we allow government to selectively remove it for the good of society. You need to realize that no matter how hard you pray for it every night as you don your Spongebob PJs and climb into bed, the Bible isn't law in this country.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
ideology
It's not an ideology that people that elected Bush are now disatisfied with what he has done. But don't let me stop you from typing up more good looking academic sounding tripe that has nothing to do with anything.
Red Stateler wrote:
That's pretty stupid considering gay marriage wasn't legal at the time of our founding.
It wasn't? You have evidence of that?
Red Stateler wrote:
You can't get more against founding principles than that
Time for a history lesson
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among MenFirst Equality, then "Liberty" (Freedom), then "to secure these rights" we form a Government. The Two highest priorites for Government is to secure equality and freedom. Period.
Red Stateler wrote:
especially considering Jefferson didn't trust the judiciary for this very reason.
Really? Well he signed his name to this...
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
Red Stateler wrote:
fancies itself implicitely superior to opposing ideologies and believes that it deserves a special unquestionable and ultimately depostic place in our society.
That is 100% completely accurate discription.... for the right-wing religious fanatics. :laugh::laugh: You were right, you are funny.
led mike
led mike wrote:
It wasn't? You have evidence of that?
Oh, brother. If you're that stupid, I don't have time to address such nonsense.
led mike wrote:
First Equality, then "Liberty" (Freedom), then "to secure these rights" we form a Government. The Two highest priorites for Government is to secure equality and freedom. Period.
You're applying the concept of "personal liberty" (which reared it's ugly head in the late 19th century) to "liberty" (which refers to John Locke's philosophy of a government that relies on the people for self-determination). If you actually read any writings beyond that first sentence, you'll realize that the founding fathers (who defined the "founding principles") actively endorsed laws that originated from the people. Jefferson himself respected laws that he otherwise disagreed with and generally encouraged adherence to the principles set forth in the constitution. You misinterpretation of those "founding principles" is just do to your willful ignorance.
led mike wrote:
That is 100% completely accurate discription.... for the right-wing religious fanatics. You were right, you are funny.
Really? You consider me a right-wing religious fanatic. And yet here I am content with a Democrat-led congress and there you are demanding that the public bend to your own personal whimsy.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
That's pretty stupid considering gay marriage wasn't legal at the time of our founding.
It sure as hell was. If something isn't prohibited by law, it is legal. Our government doesn't grant freedom; freedom is inherent, and we allow government to selectively remove it for the good of society. You need to realize that no matter how hard you pray for it every night as you don your Spongebob PJs and climb into bed, the Bible isn't law in this country.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It sure as hell was.
It sure as hell wasn't. I can assure you that every community in this nation had laws against sodomy which were perfectly constitutional until our constitution was reinterpreted by anti-Chrisitan communists democrats after 1950.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
And deliciously shiney!
:zzz:
-
oilFactotum wrote:
what exactly have you won?
There is nothing left to win. My own political ideals may be a lost cause, but at least I can help prevent the Marxist from achieving theirs.
Thank God for disproportional force.
So you want to destroy democracy before the marxists do. Great plan, stan.:rolleyes:
-
So you want to destroy democracy before the marxists do. Great plan, stan.:rolleyes:
oilFactotum wrote:
Great plan, stan
I thought so.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It sure as hell was.
It sure as hell wasn't. I can assure you that every community in this nation had laws against sodomy which were perfectly constitutional until our constitution was reinterpreted by anti-Chrisitan communists democrats after 1950.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It sure as hell wasn't. I can assure you that every community in this nation had laws against sodomy which were perfectly constitutional until our constitution was reinterpreted by anti-Chrisitan communists democrats after 1950.
You're right (for once). Red didn't limit his statement to fed. Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges. Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It sure as hell wasn't. I can assure you that every community in this nation had laws against sodomy which were perfectly constitutional until our constitution was reinterpreted by anti-Chrisitan communists democrats after 1950.
You're right (for once). Red didn't limit his statement to fed. Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges. Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges. Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
Or, we could have just respected our founding principles and allowed free people to work these issues out within their own communties rather than enforcing Maxist doctrin via the federal judiciary.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
bwhittington wrote:
Will the costs of buying goods and services in my state really go up substantially to pay for this increase?
Or will the person working 35 hours per week benefit from the extra $12-13?
bwhittington wrote:
If costs of buying goods and services goes up enough, the minimum wage will account for nothing...
Yep, I've argued this all along. When an employee gets a pay raise to be able to afford costlier goods, the employer must raise the cost of his goods to cover the higher expense. The employee/consumer must now ask for another raise to cover the cost of the goods. This is a never-ending, vicious cycle. We will eventually see this bubble burst as there's no way it can sustain itself forever.
"Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" - 2 Timothy 2:15
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
DavidCrow wrote:
We will eventually see this bubble burst as there's no way it can sustain itself forever.
In the cycle as you define it, I don't see what would break or burst. Are you implying that this cycle erodes the employee's purchasing power (i.e. inflation-adjusted purchasing ability) over time?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It sure as hell wasn't. I can assure you that every community in this nation had laws against sodomy which were perfectly constitutional until our constitution was reinterpreted by anti-Chrisitan communists democrats after 1950.
You're right (for once). Red didn't limit his statement to fed. Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges. Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges.
Yes it was, and that's just one example of many.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
The fact that a constitutional amendment would be required to fix a judicial ruling that wasn't based on the constitution is a demonstration of the tyrannical nature of the left. They prompted a constitutional crisis by legislating arbitrarily from the bench. Despite the fact that you claimed to be Jeffersonian, you actually endorse this practice (so long as the rulings suit you, of course).
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes, it was quite a blow (no pun intended) to freedom when all those anti-sodomy laws were killed by activist judges.
Yes it was, and that's just one example of many.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Maybe if they had held on just a bit longer, the fascists Republicans could have begun the process of an anti-sodomy amendment to our constitution.
The fact that a constitutional amendment would be required to fix a judicial ruling that wasn't based on the constitution is a demonstration of the tyrannical nature of the left. They prompted a constitutional crisis by legislating arbitrarily from the bench. Despite the fact that you claimed to be Jeffersonian, you actually endorse this practice (so long as the rulings suit you, of course).
Activist judges, oh, you mean like the ones that elected the president in 2000.
-
Activist judges, oh, you mean like the ones that elected the president in 2000.
No, I mean the ones who tried to elect Gore.