At 2/15/13 12:23 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Because he's a democrat who calls himself a republican.

I reserve the following statement for incredibility special circumstances, and I do not use it lightly...

You are a troll.

At 2/15/13 12:27 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: You are a troll.

Great. Just great. You can't handle facts or opinions that bother you, so I'm a troll.

Had a beer with leanlifter lately?

At 2/15/13 12:23 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, no. See, we had the regulation. Jimmy Carter passed it. It was called the "Community Reinvestment Act". It required that everyone should get a house for cheap. Banks couldn't be "greedy" as you put it, because they had to pay fines out the ass.

Facts

No, they literally protect them by taxing the competition out of existence. Corrupt corporation like Enron, for one example, would have never gotten to the levels it did without protection from the government

the lack of action by the government*

The government isn't doing much of anything to protect consumers/employees.

Exactly.

But regulation will change that for the better.

No, I don't mean GMO's. I'm talking about bleach, pesticides, E. Coli, etc.

Lack of regulation is to blame!

Their increased wages won't mean shit if the price of the goods they purchase also rises, which they will, because companies will hve to raise prices to compensate for the extra money they have to pay out.

Regulation on price gauging can ensure prices don't skyrocket, and CEO salaries stop growing when their workers are underpaid. Companies do not have to raise prices to compensate, the owners can survive with smaller pockets. If they can't pay for an employee than they will need to figure out how to make their business work without that employee. As for that employee he will find job opportunities everywhere if the government cracks down on illegal labor use from third world countries (for starters)

And I am the reason I don't work in a labor camp. The govt doesn't help me or my employment. They don't own me. They don't protect me. I protect me.

Actually without the government, you would not have a job. There would be no such thing. They don't own you, but they own most of the land you walk on, and if you want to continue walking on their land you might want to listen to their laws. The police, firefighters, nurses and doctors are the government in essence, and I wager they do protect you like everyone else. In the grand scale of things you are absolutely helpless.

Because he's a democrat who calls himself a republican.

Obama is a centrist at the best of times, otherwise republican (this is agreed upon by everyone that isn't Fox News or an affiliate of Fox News)....and you think Mitt Romney is a democrat? ARE YOU NUTS?! In what world?

At 2/15/13 12:51 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Facts

Those aren't facts. Those are OPINIONS. Read articles about the bill itself. Can't get more factual than the bill iteself, right?

the lack of action by the government*

No, they protected Enron. Because govt officials were stockholders in Enron. Kinda like how the Chairman of the FDA was once the CEO of Tyson chicken

But regulation will change that for the better.

But we have regulation and it doesn't help anytihng. In fact, the United States is running rampant with regulation. The tax code alone is 700,000 pages! It has made things worse.

Lack of regulation is to blame!

We have regulation already. Doesn't stop anything

Regulation on price gauging can ensure prices don't skyrocket,

Or we can just avoid both, and let the market and employees decide their value. What a novel idea, allowing an employee the freedom to set the price of their labor. Wow. Employee rights. Crazy concept, yeah?

Actually without the government, you would not have a job.

I'm not a government employee. Nor have I ever been. Please explain how the government creates jobs in the private sector :)

Here's a clue, we have more govt intervention than we ever have, and unemployment is the highest it's been in decades.

Obama is a centrist at the best of times, otherwise republican (this is agreed upon by everyone that isn't Fox News or an affiliate of Fox News)....and you think Mitt Romney is a democrat? ARE YOU NUTS?! In what world?

In the world where everything he does is a policy shared by the democratic party.

We agree that Obama is a Bush clone (neo-conservative). Romney is more left than them.

At 2/15/13 12:15 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: $9 an hour is still not enough for a living wage anywhere in America. But its more then $7~. And who are you to say that $9 is more than what someone flipping burgers should make?

You know what the problem is with your pick-apart argument schemes where you quote a guy's post and then go paragraph by paragraph arguing each one? You love to make long arguments and just hear yourself talk, so you throw in something totally irrelevant over and over again, not every single paragraph can be argued, sometimes it just reinforces the previous paragraph. Just summarize the points made and debate those, Christ. Stick to the fucking topic. I don't give a damn about how it is in Canada, got that? You totally misconstrued what I meant anyways. It's not just you its practically every poster in the Political Forum, sometimes you can do that if there are many separate points, but if the point isn't relevant enough to be argued or just reiterates a previously stated point, leave it alone. Because then you're arguing his tangent with your tangent and it's just a big mess where you start with apples and get horse shoes.

