At 11/12/14 12:06 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/11/14 11:45 PM, coaliscool42 wrote:

You might not understand this, it is quite complicated.

You see, the Fed also known as the federal government operates in a country called the "United States of America" also called the "US".

Operates in US + Government = US government.

I know its kinda crazy to think the Fed is part of the US government. This took hours of research to conclude this.

The Federal "Reserve" not Government is not technically a Government agency to be quite honest it runs outside of the Government.

Yes, because i'm sure www.federalreserve.gov lied about being within the government

"The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government" Source.

Need more evidence from the Fed itself?

"The Federal Reserve (the Fed) enjoys a unique public/private structure that operates within the government" Source.

Please cite your information before you post facts.

At 11/12/14 12:15 AM, coaliscool42 wrote:

At 11/12/14 12:06 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/11/14 11:45 PM, coaliscool42 wrote:

You might not understand this, it is quite complicated.

You see, the Fed also known as the federal government operates in a country called the "United States of America" also called the "US".

Operates in US + Government = US government.

I know its kinda crazy to think the Fed is part of the US government. This took hours of research to conclude this.

The Federal "Reserve" not Government is not technically a Government agency to be quite honest it runs outside of the Government.

Yes, because i'm sure www.federalreserve.gov lied about being within the government

"The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government" Source.

Need more evidence from the Fed itself?

"The Federal Reserve (the Fed) enjoys a unique public/private structure that operates within the government" Source.

Please cite your information before you post facts.

They have to lie a bit because it's unconstitutional for "The Fed" to even exist. "the constitution gives congress and ONLY congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof."

At 11/12/14 12:19 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/12/14 12:15 AM, coaliscool42 wrote:

At 11/12/14 12:06 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/11/14 11:45 PM, coaliscool42 wrote:

You might not understand this, it is quite complicated.

You see, the Fed also known as the federal government operates in a country called the "United States of America" also called the "US".

Operates in US + Government = US government.

I know its kinda crazy to think the Fed is part of the US government. This took hours of research to conclude this.

The Federal "Reserve" not Government is not technically a Government agency to be quite honest it runs outside of the Government.

Yes, because i'm sure www.federalreserve.gov lied about being within the government

"The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government" Source.

Need more evidence from the Fed itself?

"The Federal Reserve (the Fed) enjoys a unique public/private structure that operates within the government" Source.

Please cite your information before you post facts.

They have to lie a bit because it's unconstitutional for "The Fed" to even exist. "the constitution gives congress and ONLY congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof."

The Fed is not unconstitutional. In fact, the tenth Amendment of the constitution delegates power to the Federal government Source 1Source 2Source 3.

So if it is "unconstitutional" why is it in the tenth amendment?

Cite your damn information.

At 11/12/14 12:29 AM, coaliscool42 wrote:

Cite your damn information.

I don't have to cite shit cause I already know. For you however here you go
The Powers of Congress NOT THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

At 11/12/14 12:33 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/12/14 12:29 AM, coaliscool42 wrote:

Cite your damn information.

I don't have to cite shit cause I already know. For you however here you go
The Powers of Congress NOT THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

The point of the constitution is that it could be edited later. Just because the first amendment said something does not mean the tenth didn't.

You claim "The Fed is illegal". If was true why did the tenth amendment delegate power to the Fed? Source 1Source 2Source 3.

The point of citing information is to show where you got the information. Sure you could "know" the government is run by the Illuminati but you have no source.

By the way, what does this have to do with minimum wage?

At 11/12/14 12:42 AM, coaliscool42 wrote:

The point of the constitution is that it could be edited later. Just because the first amendment said something does not mean the tenth didn't.

They did not amend Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.

You claim "The Fed is illegal". If was true why did the tenth amendment delegate power to the Fed? Source 1Source 2Source 3.

I said unconstitutional.

At 11/12/14 12:51 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/12/14 12:42 AM, coaliscool42 wrote:

The point of the constitution is that it could be edited later. Just because the first amendment said something does not mean the tenth didn't.

They did not amend Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.

What? You quoted "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures" from article 1 section 8.

If they "didn't amend" it why did you bring it up in your argument?

You claim "The Fed is illegal". If was true why did the tenth amendment delegate power to the Fed? Source 1Source 2Source 3.

I said unconstitutional.

The tenth amendment is part of the constitution. Therefore making it constitutional.

Also can you give me a source on "They did not amend Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution."

At 11/12/14 12:59 AM, coaliscool42 wrote: Also can you give me a source on "They did not amend Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution."

It was never amended. Look up the constitution Article 1 Section 8: Powers of Congress I am not spoon feeding you guy's.

At 11/12/14 01:05 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/12/14 12:59 AM, coaliscool42 wrote: Also can you give me a source on "They did not amend Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution."

