At 2/16/13 10:18 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

minimum wage increases (and inflation) are natural

Min wage increase is a reaction to inflation but at the same time causes further inflation. The problem with giving people more money for nothing is the fact that there was absolutely no additional value and production added to the economy therefore devaluing not only the dollar but the workforce alike. One way to justify a government mandated minimum wage increase would be to force additional worker training and massive new job creation as there is nothing more unnatural and detrimental than inflation as it directly devalues and stagnates the economy and dollar.

At 2/16/13 10:18 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, I'm pretty damn libertarian.

How about, damn my personal beliefs, why don't you tell me what I am?

I've gone over pages and pages of argument with you. The impression I got wasn't someone who was Libertarian (you're pretty pro-welfare state and all when pressed about it) but someone who liked the way the values sounded but did not engrain them in your thinking.

And to answer your question, minimum wage increases (and inflation) are natural, so I don't have problem with it if it's at a normal growth/pace

No it's not normal. One of the biggest things that drives inflation is increases in wages, if the minimum wage constantly increased with inflation then inflation itself will theoretically rise to an infinite amount. What would probably happen is a complete breakdown of cheap labor as businesses simply can't hire anymore.

At 2/16/13 11:41 PM, Warforger wrote: I've gone over pages and pages of argument with you. The impression I got wasn't someone who was Libertarian (you're pretty pro-welfare state and all when pressed about it) but someone who liked the way the values sounded but did not engrain them in your thinking.

Well, that settles it. You have read everything I've posted. And you label me as a pro-welfare statist.

That just goes to show one of 4 things

1) You're confusing me with someone else
2) You're trolling
3) You haven't actually read anything I've ever posted
4) You are mistaking something as "welfare statist," or mistaking what "libertarianism" is

That's all there is to it. Pretty much every thing I've ever posted here has been anti-statist and anti-welfare state. I mean, you're initiated please post these alleged "statist" quotes or ideals I've promoted.

At 2/17/13 01:08 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, that settles it. You have read everything I've posted. And you label me as a pro-welfare statist.

I didn't say statist, but you quite clearly said that you think the government should pay seniors and veterans more. You also just said in this thread that the minimum wage should keep up with inflation. That's hardly "Libertarian" and sounds alot more Socialist.....

That just goes to show one of 4 things
4) You are mistaking something as "welfare statist," or mistaking what "libertarianism" is

Errrr other way around, you've seemed to have mistaken what Libertarianism is.

That's all there is to it. Pretty much every thing I've ever posted here has been anti-statist and anti-welfare state. I mean, you're initiated please post these alleged "statist" quotes or ideals I've promoted.

I've argued with you for pages, there's nothing more that needs to be said that hasn't been said already.

At 2/17/13 11:37 AM, Warforger wrote: I didn't say statist, but you quite clearly said that you think the government should pay seniors and veterans more.

Um, what? My stance has always been seniors should save their own money, and stay away from my paycheck, and veterans deserve more money because they put their lives on the line and EARN (a term liberals seem to have a hard time with) it. Nor did I say anything about govt forcing/price fixing minimum wage to keep up with inflation.

Errrr other way around, you've seemed to have mistaken what Libertarianism is.

No.

I've argued with you for pages, there's nothing more that needs to be said that hasn't been said already.

You're insane.

At 2/17/13 12:03 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Um, what? My stance has always been seniors should save their own money, and stay away from my paycheck,

Not always.

and veterans deserve more money because they put their lives on the line and EARN (a term liberals seem to have a hard time with) it.

That's still a welfare state.

Nor did I say anything about govt forcing/price fixing minimum wage to keep up with inflation.

YOU JUST FUCKING DID DO YOU NOT REMEMBER HOW THIS CONVERSATION EVEN STATED? I ASKED YOU IF YOU THINK THE MINIMUM WAGE SHOULD KEEP UP WITH INFLATION AND YOU SAID IT SHOULD! JUST SCROLL UP THE PAGE OR GO TO THE LAST ONE ITS STILL THE SAME GODDAMN THREAD!

You're insane.

No no, you're the one who's insane. You constantly deny any source that doesn't agree with you as "lies" even if they know what they're talking about, you consistently claim some giant government conspiracy and your constantly contradict yourself.

At 2/17/13 12:41 PM, Warforger wrote: Not always.

Always

That's still a welfare state.

Paying someone for a job they did is not "welfare".