Also: "Oh come on what's so hard about being a fry cook? You're just flippin' patties." *flips rock* "Tsssss"

At 2/15/13 02:00 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Those aren't facts. Those are OPINIONS. Read articles about the bill itself. Can't get more factual than the bill iteself, right?

-Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: "The CRA Was Not A Significant Factor In Subprime Lending Or The Crisis."
"Research indicates only 6% of the high cost loans - a proxy for subprime loans - had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders"

-Federal Reserve: "We Find Little Evidence That Either the CRA Or The GSE [Government-Sponsored Enterprise] goals played a significant role in the subprime crisis."

-Krugman: The CRA "Was Irrelevant To The Subprime Boom." In a June 3, 2010, post on his New York Times blog, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman pointed out.

Those are facts.

No, they protected Enron. Because govt officials were stockholders in Enron. Kinda like how the Chairman of the FDA was once the CEO of Tyson chicken

Doesn't disprove the effectiveness of regulation.

But we have regulation and it doesn't help anytihng. In fact, the United States is running rampant with regulation. The tax code alone is 700,000 pages! It has made things worse.

There are bad ideas in regulation, and there are good ones. The United States is not running rampant with regulation...see I can use opinions too. 700,000 pages?! OMFG STOP THE PRESSES! Long pieces of legislation is the price to pay when legalize is used instead of plain text.

We have regulation already. Doesn't stop anything

Sure it does....Boom, pop, pow.

Or we can just avoid both, and let the market and employees decide their value. What a novel idea, allowing an employee the freedom to set the price of their labor. Wow. Employee rights. Crazy concept, yeah?

Actually yes it is. Because the businesses as per their design and function will turn America into one big slave labor camp (whither you like it or not) and countries like China and India will see an economy boom in return. Employees get to choose until choices no longer exist. Remove regulation and choices will disappear.

I'm not a government employee. Nor have I ever been. Please explain how the government creates jobs in the private sector :)

How does it not?

The government provides education, as the private sector largely requires educated workers. The government helps in sustaining the economy, so that the private may prosper of consumerism in the country. The government provides the land, the environment, the means to which the private sector can build upon and create jobs.

Here's a clue, we have more govt intervention than we ever have, and unemployment is the highest it's been in decades.

Odd, government intervention is having a pretty good effect as of recent.

What evidence do you have that mass regulation has been killing jobs? Because as my link shows, it doesn't. Deregulation during Bush's last years setup the 2008 crash, and you'll have a tough time finding an economist that disagrees.

In the world where everything he does is a policy shared by the democratic party.

False.

We agree that Obama is a Bush clone (neo-conservative). Romney is more left than them.

Obama was done most of Bush's policies but not all, and has added his few more liberal policies such as healthcare. Romney would be slurping up the corporate cum right about now if he had won the election.

At 2/15/13 02:10 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Also: "Oh come on what's so hard about being a fry cook? You're just flippin' patties." *flips rock* "Tsssss"

Would you as an employer like an employee that is happy and possibly capable of buying your product?

Or would you like to go through hundreds of applicants until you find a person willing to tolerate the low wage for the remedial work, and will be unable to purchase your product, create a depressing environment (effecting sales), and who will ultimately drive your business into the ground?

Me thinks you would like a spongebob, and not a squidward.

At 2/15/13 02:40 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: -Federal Reserve: "We Find Little Evidence That Either the CRA Or The GSE [Government-Sponsored Enterprise] goals played a significant role in the subprime crisis."

-Krugman: The CRA "Was Irrelevant To The Subprime Boom." In a June 3, 2010, post on his New York Times blog, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman pointed out.

Those are facts.

KRUGMAN AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE ARE YOUR SOURCES?!?! Jesus fucking Christ, no wonder you have such a fucked up outlook.

Doesn't disprove the effectiveness of regulation.

You don't think so. We have massive amounts of regulation and it doesn't help anything, and has actually made tihngs worse. Isn't that the very definition if it not being effective?

There are bad ideas in regulation, and there are good ones. The United States is not running rampant with regulation...see I can use opinions too. 700,000 pages?! OMFG STOP THE PRESSES! Long pieces of legislation is the price to pay when legalize is used instead of plain text.

The US tax code, in it's modern form, was originally 10,000 pages in the 30s. The US is running rampant with regulation. The government controls how much your labor is worth, how much your house is worth, what you can buy, what you can eat, how much your employer is allowed to make, how much YOu are allowed to make, what kind of car you drive, even who you can marry for fuck's sake. There is NOTHING good about the current form of US government.