It was never amended. Look up the constitution Article 1 Section 8: Powers of Congress I am not spoon feeding you guy's.

I can't find anything relevant from searching for it. Send me a direct link to the article. Hell I don't care if you send me a link to Illuminati.com just give me a source.

At 11/12/14 01:13 AM, coaliscool42 wrote:

At 11/12/14 01:05 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/12/14 12:59 AM, coaliscool42 wrote: Also can you give me a source on "They did not amend Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution."

It was never amended. Look up the constitution Article 1 Section 8: Powers of Congress I am not spoon feeding you guy's.

I can't find anything relevant from searching for it. Send me a direct link to the article. Hell I don't care if you send me a link to Illuminati.com just give me a source.

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

It was never amended. Look up the constitution Article 1 Section 8: Powers of Congress I am not spoon feeding you guy's.

I can't find anything relevant from searching for it. Send me a direct link to the article. Hell I don't care if you send me a link to Illuminati.com just give me a source.

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Can you quote the relevant text? I don't see anything about it not being amended.

At 11/12/14 01:19 AM, coaliscool42 wrote:

Can you quote the relevant text? I don't see anything about it not being amended.

That's cause it never was.

At 11/12/14 01:23 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/12/14 01:19 AM, coaliscool42 wrote:

Can you quote the relevant text? I don't see anything about it not being amended.

That's cause it never was.

I'm done responding to you.

I'm guessing your also a 9/11 truther and think the Holocaust didn't happen.

Goodbye.

At 11/12/14 01:29 AM, coaliscool42 wrote:

At 11/12/14 01:23 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/12/14 01:19 AM, coaliscool42 wrote:

Can you quote the relevant text? I don't see anything about it not being amended.

That's cause it never was.

I'm done responding to you.

I'm guessing your also a 9/11 truther and think the Holocaust didn't happen.

Goodbye.

Whats the problem ... I am just going by what the constitution says . Did you bother to even read it ?

To Korriken

You said, "The problem with minimum wage is that workers are not supposed to remain there forever."

What exactly do you mean by that? How is this a problem with minimum wage? If you are saying it does not matter because these people will move on to a better job later then then I say that your reasoning is flawed. There are many people who can't afford to go to college and even if they can a lot of people do not have the IQ needed to pass college.

By the way I know this is a bit off topic but does anyone know what pinko commie means? I mean I know that commie is short for communist but what the hell does the pinko part mean?

At 11/12/14 12:18 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: To Korriken

You said, "The problem with minimum wage is that workers are not supposed to remain there forever."

The does represent a problem with raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage is supposed to be minimum. It is not meant to be a great wage. The biggest problem with it is not its level, per se, it's how the employers have decided to utilize it. It is meant to be a floor for wages, not the most widely paid wage in a business. So, do we distort the minimum wage to make up for those who use it improperly? I mean if a raise is meant to create quality and motivation inworkers, will a higher minimum wage not dig into that. Then again, if the private sector is entirely unwilling to do the right thing, is it not the government's job to step in and mke them do it?

These tough questions are why the issue is so damn difficult to pick a side on for me.

There are many people who can't afford to go to college and even if they can a lot of people do not have the IQ needed to pass college.

When it comes to getting raises, IQ, education, intelligence, and talent are highly overrated. The ability to work hard and do what one is told, especially in lower end jobs, is all that is needed to get raises, and in many cass, to get them fairly quick.

By the way I know this is a bit off topic but does anyone know what pinko commie means? I mean I know that commie is short for communist but what the hell does the pinko part mean?

My dad always thought it was tied to the red card of the communists (His dad loved to refer to the Beatles as "Long haired commie pinko freaks"). I did look it up and got a vague reference to being effeminate or soft, a rough equivalent of a limousine liberal today. Meaning this person was too soft to help the people and never got their hands dirty. Also indicating that this person was too bourgeoisie to speak on issues of the people. Though my interpretation could be wrong.

At 11/12/14 12:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

When it comes to getting raises, IQ, education, intelligence, and talent are highly overrated. The ability to work hard and do what one is told, especially in lower end jobs, is all that is needed to get raises, and in many cass, to get them fairly quick.

Being reliable is probably the best quality for any worker and person for that matter to have. I rather work with a reliable, diligent and consistent worker rather than one that wants to come in late, hungover, miss shifts, always on facebook, try's to make their own rules etc. That said I rather see that the minimum wage stay where it is for new hires and have it go up to around $15 to $20 dollars/hr after the worker passes the mandatory 6 months probationary period. Also a National Universal Basic Income would put all the scab companies like McDonalds out of commission or they would have to boost their dam min wage to something that is considered livable or they would have to automate. Just some thought's.