YOU JUST FUCKING DID DO YOU NOT REMEMBER HOW THIS CONVERSATION EVEN STATED? I ASKED YOU IF YOU THINK THE MINIMUM WAGE SHOULD KEEP UP WITH INFLATION AND YOU SAID IT SHOULD! JUST SCROLL UP THE PAGE OR GO TO THE LAST ONE ITS STILL THE SAME GODDAMN THREAD!

No, I didn't. I said the govt. SHOULD NOT fuck with minimum wage, period. I said, theoretically, minimum wage will keep up with natural inflation on it's own. We don't need the govt. making it worse.

No no, you're the one who's insane. You constantly deny any source that doesn't agree with you as "lies" even if they know what they're talking about, you consistently claim some giant government conspiracy and your constantly contradict yourself.

I'm rarely provided with sources on any topic in general, for anyone. And when I am, it's some biased crap, I never claimed anything was a government conspiracy, nor do I contradict myself. What the fuck are you talking about?

At 2/17/13 01:16 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

That's still a welfare state.

Paying someone for a job they did is not "welfare".

So....seniors did their jobs, they paid into the system, they retire, they get money back for the basics (which it hardly if at all covers). Yet I believe people call that welfare.

[...] theoretically, minimum wage will keep up with natural inflation on it's own. We don't need the govt. making it worse.

Theoretically aliens assisted the Egyptians in building the Great Pyramids. But that theory doesn't really pane out in reality, nor does the idea that the minimum wage would keep alongside inflation. Statistics show that wages have been stagnant for decades, yet productivity and profits have skyrocketed. Your theory seems to forget capitalism, or more specifically greed which is the entire function of a for-profit business.

Why would a business increase the wages of its employees when it can just push them to do more work at a faster pace, and raise prices as long as people are willing to pay and profits increase?!

It's like the old privately owned firefighters. If you didn't have fire insurance, or didn't live directly beside a person with fire insurance, privately owned firefighters back in the day would ignore your call for them to help. So government moved in and provides firefighters to everyone. So that the need of the people is put before the profit of a few.

At 2/17/13 01:38 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: So....seniors did their jobs, they paid into the system, they retire, they get money back for the basics (which it hardly if at all covers). Yet I believe people call that welfare.

It's not their money. It comes from other people's paycheck. They are retired, they do not work, they did not earn it.

Military actually worked for the government, and risked their lives as chess pieces in a President's wargames. Therefore deserve money in retirement.

Seniors do nothing to deserve money from the govt. after retirement.

Theoretically aliens assisted the Egyptians in building the Great Pyramids. But that theory doesn't really pane out in reality, nor does the idea that the minimum wage would keep alongside inflation. Statistics show that wages have been stagnant for decades, yet productivity and profits have skyrocketed. Your theory seems to forget capitalism, or more specifically greed which is the entire function of a for-profit business.

Oh yay, another person who misunderstands capitalism. I'm thrilled.

Wages have been stagnant for decades because the economy hasn't improved for decades. It's been trapped in bubbles and false prosperity for quite sometime. Wages will improve when the economy does.

Why would a business increase the wages of its employees when it can just push them to do more work at a faster pace, and raise prices as long as people are willing to pay and profits increase?!

Because the employees will quit if they're not happy? You do know that employees are humans, right? With free will? And standards for the amount of money they'll work for?

It's like the old privately owned firefighters. If you didn't have fire insurance, or didn't live directly beside a person with fire insurance, privately owned firefighters back in the day would ignore your call for them to help. So government moved in and provides firefighters to everyone. So that the need of the people is put before the profit of a few.

So, the people made the choice to not buy the fire insurnace.

You see, people HAVE CHOICES in life. If you make wrong choices, like neglecting your health, or choosing to rob a bank, or whatever YOU do as a SENTIENT HUMAN BEING, YOu deal with the consequences. Don't try to blame people wanting money (greed, you call it, which by the way, is the reason humanity and it's technology as we know exists anyway), for some people making wrong choices in life. Making wrong choices is the person's fault, not anyone else's

At 2/17/13 02:37 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Seniors do nothing to deserve money from the govt. after retirement.

Aside from of course that they pay into the system, just like soldiers pay into the system. That's what Social Security is.

Wages have been stagnant for decades because the economy hasn't improved for decades. It's been trapped in bubbles and false prosperity for quite sometime. Wages will improve when the economy does.

Than the wages will never increase because you're absolutely insane. The economy has improved, but of course that's never good enough according to you. The economy has burst a bubble, and apparently the world has ended according to you. The economies of the world in large are recovering, but that will never be enough according to you.

Fact is, the wages have been stagnant because increasing them would mean less profit.