Sure it does....Boom, pop, pow.

You haven't looked at the US' debt, unemployment, commodity prices or world economics, have you?

Actually yes it is. Because the businesses as per their design and function will turn America into one big slave labor camp (whither you like it or not) and countries like China and India will see an economy boom in return. Employees get to choose until choices no longer exist. Remove regulation and choices will disappear.

How and why would they turn it into a "slave camp"? What is the chain of events that would cause (or allow) this to happen?

How does it not?

Because, it's PRIVATE SECTOR. Meaning, not government. You're asking why pink isn't blue.

The government provides education, as the private sector largely requires educated workers. The government helps in sustaining the economy, so that the private may prosper of consumerism in the country. The government provides the land, the environment, the means to which the private sector can build upon and create jobs.

The government provides BASIC education. Actual skill based education like colleges or trade schools, are private enterprises. The government does not provide land (I bought mine)

Odd, government intervention is having a pretty good effect as of recent.

Yeah, 15% of the country's population is unemployed. That's "good"

What evidence do you have that mass regulation has been killing jobs? Because as my link shows, it doesn't. Deregulation during Bush's last years setup the 2008 crash, and you'll have a tough time finding an economist that disagrees.

Bush didn't deregulate a fucking thing, and anyone who thinks he did is an idiot. He spent his entire presidency creating regulation that benefitted corporate interests, just like Obama does. And THAT is my proof that regulation kills jobs. The great depression is a nother fine example

False.

Universal heath care, pro choice, encouraged high-risk loans and banking, wanted to close "corporate loopholes", pro gay rights, opposed Bush tax cuts, supports tax/cap program, believes in man made global warming, and supports green energy. Sounds like a Democrat to me.

Obama was done most of Bush's policies but not all, and has added his few more liberal policies such as healthcare. Romney would be slurping up the corporate cum right about now if he had won the election.

Psst: The republicans invented public healthcare in the 1980s. Also, Obama has sucked more corporate cock than any president ever. Ever.

Bringing the thread back on track.

F
R
E
E
D
O
M
!

At 2/14/13 03:38 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/14/13 03:22 PM, Poniiboi wrote: You base your politics off of partisan talking points.

Partisan in the sense of the American people vs. tyrannical govt. Yes.

Please, dude, once there's EVIDENCE that Obamacare drives up the cost of healthcare, POST IT. Otherwise quit parroting Hannity.

Liberal Forbes magazine agrees

These aren't hard numbers; these are predictions. However, I'm much more likely to believe Forbes magazine. We'll see, but the jury's still out here.

How about you fuck yourself before you call me a Fox News viewer, you piece of human shit.

I had a threesome with your mom on Valentine's Day on top of your high school yearbook picture.

Third, how in the FREAK does raising the minimum wage hurt the middle class, goof? People are going outside the country anyway! You don't HAVE to hire in the States!

I AM a small business owner, and I use virtual administration like a motherfucker. That's right, outsourcing to India. Minimum wage raise only helps me. Also, if I was hiring in the states, I'd do it the purely independent contractor 1099 way, so this is really not an issue.

At 2/15/13 03:13 AM, LemonCrush wrote: KRUGMAN AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE ARE YOUR SOURCES?!?! Jesus fucking Christ, no wonder you have such a fucked up outlook.

You're going to blanket the facts with your wee little opinion? How many sources must I list, how many economic experts must I quote. Your CRA argument simply doesn't stand.

You don't think so. We have massive amounts of regulation and it doesn't help anything, and has actually made tihngs worse. Isn't that the very definition if it not being effective?

There is a thing such as bad regulation, but ultimately no regulation is much worse. Its like a guard rail, if it isn't well grounded the amount it can protect is limited, but remove that guard rail and you have no protection.

The US tax code [...]

Times change. The government only controls how much basic labor is worth (via minimum wage), the market decides how much a house is worth, there are no limits on how much anyone can make. As long as a car can pass the tests, it can be driven on public roads. If you do not like current laws related to marriage, drugs, or whatever than you must protest and vote accordingly.

You haven't looked at the US' debt, unemployment, commodity prices or world economics, have you?

US debt is as large as it is due to a couple wars, massive defense spending, among other things except regulations. After spending sometime reading research into regulation and employment there isn't a noticeable negative effect on employment due to regulation. Matter of fact I found the opposite. Don't get me wrong, the lack of regulation in China has resulted in more jobs than there are people in America, but of course those jobs violate human rights most of the time and are of incredibly low pay.