At 11/12/14 12:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The does represent a problem with raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage is supposed to be minimum. It is not meant to be a great wage. The biggest problem with it is not its level, per se, it's how the employers have decided to utilize it. It is meant to be a floor for wages, not the most widely paid wage in a business. So, do we distort the minimum wage to make up for those who use it improperly? I mean if a raise is meant to create quality and motivation inworkers, will a higher minimum wage not dig into that. Then again, if the private sector is entirely unwilling to do the right thing, is it not the government's job to step in and mke them do it?

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The problem for me has always been that if one is to create a "minimum wage" it seems to me that should also be a "living wage" and ideally, I'd be ok with the federal being on the low end (or not existing) but a STATE minimum should be scaled to the cost of living in that state (which is something we just passed last year in Jersey). I don't see why that is an oneirous situation for an employer (especially your bigger employers who continue to report record profits), it also has the benefit of if a state is being horribly mismanaged, cost of living shoots up, the minimum shoots up, business threatens or does leave....so it can also be a way to force government to act in a correct manner. Basically a checks and balances between the government and the business.

Also lest somebody misunderstand what I mean by "cost of living" I speak to basic needs, rent/mortgage, food, and utilities.

When it comes to getting raises, IQ, education, intelligence, and talent are highly overrated. The ability to work hard and do what one is told, especially in lower end jobs, is all that is needed to get raises, and in many cass, to get them fairly quick.

Depends on the job, depends on the quality of the raise, depends on the employer. This is where a lot of misnomers come in. Where those against a raise of the minimum tend to act like all jobs, and all raises are created equal. Many lower skill jobs have been systametically doing away with raise opportunities. For example, an employee of Wal-Mart used to receive the opportunity for 2 raises in their first year, and then the possibility of a raise at any time there after for performance (so, 3 within the first year, 2 thereafter). This no longer is the case. You know can only receive one raise (typically 40 cents as they dangle the carrot of more but never give it) per year as the original 3 month evaluation where they decided if they wanted to retain you and then kick you a bit if you are retained is gone, and the merit raise system has been removed for alleged "abuse" by managers at the store level. So, you now have a job that typically pays welfare level wages (while cutting hours on top of it), giving out one small raise per year....does that sound like a good system to you? Because it sounds like the sort of things that government stepped in and tried to outlaw a hundred years ago and in the last 30 or so we've been working to undue all of that...

At 11/12/14 07:27 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

So, you now have a job that typically pays welfare level wages (while cutting hours on top of it), giving out one small raise per year....does that sound like a good system to you? Because it sounds like the sort of things that government stepped in and tried to outlaw a hundred years ago and in the last 30 or so we've been working to undue all of that...

In Canada ... "Welfare recipient's" gets paid more than the average minimum wage slave. Typically some years ago a full recognized work week was 40hrs now it's cut back to 30hrs. I don't know weather the hr cutbacks are from Government interference or some Corporate bullshit but a person can't make it on 30hrs a week at min wage rate.

At 11/12/14 11:01 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: In Canada ... "Welfare recipient's" gets paid more than the average minimum wage slave. Typically some years ago a full recognized work week was 40hrs now it's cut back to 30hrs. I don't know weather the hr cutbacks are from Government interference or some Corporate bullshit but a person can't make it on 30hrs a week at min wage rate.

Please source this for me. Because there's a few different factors to consider:

1. Canada has a higher inflation rate then the US (mostly due to the government backed health care), so I think we really need to look at their federal minimum wage vs. ours, account for the inflation, and see if your argument holds water.

2. We need to determine if the 30 hr vs 40 hr work week is a detrimental situation. Remember, 40 hr work weeks like we do and the minimal vacation time employees get in this country is an aberration from most other countries.

I'll be waiting eagerly :)

At 11/12/14 11:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 11/12/14 11:01 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: In Canada ... "Welfare recipient's" gets paid more than the average minimum wage slave. Typically some years ago a full recognized work week was 40hrs now it's cut back to 30hrs. I don't know weather the hr cutbacks are from Government interference or some Corporate bullshit but a person can't make it on 30hrs a week at min wage rate.

Please source this for me. Because there's a few different factors to consider:

1. Canada has a higher inflation rate then the US (mostly due to the government backed health care), so I think we really need to look at their federal minimum wage vs. ours, account for the inflation, and see if your argument holds water.

"Under the Canadian Constitution, the responsibility for enacting and enforcing labour laws, including the minimum wage, rests with the ten provinces as well as the three territories which have been granted this power by federal legislation. This means that each province and territory has its own minimum wage. The lowest general minimum wage currently in force is that of Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland & Labrador (C$10.00 per hour) and the highest is that of Ontario and Nunavut (C$11.00 per hour)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_Canada

2. We need to determine if the 30 hr vs 40 hr work week is a detrimental situation. Remember, 40 hr work weeks like we do and the minimal vacation time employees get in this country is an aberration from most other countries.