Because the employees will quit if they're not happy? You do know that employees are humans, right? With free will? And standards for the amount of money they'll work for?

There isn't any evidence of that. As I said, as statistics show, productivity alongside profit has increased while wages have been stagnant.

You do realize there is a level of tolerance people can handle, and that just because they aren't happy doesn't mean they will quit....largely because anyone skilled or not would be an idiot to quit without another job waiting to start. And if you haven't noticed, job opportunities are slim picking.

So, the people made the choice to not buy the fire insurnace.

You have no conscience. I feel sorry for you. I pity you.

At 2/17/13 09:34 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Aside from of course that they pay into the system, just like soldiers pay into the system. That's what Social Security is.

Soldiers don't "pay into the system". The ENTIRE POINT of the "system" is to PAY THEM. That is the entire point of taxation to begin with.

Old people should not be forced to pay into the system if they don't want to. There is ZERO reason for it to be forced and there is ZERO reason why it has to come from the next generation's paycheck. The way it's setup now, is disgustingly immoral. Seniors want money when they retire? Why the hell does it come from my paycheck, or your, for that matter? Why isn't set up in a way that you pay into your own account, like unemployment. Insurance isn't insurance if you're required to participate.

Than the wages will never increase because you're absolutely insane. The economy has improved, but of course that's never good enough according to you. The economy has burst a bubble, and apparently the world has ended according to you. The economies of the world in large are recovering, but that will never be enough according to you.

The economy has NOT improved. The world economy is in a bit of turmoil, in case you haven't noticed (see Europe). The economy is far from recovering.

The wages will never increase and the economy will never improve until the govt. stops spending money it doesn't have, and stop forcing economics. Until then, we will continue to have bubbles and then an economic crisis/depression every few years. You're buying into propaganda. The real numbers and historical facts prove that the US economy has not been stable since the early 1900s... incidentally around the time that the US started letting banks and coporatists control the economy, and started being the world's bully

I for one, am not looking forward to an endless cycle of depressions for the rest of my life.

Fact is, the wages have been stagnant because increasing them would mean less profit.

So, you don't know how a business works, huh?

Ok: Companies, when the government doesn't taking care of them, are willing to lose profit if it means expanding their brand, buying inventory, expanding their business, or improving quality. Because they know these things will bring in more customers.

Remember when McDonald's started using white breast meat in their chicken? More expensive, right? So by your logic, they would be hemorrhaging money, because it's a lot more expensive than the dog food grade shit they were using. But increased quality, which is an expenditure, brings in customers.

You have no idea how capitalism works. A lot more goes into it than "Money is all that matters". Because business owners/capitalists know that money doesn't grow on trees (unless you buy govt. power...but we're talking about true capitalists/small business owners here), and you have to sacrifice something, to get something. These people don't have things handed to them. They have to WORK for them. Work and owning a business is about compromise. If you want to succeed in business, you must see things long term, and that means sacrificing a bit of profit now (for better workers, or quality of goods, etc) and getting larger profits/more customers in return.

There isn't any evidence of that.

Wait. There's no evidence that employees can quit their jobs if they feel they aren't getting paid enough? WTF?

You do realize there is a level of tolerance people can handle, and that just because they aren't happy doesn't mean they will quit....largely because anyone skilled or not would be an idiot to quit without another job waiting to start. And if you haven't noticed, job opportunities are slim picking.

And that is where personal skill and ability comes in. Not everyone can be a millionaire. You want to be happy in your job, and make money, then TAKE THE FUCKING INITIATIVE. Go to college. Get a fucking education and fix your own life. Then you won't have to worry about being stuck in a shit job for little money. Again, not a companies fault, it's the empolyees fault for throwing their life away and setting themselves up for it.

You have no conscience. I feel sorry for you. I pity you.

I have no conscience. YOU have no conscience. You're sitting here promoting a defeatist mind set. Encouraging others that they somehow are not good enough, or don't have enough power as human being to have a good life. They they somehow need to rely on others to be a success. Sorry dude, I'm just not that way. I believe every person should care enough about their life to make something of it. I for one think people should be free to make their own choices, and deal with the consequences, good or bad.

I'm plenty compassionate, but if a person is WELL within their means of getting their shit together, and just doesn't, that is not my fucking problem. I have compassion for people who deserve it. The disabled. The homeless. The hungry. I have NO compassion for people who can afford insurance, forego it, and then make other people pay for it when they get sick. I have no compassion for people who care so little about their future, that they do nothing to insure they have a good life ahead of them. I have no compassion for people who think they're so helpless that they need the government to provide for their entire existence.