How and why would they turn it into a "slave camp"? What is the chain of events that would cause (or allow) this to happen?

Without that minimum wage, without such regulations. Why would a business, especially an international company, pay you so much as $5? When countries like China and India are exploding in imports and expected to take over in consumerism, why would the industries not make the switch to providing products in Asia while building them in America?! From a capitalist point of view it would be a terrible investment to stick to American consumerism!

Because, it's PRIVATE SECTOR. Meaning, not government. You're asking why pink isn't blue.

The private sector is dependent on the government. Just like the economy is dependent on the environment. I provided links with each of those words, and showed exactly how the government creates jobs in the private sector.

The government provides BASIC education. Actual skill based education like colleges or trade schools, are private enterprises. The government does not provide land (I bought mine)

I think you are greatly underestimating the importance of primary education. You also seem to miss the billions in subsidies the government puts towards post-secondary education which you claim are private enterprises. The government, in the name of the people, owns the land of the entire country. Which they further sell to the private sector in which sells it to consumers.

Yeah, 15% of the country's population is unemployed. That's "good"

Actually its 41%. But of course not everyone wants work, or needs work and many are retired (10 million will retire within the decade). This isn't a poor reflection on regulation, this is a reflection on the crash in 2008, the greed of corporations, and in many ways the lack of regulation.

Bush didn't deregulate a fucking thing, and anyone who thinks he did is an idiot. He spent his entire presidency creating regulation that benefitted corporate interests, just like Obama does. And THAT is my proof that regulation kills jobs. The great depression is a nother fine example

Really? You sure? Want to check again?

Universal heath care, pro choice, encouraged high-risk loans and banking, wanted to close "corporate loopholes", pro gay rights, opposed Bush tax cuts, supports tax/cap program, believes in man made global warming, and supports green energy. Sounds like a Democrat to me.

Not everything Obama does is shared by the Democratic party, and vise versa. Obama is somewhat socially liberal, but very much fiscally conservative....painfully so. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats don't tend to read the same script as their leaders and role models.

Psst: The republicans invented public healthcare in the 1980s. Also, Obama has sucked more corporate cock than any president ever. Ever.

Actually Germany invented Universal Healthcare. Abraham Lincoln stopped slavery, and he was a Republican...who wouldn't have a chance in the current Republican party of today.

Which contributors would you agree with more? Obama's or Mitt Romney's?

Who do you think has provided more money to defense companies? Bush, the guy who started two wars...or Obama the guy who is looking to end them?!

At 2/15/13 10:06 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: You're going to blanket the facts with your wee little opinion? How many sources must I list, how many economic experts must I quote. Your CRA argument simply doesn't stand.

Economic experts? These are people who think that watering down the money supply, and creating debt is good for the economy.

There is a thing such as bad regulation, but ultimately no regulation is much worse. Its like a guard rail, if it isn't well grounded the amount it can protect is limited, but remove that guard rail and you have no protection.

Except very little of the regulation of legislation in today's government is a "guard rail". Instead, it's guard rails for those who can afford it. The Obamas, the Romney's, the Bush's of the world. THAT'S who the guard rail is for, not me.

Times change. The government only controls how much basic labor is worth (via minimum wage), the market decides how much a house is worth, there are no limits on how much anyone can make. As long as a car can pass the tests, it can be driven on public roads. If you do not like current laws related to marriage, drugs, or whatever than you must protest and vote accordingly.

The government should not dictate how much I can ask for for a job.
The market does not dictate house prices (that was controlled by things like the CRA)
There are limits on how much you can make. If you make "too much" the government steals more from you
The government clearly favors alternative fueled cars and demonizes petroleum and fossil fuels.
As for laws related to marriage, etc, I don't think basic human rights should be subject to a vote. I'm not the kind of person who believes that the government gives rights. I believe all humans are born with equal rights :)

US debt is as large as it is due to a couple wars, massive defense spending, among other things except regulations. After spending sometime reading research into regulation and employment there isn't a noticeable negative effect on employment due to regulation. Matter of fact I found the opposite. Don't get me wrong, the lack of regulation in China has resulted in more jobs than there are people in America, but of course those jobs violate human rights most of the time and are of incredibly low pay.

I don't agree with war or deficit spending either. I believe that the government, should live with in it's means, just like any corporation or person in America. BTW, China's industry is extremely regulated by the government.

Without that minimum wage, without such regulations. Why would a business, especially an international company, pay you so much as $5?