Lowest minimum wage enforced by Government is $10/hr so...

$10/hr x 30hrs/week = $300/week less taxes and other miscellaneous deductions.
I don't know about you but I could not make it on $1200/Month unless some basic necessities were heavily subsided such as but not limited to ... "Health Care" .

Also the cut back work weeks are reserved for shit tier scab jobs like WalMart and McDs but for real careers in the Trades you are looking at a minimum of 40+ hrs a week usually much more and an apprentice pay rate much higher than Government enforced min wage. It would lead me to believe that the cut back work week when working for shit tier Corporations like WallyMart is indicative of WallyMarts unwillingness to pay full time benefits packages to employes.

I'll be waiting eagerly :)

Ok and also I am not sure how inflation would factor into all this but I am sure you will let me know.

At 11/12/14 11:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: 2. We need to determine if the 30 hr vs 40 hr work week is a detrimental situation. Remember, 40 hr work weeks like we do and the minimal vacation time employees get in this country is an aberration from most other countries.

40 hour work weeks are not particularly unusual actually.

At 11/12/14 07:27 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Also lest somebody misunderstand what I mean by "cost of living" I speak to basic needs, rent/mortgage, food, and utilities.

So the liberal plan is:

- Open the border to unlimited mexican immigration
- Have living wage vary with living costs incl. rent
- Immigrants drive up rent/housing prices
- Immigrants competing for jobs with americans leading to lower employment
- Higher rent leading to higher 'living wages' paid by employer leading to lower employment
- Unemployment harder due to increased living costs or:
- Welfare increased with living costs
- Immigrants drive up cost of housing and in turn the value of welfare they receive

Gee, what a brilliant idea.

To SadisticMonkey

Yes of course because there was never a time that an immigrant or their children ever contributed to this nation, like Andrew Carnegie and its not like these immigrants would even buy things with the money that they made thereby stimulating demand and the economy as a whole. No, no they're just going to throw all the money they make in a big pile and dance around it. Oh and its not like as the population increased the demand for more homes and apartments would would go up. Oh no, we would just keep everything exactly the way it is now.

At 11/13/14 03:20 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So the liberal plan is:

That has nothing to do with anything I said, and is pretty off topic besides. The blatant attempts to troll are so transparent and tiresome dude.

At 11/13/14 04:21 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'll be waiting eagerly :)

Have I been trolled ?

At 11/13/14 05:09 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Have I been trolled ?

mods don't troll people. If you think I was trolling you, then you seriously need to look up what trolling is. If this is because I didn't immediately respond to your post, that's because I had other things to do, it was late and I didn't feel like doing the research that I needed to see if my points were holding up. Going to do that in a bit.

At 11/13/14 12:05 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_Canada

Thanks for the lesson on what the minimum wage IS and how it's determined and works, etc. HOWEVER you didn't provide a source for what I actually was asking you for. I wanted you to source for me something that proved your claim that welfare recipients were making more then the minimum wage, which would give them little reason to get off it. I found this article from a Canadian source that seems to completely refute that idea.

Also the cut back work weeks are reserved for shit tier scab jobs like WalMart and McDs but for real careers in the Trades you are looking at a minimum of 40+ hrs a week usually much more and an apprentice pay rate much higher than Government enforced min wage. It would lead me to believe that the cut back work week when working for shit tier Corporations like WallyMart is indicative of WallyMarts unwillingness to pay full time benefits packages to employes.

So....considering we all know that and agree on that, doesn't that seem like a situation to you where there should be some authority which is making sure those companies stop exploiting the welfare system and other societal safety nets for their own benefit and start taking care of the worker and paying their fair share? If not, then why not?

Ok and also I am not sure how inflation would factor into all this but I am sure you will let me know.

Inflation as it relates to the cost of living. If the dollar has less power and you need to spend more to keep up with basics yet wages are not keeping up with it, we reach a situation where obviously the worker is no longer able to pay for cost of living. If you can't pay for cost of living, you wind up in a never ending trap whereby your opportunities and abilities to lift yourself out of poverty (continued education and training for a better career) slip away because you have to spend all your time just trying to keep your head above water. Even when you DO receive those benefits, the crushing debt you accumulate to do so can also cripple you if by the time you've finished the opportunity isn't there.

At 11/13/14 06:28 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: mods don't troll people...

Fair enough. That said I had no idea you are a Mod.

At 11/13/14 08:50 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Fair enough. That said I had no idea you are a Mod.

Is that sarcasm? Because I have a PM box of messages that says different. If it is, not sure what the need was for it. I wasn't trying to play the "I'm a mod therefore I'm morally better" card (because I hate that card, it's a card of lies), just pointing out that I feel like I have a position of both authority and trust on the site and I take it seriously. I'm not into breaking the rules.