BTW, those "private fire brigades" were govt backed, and govt run. The fire brigade didn't let that man's house burn. The government PREVENTED them from putting the fire out, because the guy didn't pay a bill that the govt required him to pay.

Boy oh boy, I hope Obamacare doesn't turn out that way.

At 2/17/13 01:16 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Always

*yawn*

Paying someone for a job they did is not "welfare".

They're paid for it constantly. Going by this same logic Social Security and Medicare are not welfare because people who are on it have paid into it their entire lives.

No, I didn't. I said the govt. SHOULD NOT fuck with minimum wage, period. I said, theoretically, minimum wage will keep up with natural inflation on it's own. We don't need the govt. making it worse.

The minimum wage is a government regulation so it doesn't matter either way.

I'm rarely provided with sources on any topic in general, for anyone. And when I am, it's some biased crap,

"biased crap" aka not Libertarian. I haven't seen anyone use as much biased crap as you do though......

I never claimed anything was a government conspiracy,

You said that Obama won the election because he used widespread voter fraud.

nor do I contradict myself.

You've always done it on every page.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Things you just won't admit. I'll just end it there, this retarded bickering is unhealthy for both of us. I'm not going to respond to anything that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

At 2/17/13 11:44 PM, Warforger wrote: They're paid for it constantly. Going by this same logic Social Security and Medicare are not welfare because people who are on it have paid into it their entire lives.

No they didn't. YOU AND I pay for social security for the previous generation.

The minimum wage is a government regulation so it doesn't matter either way.

Exactly

"biased crap" aka not Libertarian. I haven't seen anyone use as much biased crap as you do though......

No, biased crap as in written by govt owned media arms.

You said that Obama won the election because he used widespread voter fraud.

What the fuck?

You've always done it on every page.

No. I haven't/

Things you just won't admit. I'll just end it there, this retarded bickering is unhealthy for both of us. I'm not going to respond to anything that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Good. Just go away. Now you're accusing me of things I never even said.

At 2/18/13 01:43 AM, LemonCrush wrote: No they didn't. YOU AND I pay for social security for the previous generation.

And they paid into it for the generation before them. It's essentially how any pension works.

Exactly

And so you want to use government regulation to make it even worse?

No, biased crap as in written by govt owned media arms.

The government doesn't own any media corporation. It supplies information and all, but you're assuming that just because it's the government it means it will be biased towards itself, which is like grade A horseshit.

What the fuck?

I know that's what the content of your posts makes the rational person think.

Good. Just go away. Now you're accusing me of things I never even said.

Click "all posts by Lemoncrush".

At 2/18/13 01:04 PM, Warforger wrote: And they paid into it for the generation before them. It's essentially how any pension works.

And that is a stupid system that doesn't work, as you can see.

Funny, you mention pensions. Usually, when comapnies can't afford pensions anymore, they stop giving them out.

And so you want to use government regulation to make it even worse?

No, I'm saying govt. regulation makes it worse, so stop regulating it.

The government doesn't own any media corporation. It supplies information and all, but you're assuming that just because it's the government it means it will be biased towards itself, which is like grade A horseshit.

Really? Then why do media outlets like NBC and CNN cover up the wars that Obama started? Or downplay that he's selling guns to terrorists. Or pretend like he isn't an exact copy of Bush? Why do they downplay or just not talk about SO MANY fucking things he's done wrong, but under Bush, were calls for impeachment? Where's NBC's anti war coverage now? Why do they paint him as a hero when in reality he's a war criminal who's never even had a goddamn job?

They own the media. Big. Fucking. Time.

I know that's what the content of your posts makes the rational person think.

Be real. You're 14 right?

Click "all posts by Lemoncrush".

You should probably do that first.

At 2/18/13 01:46 PM, LemonCrush wrote: And that is a stupid system that doesn't work, as you can see.

You mean how it works fine?

Funny, you mention pensions. Usually, when comapnies can't afford pensions anymore, they stop giving them out.

Social Security is its own administration and does most of its tasks outside of the government. It's actually really efficient.

No, I'm saying govt. regulation makes it worse, so stop regulating it.

Ok so abolish the minimum wage now?

Really? Then why do media outlets like NBC and CNN cover up the wars that Obama started?

You mean all that coverage about Libya was only a lie?

Or downplay that he's selling guns to terrorists.

? When did he do that?

Or pretend like he isn't an exact copy of Bush?

He isn't though.

