Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Robbing from Peter to give to Paul" is the fallacy that plagues modern economic policy. The roll of the government is not to do such thing. Government is there to make the markets most "fair" so that everyone gets an equal opportunity. Usually that involves higher taxes on the upper incomes to subsidize the lower incomes (adequate redistribution of resources).
Yes, the government currently is subsidizing the upper income classes. As long as Republicrats exist (Republicans and Wealthy Democrats) in Congress, this will be the case.
Since when? The job of the government is, and should be, to protect our borders and the common interest of the people. Destroying the free market is NOT in the interest of the people.
Seattle Councilwoman Kshama Sawant, who is pushing for (and will likely get) a $15/hr minimum, has said in interviews that she would prefer something in the range of $20 or more, but that $15 is an achievable starting point for now.
She has an econ PhD from NC State. I don't know how you could get a PhD from an American university w/out knowing the basics of supply and demand curves, and the consequences of price controls, which is what the minimum wage is.
If we can help people by fiat price controls, which cost virtually nothing to enact, why not extend this to other realms besides wage rates? Why not declare a maximum house price of, say $50,000? Max apartment rental of $250?
Why not a max interest rate of 1%? Why not a max cost of a college education at $10,000? Let's see the fatal conceit in full flower. But maybe we already have--it's called the old USSR.....
??? Most conservatives have absolutely no problem with supply controls in housing. Stupidity reigns across the political spectrum.
"Robbing from Peter to give to Paul" is the fallacy that plagues modern economic policy. The roll of the government is not to do such thing. Government is there to make the markets most "fair" so that everyone gets an equal opportunity. Usually that involves higher taxes on the upper incomes to subsidize the lower incomes (adequate redistribution of resources).
Yes, the government currently is subsidizing the upper income classes. As long as Republicrats exist (Republicans and Wealthy Democrats) in Congress, this will be the case.
The dems talk a good game about hating and dispising the top 1%, but then out of the other side of their mouth they give away billions of taxpayer dollars to their top 1% political and corporate cronies.
I had a really good friend from Germany who was a manager of a grocery chain store, she made about 65k US and never had money to spend because everything costed a fortune.
Having the guy who pumps your gas make 45k/year sounds good in theory until it costs you $95.00 to have an oil change done.
Why not answer the question. The libs have long claimed raising the MW helps the economy why not raise it to 10,00o an hour
because your argument has no relationship to reality.
But let me answer it. A man is dying of thirst. Do you A: spit on him so he has fluid. B: Give him a glass of water, or C: drown him in a pool.
Your suggestion is C.
Now to the topic, she is right....and wrong. $26 would be equivalent to paying minimum wage in 1970 if the minimum wage had followed inflation and productivity. The time to think about doing it like that is past.
Why not answer the question. The libs have long claimed raising the MW helps the economy why not raise it to 10,00o an hour
Stingy capitalist pig.
$100,000,000/hour is "fair" because I read somewhere thats what the Koch brothers spend on hunting poor minority cripples from their private helicopters per day.
Since when? The job of the government is, and should be, to protect our borders and the common interest of the people. Destroying the free market is NOT in the interest of the people.
The common interest of the people is making sure we all have an equal opportunity to achieve or goals and the basic necessities of life.
Free market? Ha!! Republicans never cared about the free market, right Tesla?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
The dems talk a good game about hating and dispising the top 1%, but then out of the other side of their mouth they give away billions of taxpayer dollars to their top 1% political and corporate cronies.
Democrats don't put wind to the sails of inequality like Republicans do. They are simply the lesser of two evils currently.
Safety nets are required in a developed society. .
How did you decide that? Did it just come to you in a dream?
And BTW, safety nets don't have to be provided by government. That's what charities, families and friends are for.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