Because they want to make money. Paying low wages, means employees leave. Employees leaving means you lose money. Get it? You ever owned a business? Do you even know anyone who's owned a business?

Real companies have every incentive to pay well, because a well paid employee is one of the most valuable assets a company can have.

Unless of course, you lobby government to eliminate competition, so you can treat employees like shit, and get away with it.

The private sector is dependent on the government.

No, they don't. No job I have EVER had, is dependent on the government. An IHOP is not dependent on the government. A car mechanic is not reliant on the government. A shoe salesman, is not dependent on the government. Bill Gates, is not dependent on government. Get your "you didn't build that" shit out of here.

I think you are greatly underestimating the importance of primary education. You also seem to miss the billions in subsidies the government puts towards post-secondary education which you claim are private enterprises. The government, in the name of the people, owns the land of the entire country. Which they further sell to the private sector in which sells it to consumers.

No, I understand the importance of primary education, and I have no problem with taxpayer dollars paying for it, because it actually benefits the "general welfare" of the country.

And you have a horrible misunderstanding of land ownership.

Actually its 41%. But of course not everyone wants work, or needs work and many are retired (10 million will retire within the decade). This isn't a poor reflection on regulation, this is a reflection on the crash in 2008, the greed of corporations, and in many ways the lack of regulation.

There was not, nor has there ever been a "lack of regulation" in the United States. Where are you getting this idea that the US was ever deregualted?

Really? You sure? Want to check again?

I am absolutely, positive. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was a massive piece of financial sector regulation. The Republicans have ALWAYS been for regulation, since day one when Lincoln regulated the banking and train industries. Need to stop drinking that Democrat Kool-Aid, because it ain't true in the least. It's a myth that Democrats create to try to make themselves seem different and better than republicans.

Hell, the Huffington post says Bush actually SURPASSES Obama in regulation

Not everything Obama does is shared by the Democratic party, and vise versa. Obama is somewhat socially liberal, but very much fiscally conservative....painfully so. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats don't tend to read the same script as their leaders and role models.

That's great and all, but I was describing Mitt Romney

Actually Germany invented Universal Healthcare. Abraham Lincoln stopped slavery, and he was a Republican...who wouldn't have a chance in the current Republican party of today.

Germany is not America.

Lincoln did not free the slaves.

Which contributors would you agree with more? Obama's or Mitt Romney's?

Contributors to what?

Who do you think has provided more money to defense companies? Bush, the guy who started two wars...or Obama the guy who is looking to end them?!

Obama is looking to end wars? Better tell that to the 10,000 troops he sent to Afghanistan in his first year. And the increased drones strikes n Pakistan. Or the wars he started in Yemen and Somalia.

At 2/15/13 09:21 AM, Poniiboi wrote: These aren't hard numbers; these are predictions. However, I'm much more likely to believe Forbes magazine. We'll see, but the jury's still out here.

It's COMMON SENSE.

I had a threesome with your mom on Valentine's Day on top of your high school yearbook picture.

Gross.....? lol

I am reminded of someone saying that although back in the old days, minimum wage was low because of inflation, we were actually paid more in those times with inflation adjusted. From the last I heard, minimum wage was $8, so wouldn't this be an improvement?

At 2/15/13 02:49 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

At 2/15/13 02:10 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Also: "Oh come on what's so hard about being a fry cook? You're just flippin' patties." *flips rock* "Tsssss"

Would you as an employer like an employee that is happy and possibly capable of buying your product?

If my product was cheap any employee would be able to afford it at minimum wage. fast food joints are meant to be that. Assuming i hire some guy in high school who will work 20 hours a week he'd be making roughly $500 a month after taxes making minimum wage, which is more than enough to buy my product. If i was forced to pay $9 an hour instead of $7.25 i'd have to do one of two things, raise prices to cover what i lost in overhead if i did that i'd be able to hire a high schooler looking for their first job but since my prices are higher the raise in minimum wage would be useless since they'd be no better off, or keep my prices the same and hire someone who i know can give the level of productivity needed to make a profit off his hard work, a teenager looking for his first job won't give me that.

At 2/16/13 11:25 AM, Ericho wrote: I am reminded of someone saying that although back in the old days, minimum wage was low because of inflation, we were actually paid more in those times with inflation adjusted. From the last I heard, minimum wage was $8, so wouldn't this be an improvement?