Why do they downplay or just not talk about SO MANY fucking things he's done wrong,

Now here is where I get confused because you mentioned CNN. The way people treat CNN vs. how it actually is reminds of how people talk about Lieberman and how he actually is. Both are far more Conservative than they get credit for, although they're not actually Conservatives they're mere centrists. Likewise I remember seeing a documentary on Obama during the 2012 election cycle and it was so scathing against him it was terrible. It talked as though all his core followers were revolting and showed footage of Latinos protesting his harsh immigration policy. You'd think something like that would air on Fox but it was from CNN. So no, you probably haven't even watched CNN or MSNBC and are only going off some fringe blog saying "and you won't see the mainstream media reporting on this". Nevermind the reaction of NBC people after the 1st debate last year.

but under Bush, were calls for impeachment?

Um who called for him to be impeached? I'm assuming you're talking about pundits (people who are paid to give an opinion.....) but the actual news news doesn't actually present opinions like that.

Where's NBC's anti war coverage now?

I'm just going to go off on a limb here and say that you're merely assuming that either it's ended or that there was "anti-war" coverage (although defining that is a bit off, do you mean covering protests to the war? Because that's always reported).

Why do they paint him as a hero when in reality he's a war criminal who's never even had a goddamn job?

They don't paint him as a hero though, they just report news. And he's had a job, Senator, President, State Senator, Lawyer, Community Organizer. It's just most of the people who attack him have an even shorter list of jobs, like say Paul Ryan.

They own the media. Big. Fucking. Time.

BULLLLSSSHIT. Please, just because people agree with him does not mean that he owns the media. You've proven nothing, you've gone off assumptions I'm assuming you haven't researched and made some conclusion that is irrelevant to the evidence. Let me guess everyone who agree's with him is secretly paid by him? See this is a prime example of your accusations of a conspiracy.

Be real. You're 14 right?

Um no.

You should probably do that first.

I've had to deal with your bullshit for long enough. You have no idea what you're talking about, I assume you have some element of that but I ask you only to find out you don't. Stop posting here and read a book, listen to someone you don't agree with and understand their viewpoint before you go off and accuse them of being a secret agent for Obama or a liar.

At 2/13/13 11:41 AM, LemonCrush wrote: So that's it, right? It's clear that Obama's goal is to totally bankrupt middle class america.

How does...putting more money into the lower class bankrupt the middle class? Well as long it's a line of attack on socialist Obama I guess making sense isn't a priority.

Increasing the minimum wage doesn't just raise the wages of those at the lowest income level, but also those within the margin of the minimum wage by cents / a few dollars. Plus you also have to take into consideration the workers with jobs that have wages tied to the minimum wage by a multiplier. More money = more consumer demand = more jobs; this has absolutely nothing to do with whatever supply side myth you can think of. The current prices for goods and services are already locked in at the maximum threshold the market cam bear; a small increase in overall wages (relative to the economy as a whole) wouldn't even dent that.

"Even if Walmart were to pass 100 percent of the wage increase on to consumers, the average impact on a Walmart shopper would be quite small: 1.1 percent of prices, well below Walmart's estimated savings to consumers. This works out to $0.46 per shopping trip, or $12.49 per year, for the average consumer who spends approximately $1,187 per year at Walmart. This is the most extreme estimate, as portions of the raise could be absorbed through other mechanisms, including increased productivity or lower profit margins. While Walmart shoppers are disproportionately middle and lower income, the customers who spend the most at the store are somewhat less likely to come from poor and low-income families. We find that 28.1 percent of the total price increase would be borne by consumers in families below 200 percent FPL. In comparison, 41.4 percent of the benefits would go to Walmart workers in families below 200 percent FPL."

At 2/18/13 06:07 PM, Feoric wrote:

More money = more consumer demand = more jobs

Though your statement sounds logical if not given much thought the fact remains that when given proper thought more jobs are not created because more product is sold as a direct result of an increase in buying power as most products are imported from China. In short your statement is flawed and short sighted but perhaps there's more to it ? A forced increase in wages only creates one thing and that's inflation in turn causing mass devalue in currency and economy not to mention the fact that a forced wage increase is a direct reaction to inflation. The cycle of wealth deprecation continues.

At 2/18/13 06:24 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: more jobs are not created because more product is sold as a direct result of an increase in buying power as most products are imported from China.

What are you talking about? What does Chinese imports have anything to do with people having more money in the pockets to inject into the US economy?

inflation

You're like a Jehovah's Witness who never stops ringing my doorbell.

At 2/18/13 06:24 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/13 06:07 PM, Feoric wrote:

More money = more consumer demand = more jobs

Though your statement sounds logical if not given much thought the fact remains that when given proper thought more jobs are not created because more product is sold as a direct result of an increase in buying power as most products are imported from China. In short your statement is flawed and short sighted but perhaps there's more to it ? A forced increase in wages only creates one thing and that's inflation in turn causing mass devalue in currency and economy not to mention the fact that a forced wage increase is a direct reaction to inflation. The cycle of wealth deprecation continues.

Wouldn't it also increase the GDP growth rate substantially? And couldn't the federal reserve tighten monetary policy to control that inflation?

At 2/16/13 10:16 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/16/13 07:28 PM, Warforger wrote:

(yes every economic problem is caused by the government!). But that doesn't change what I was asking you, do you think the minimum wage should increase at the rate of inflation?

Most economic troubles are the government, because they constantly do things that are bad for the economy. Like price fixing. Or spending money they don't have.

You're not a Libertarian.

Well, I'm no extremist

Anarchist-------------------------------------------------Re publican
^
That's me

What is wrong with you, man? I think a $9 minimum wage can put more spending power into a minimum-wage earner's pocket, thus creating more spending potential by said earners. I don't see how increasing the minimum wage by a smidgen is bad for the economy.

At 2/18/13 06:35 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 2/18/13 06:24 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: more jobs are not created because more product is sold as a direct result of an increase in buying power as most products are imported from China.

more money in the pockets to inject into the US economy?

See the problem is that the extra money was created out of nothing and handed out to workers whom did absolutely nothing extra to earn extra income. The injection you speak of is called inflation and it's the death knell to the USA.

At 2/18/13 06:44 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/13 06:35 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 2/18/13 06:24 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: more jobs are not created because more product is sold as a direct result of an increase in buying power as most products are imported from China.

more money in the pockets to inject into the US economy?

See the problem is that the extra money was created out of nothing and handed out to workers whom did absolutely nothing extra to earn extra income. The injection you speak of is called inflation and it's the death knell to the USA

Last I check only the government can create money out of nothing. Raising the minimum wage only forces those corporations, to pay their workers more, but the money in circulation remains the same.

At 2/18/13 06:38 PM, MOSFET wrote:

At 2/18/13 06:24 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/13 06:07 PM, Feoric wrote:

More money = more consumer demand = more jobs

Though your statement sounds logical if not given much thought the fact remains that when given proper thought more jobs are not created because more product is sold as a direct result of an increase in buying power as most products are imported from China. In short your statement is flawed and short sighted but perhaps there's more to it ? A forced increase in wages only creates one thing and that's inflation in turn causing mass devalue in currency and economy not to mention the fact that a forced wage increase is a direct reaction to inflation. The cycle of wealth deprecation continues.

Wouldn't it also increase the GDP growth rate substantially? Depending on if the countries GDP is Debt products than yea inflation would be the absolute best way to strengthen your cause.

And couldn't the federal reserve tighten monetary policy to control that inflation?

The fed should not even exist as currency should never be created out of debt but the reality remains that money is created out of debt and sold as a commodity in exchange for interest. Remember currency was supposed to be used only as an exchange of wealth not a measure of wealth/debt. The fed is illegitimate on so many levels it's amazing it got this far corrupt.

At 2/18/13 06:07 PM, Feoric wrote: How does...putting more money into the lower class bankrupt the middle class?

Because it doesn't put more money into the middle class. The money they get is spent because the price of goods and services increase.

At 2/18/13 04:17 PM, Warforger wrote: You mean how it works fine?

Well, no it doesn't. A) It's insolvent, B) It's immoral. Federally backed theft is not "working fine"

Social Security is its own administration and does most of its tasks outside of the government. It's actually really efficient.

Hemorrhaging money = efficiency. Right.

Even IF there was a SURPLUS of money in the SS fund, it still wouldn't change the fact that it's stolen money.

Ok so abolish the minimum wage now?

Yes. You, or I are not slaves. The government has no right to put a price on my labor, or dictate how much I am worth.

You mean all that coverage about Libya was only a lie?

What coverage? The whole "we saved the day" bullshit?

? When did he do that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

He isn't though.

Hm..same wars (and even some new ones), corporate welfare, spending/bureaucracies, ignorance/denial of civil rights, and tearing down of the Constitution...hell even the aforementioned gun selling operation was a Bush leftover. The guy does not have an original political thought in his pea sized brain.