Nope. National minimum wage is still $7.25, but what's funny is that if we had allowed minimum wage to inflate naturally, along with other prices it would be closer from anywhere between $9.22 and $21.72 per hour. So actually Obama's $9.00 is still below the market value of labor. Riddle me this then: why are you against minimum wage increase when even the market value of labor is higher?

At 2/16/13 12:32 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Nope. National minimum wage is still $7.25, but what's funny is that if we had allowed minimum wage to inflate naturally...

This. The govt likes to lowball people

Poor people lol.

At 2/16/13 01:46 PM, LemonCrush wrote: This. The govt likes to lowball people

You do realize that would make inflation even worse right? In fact it'll probably spiral out of control. Producers find out it costs more to produce causing them to raise prices thereby raising inflation, which would then raise the minimum wage.........

At 2/16/13 03:10 PM, Warforger wrote: You do realize that would make inflation even worse right? In fact it'll probably spiral out of control. Producers find out it costs more to produce causing them to raise prices thereby raising inflation, which would then raise the minimum wage.........

So?

At 2/15/13 11:58 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/15/13 09:21 AM, Poniiboi wrote: These aren't hard numbers; these are predictions. However, I'm much more likely to believe Forbes magazine. We'll see, but the jury's still out here.

It's COMMON SENSE.

I had a threesome with your mom on Valentine's Day on top of your high school yearbook picture.

Gross.....? lol

Euclidean geometry is COMMON SENSE until you move away from the earth and find out it DOESN'T WORK.
Playing dead when you see a bear is COMMON SENSE until he bites your face off to see if you taste good.
Porking your mom was COMMON SENSE until she showed me those fucked up test results.

Like I said, jury's still out, princess.

At 2/16/13 03:16 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So?

So you basically want self-inflating inflation?

At 2/16/13 03:48 PM, Poniiboi wrote: Like I said, jury's still out, princess.

Try again sweetie, you're not making too much sense :)

At 2/16/13 04:16 PM, Warforger wrote: So you basically want self-inflating inflation?

Inflation is a natural part of the economy. It becomes an issue when the government forces and/or encourages it, instead of letting it happen in a natural way.

At 2/16/13 04:52 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Inflation is a natural part of the economy. It becomes an issue when the government forces and/or encourages it, instead of letting it happen in a natural way.

So let me get this straight. You think government forcing/encouraging inflation is bad, but you want the minimum wage to keep up with inflation? You do realize that doing that will make inflation grow even more right? Unless there's some sort of economic disaster or it becomes cheaper in other area's to produce then inflation will skyrocket quickly if you pegged the minimum wage to inflation.

This is mind boggling since at the beginning you were condemning Obama for this.......

On a side note I remember the older loony Libertarian Sadistic Monkey saying the same thing, raise the minimum wage. Unfortunately he's not here to contradict himself because he's turned into a racist but whatever.

At 2/16/13 04:51 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/16/13 03:48 PM, Poniiboi wrote: Like I said, jury's still out, princess.

Try again sweetie, you're not making too much sense :)

Oh baby, I don't have time to explain things, darling. Lover, I'm doing productive work.

At 2/16/13 05:41 PM, Warforger wrote: So let me get this straight. You think government forcing/encouraging inflation is bad, but you want the minimum wage to keep up with inflation? You do realize that doing that will make inflation grow even more right? Unless there's some sort of economic disaster or it becomes cheaper in other area's to produce then inflation will skyrocket quickly if you pegged the minimum wage to inflation.

You really have no concept of how economy works do you? Ok, slowly:

Natural, normal paced inflation = fine
Govt forced, accelerated inflation = bad

Is that hard to grasp?

This is mind boggling since at the beginning you were condemning Obama for this.......

Yes, well, he is the one proposing the price fixing...I mean wage increase

On a side note I remember the older loony Libertarian Sadistic Monkey saying the same thing, raise the minimum wage. Unfortunately he's not here to contradict himself because he's turned into a racist but whatever.

Than Libertarian Sadistic Monkey is not a libertarian, as libertarianism proposes that price fixing on anything (labor included) is a bad thing.

At 2/16/13 06:40 PM, LemonCrush wrote: You really have no concept of how economy works do you? Ok, slowly:

Is that hard to grasp?

Well it's stupid bullshit that doesn't apply to the real world (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?

Than Libertarian Sadistic Monkey is not a libertarian, as libertarianism proposes that price fixing on anything (labor included) is a bad thing.

You're not a Libertarian.

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

At 2/16/13 10:16 PM, LemonCrush wrote: fucked up text

Well, I'm pretty damn libertarian.

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

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