Now here is where I get confused because you mentioned CNN. The way people treat CNN vs. how it actually is reminds of how people talk about Lieberman and how he actually is. Both are far more Conservative than they get credit for, although they're not actually Conservatives they're mere centrists. Likewise I remember seeing a documentary on Obama during the 2012 election cycle and it was so scathing against him it was terrible. It talked as though all his core followers were revolting and showed footage of Latinos protesting his harsh immigration policy. You'd think something like that would air on Fox but it was from CNN. So no, you probably haven't even watched CNN or MSNBC and are only going off some fringe blog saying "and you won't see the mainstream media reporting on this". Nevermind the reaction of NBC people after the 1st debate last year.

I have seen MSNBC. And it's full of attacks against republicans and how "evil" they are. Never mind the fact that it's Obama who's currently killing middle eastern children and making Americans poor, no no, it's the republicans that are evil.

Um who called for him to be impeached? I'm assuming you're talking about pundits (people who are paid to give an opinion.....) but the actual news news doesn't actually present opinions like that.

MSNBC isn't actual news. It's political commentary like Fox News is.

I'm just going to go off on a limb here and say that you're merely assuming that either it's ended or that there was "anti-war" coverage (although defining that is a bit off, do you mean covering protests to the war? Because that's always reported).

Yeah? MSNBC showing lots of anti-Obama protests huh?

They don't paint him as a hero though, they just report news. And he's had a job, Senator, President, State Senator, Lawyer, Community Organizer. It's just most of the people who attack him have an even shorter list of jobs, like say Paul Ryan.

Politics are not a career.

BULLLLSSSHIT. Please, just because people agree with him does not mean that he owns the media. You've proven nothing, you've gone off assumptions I'm assuming you haven't researched and made some conclusion that is irrelevant to the evidence. Let me guess everyone who agree's with him is secretly paid by him? See this is a prime example of your accusations of a conspiracy.

I didn't say agreeing with him was an issue, I'm saying ignoring his bullshit is.

I've had to deal with your bullshit for long enough. You have no idea what you're talking about....

Everything I have posted is a fact.

At 2/18/13 06:55 PM, MOSFET wrote:

At 2/18/13 06:44 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/13 06:35 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 2/18/13 06:24 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: more jobs are not created because more product is sold as a direct result of an increase in buying power as most products are imported from China.

more money in the pockets to inject into the US economy?

See the problem is that the extra money was created out of nothing and handed out to workers whom did absolutely nothing extra to earn extra income. The injection you speak of is called inflation and it's the death knell to the USA

Last I check only the government can create money out of nothing.

Well that's not exactly accurate as the Government has to draw up promissory notes and then submit them to the "Federal Reserve" and then it's ultimately up the the fed weather the Government gets the currency. The Federal Reserve controls the flow of all currency that goes to the banks and government and then it's up to those two institutions to "responsibly" disperse the funds to the public and private owned corporations and businesses. That being said the Fed will never turn down a loan to the Government as the Government has the best collateral in the world it's working class population.

Raising the minimum wage only forces those corporations, to pay their workers more, but the money in circulation remains the same.

Isn't the fed an independent organization but still considered government?

At 2/18/13 09:28 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, no it doesn't. A) It's insolvent,

It's not.

B) It's immoral.

Like every pension plan.

Hemorrhaging money = efficiency. Right.

It's not, in fact all SSA officials do everyday is make it more efficient. It's why it's only going to be insolvent in 2050 (which is mostly because of improved healthcare).

Even IF there was a SURPLUS of money in the SS fund, it still wouldn't change the fact that it's stolen money.

Buying anything is also stealing. Buying food is stealing because you need food.

Yes. You, or I are not slaves. The government has no right to put a price on my labor, or dictate how much I am worth.

Blah blah blah but apparently unelected business leaders do.

What coverage? The whole "we saved the day" bullshit?

Hardly. It's as though you didn't even watch it yet are judging it.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

Which wasn't with Obama's knowledge. They tried investigating this and they found pretty much nothing tieing Obama to it. This was all done without his knowledge.

Hm..same wars (and even some new ones),

Ahhh the same old bullshit you spew out everytime.

The guy does not have an original political thought in his pea sized brain.

Oh great now he's a moron. If he has a pea sized brain you have a brain the size of a grain of sand which is unable to process an original coherent thought. So many times have you changed your position, forgotten your position or merely made up a new position and act like you didn't it's getting tiring to talk to you. Obama is smart enough to go to Harvard, Obama is smart enough to get elected Senator, Obama is smart enough to get elected President in a bad economy, you by comparison are a complete imbecile with no understanding of government or economics all the while acting like you're a genius who knows all about it. It reminds me of the ugly douchebags on the internet who spend all day judging pictures of women as though they are a point of authority on beauty.

I have seen MSNBC. And it's full of attacks against republicans and how "evil" they are.

Right. Fox news isn't even that I frequent that channel at least its area's of news coverage and every time there is news coverage it doesn't display any opinion.

MSNBC isn't actual news. It's political commentary like Fox News is.

Yes it is a news station. It's just they put up political pundits on their programming. If you actually watched them you'd know.

Yeah? MSNBC showing lots of anti-Obama protests huh?

Yah in fact they did. They had alot of coverage of the 9/12 protests.

Politics are not a career.

It certainly is.

I didn't say agreeing with him was an issue, I'm saying ignoring his bullshit is.

What are they ignoring?

Everything I have posted is a fact.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Stop throwing around words like "fact" or "prove" because it's quite obvious you don't know what they mean.

At 2/18/13 11:24 PM, Warforger wrote: It's not.

Yeah?

Like every pension plan.

Pension plans are optional, at least where I am. At the very least, it varies from company to company. When dealing with the federal govt. you have no choice, you have no options. The government takers your money, without permission, by force. Immoral.

You can justify it all day long, but you cannot justify why it is manditory.

It's not, in fact all SSA officials do everyday is make it more efficient. It's why it's only going to be insolvent in 2050 (which is mostly because of improved healthcare).

See above.

Buying anything is also stealing. Buying food is stealing because you need food.

No it isn't. It's a voluntary exchange of goods and services. Buying food is not stealing. I'm voluntarily giving my money to someone who is voluntarily selling food items. A grocer is choosing to sell something at a price he sees fit. No one is forced to buy food.

Blah blah blah but apparently unelected business leaders do.

Shouldn't be so. Only YOU should decide how much your labor is worth. Don't you think you should have the right to decide how much you work for?

Hardly. It's as though you didn't even watch it yet are judging it.....

Ah, so MSNBC called Obama a Warmonger finally. Very nice. If only they could jump on the ball with the rest of his bullshit.

Which wasn't with Obama's knowledge. They tried investigating this and they found pretty much nothing tieing Obama to it. This was all done without his knowledge.

How convenient.

Ahhh the same old bullshit you spew out everytime.

Doesn't make it false.

Oh great now he's a moron. If he has a pea sized brain you have a brain the size of a grain of sand which is unable to process an original coherent thought. So many times have you changed your position, forgotten your position or merely made up a new position and act like you didn't it's getting tiring to talk to you. Obama is smart enough to go to Harvard, Obama is smart enough to get elected Senator, Obama is smart enough to get elected President in a bad economy, you by comparison are a complete imbecile with no understanding of government or economics all the while acting like you're a genius who knows all about it. It reminds me of the ugly douchebags on the internet who spend all day judging pictures of women as though they are a point of authority on beauty.

Obama had ENOUGH MONEY to go to Harvard. He had the MONEY to become a Senator (which, by the way, he did nothing during his Senate term). Obama had enough MONEY (and the race card) to be come President. You want a real democrat who care about minorities and helping the poor, etc? Hillary would've been your chick. Obama is a democrat's worst nightmare, as he stands for everything democrats hate (war, corporatism, etc).

Intelligence has nothing to do with politics. By that logic, Geroge Bush must have been a super genius in your eyes! After all, he went to an Ivy League school, and was a governor, and was elected president.

Right. Fox news isn't even that I frequent that channel at least its area's of news coverage and every time there is news coverage it doesn't display any opinion.

What?

It certainly is.

No it isn't. You can't just decide one day "oh hey, I'm just gonna sit on my ass for a living, and tell other people what they should do". Obama has not earned a single dollar in his life. He can't do anything for an average American. He's never had to bus tables. He's never had to wash dishes. He's never had to actually work for what he has. He was given money by political "visionaries" his entire life. He's been groomed for politics since day 1, just like Bush was.

What are they ignoring?

The wars, the guns to terrorists, the debt, his spending, his lack of performing ANY duty of a president. Anything that's negative or portrays him negatively, they ignore. In fact, anyone who even MENTIONS something negative to Obama is "a racist" or "hates women" or a "conspiracy theorist". Cult of personality at it finest (or worst, rather)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Stop throwing around words like "fact" or "prove" because it's quite obvious you don't know what they mean.

Please prove me wrong. I'll gladly concede a point or admit defeat if you can actually prove something.