One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Serenity54321
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 71 next>>
May 29, 2015 13:33:09   #
Homestead wrote:
Stop talking like someone that doesn't know what he's talking about.
Do some studying on basic economics.
__________________________________________________________

Milton Friedman - Myths That Conceal Reality (Lecture)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNtKk2EmI-o

Milton Friedman - Whats wrong with welfare?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_q_Y0U1QcI

Milton Friedman - Is Capitalism Humane? (Lecture)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHPI1emZFVg

More Academic Evidence that Bigger Government Means Less Prosperity http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2013/10/12/more-academic-evidence-that-bigger-government-means-less-prosperity-n1721976/page/full

Income Politics: T***h about income ine******y
http://conservative50plus.com/blog/income-politics-t***h-about-income-ine******y/?utm_source=Conservative+50+Plus&utm_campaign=20d826dcf8-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_be457ca6cc-20d826dcf8-3154109

Walter Williams: Subsidized Labor Is Not The Solution
http://conservative50plus.com/blog/video-walter-williams-subsidized-labor-is-not-the-solution/

Milton Friedman - A Conversation On Minimum Wage
http://us.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=aztec&hsimp=yhs-default&type=nt_116_569&p=Milton+Friedman+on+Minimum+Wage&rnd=463597753¶m1=sid%3D569%3Aaid%3D116%3Aver%3D0%3Atm%3D-1%3Asrc%3Dnt%3Alng%3Den%3Aitype%3Dn%3Auip%3D1203246897

Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage
http://us.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=aztec&hsimp=yhs-default&type=nt_116_569&p=milton+friedman+on+the+minimum+wage&rnd=474016200¶m1=sid%3D569%3Aaid%3D116%3Aver%3D0%3Atm%3D-1%3Asrc%3Dnt%3Alng%3Den%3Aitype%3Dn%3Auip%3D1203246897

Professor Milton Friedman - rich people, poverty and the minimum wage
http://us.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=aztec&hsimp=yhs-default&type=nt_116_569&p=Milton+Friedman+on+Minimum+Wage&rnd=1862906066¶m1=sid%3D569%3Aaid%3D116%3Aver%3D0%3Atm%3D-1%3Asrc%3Dnt%3Alng%3Den%3Aitype%3Dn%3Auip%3D1203246897

Thomas Sowell: Higher minimum wage bad for economy
http://www.elkhartt***h.com/discussions/columnists/2015/03/20/Thomas-Sowell-Higher-minimum-wage-bad-for-economy.html

Facing Minimum-Wage T***h
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/369072/facing-minimum-wage-t***h-thomas-sowell

Minimum Wage Escalation – The Amateur Economist
http://www.amatecon.com/etext/mwe/mwe.html

Milton Friedman on the Problem with Subsidies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sczBt9dA2Fw
Stop talking like someone that doesn't know what h... (show quote)


#########
I also stated raising the minimum wage would not help. Corporations would only hire 1 employee and make them do the job of 3.

Requiring companies to contribute funding to their employees government subsidies, however, would "tax" them for their low pay rate. Voluntarily raising their wages would then provide them with a voluntary tax "break". Powerful motivation for any corporation.

But that's just an idea. Wrong or right, social subsidies suppress wages.
Go to
May 29, 2015 13:00:40   #
############
My information comes from the last US Census and the latest (2014) IRS reports. 80% of American families on government subsidies are employed.

I am not talking about creating new subsidies. I'm talking about corporations paying for part of the government subsidies their employees qualify for.

Government subsidies repress wages by allowing low-wage employees to "scrape by" on $10.00 an hour. Take the subsidies away and they could no longer survive and thus would quit working for chump change.

Again, corporations know very well the government feeds their employees so they don't have to. That is why wages have been stagnant for years.
Go to
May 29, 2015 12:55:24   #
Homestead wrote:
Stop talking like someone that doesn't know what he's talking about.
Do some studying on basic economics.
__________________________________________________________

Milton Friedman - Myths That Conceal Reality (Lecture)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNtKk2EmI-o

Milton Friedman - Whats wrong with welfare?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_q_Y0U1QcI

Milton Friedman - Is Capitalism Humane? (Lecture)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHPI1emZFVg

More Academic Evidence that Bigger Government Means Less Prosperity http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2013/10/12/more-academic-evidence-that-bigger-government-means-less-prosperity-n1721976/page/full

Income Politics: T***h about income ine******y
http://conservative50plus.com/blog/income-politics-t***h-about-income-ine******y/?utm_source=Conservative+50+Plus&utm_campaign=20d826dcf8-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_be457ca6cc-20d826dcf8-3154109

Walter Williams: Subsidized Labor Is Not The Solution
http://conservative50plus.com/blog/video-walter-williams-subsidized-labor-is-not-the-solution/

Milton Friedman - A Conversation On Minimum Wage
http://us.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=aztec&hsimp=yhs-default&type=nt_116_569&p=Milton+Friedman+on+Minimum+Wage&rnd=463597753¶m1=sid%3D569%3Aaid%3D116%3Aver%3D0%3Atm%3D-1%3Asrc%3Dnt%3Alng%3Den%3Aitype%3Dn%3Auip%3D1203246897

Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage
http://us.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=aztec&hsimp=yhs-default&type=nt_116_569&p=milton+friedman+on+the+minimum+wage&rnd=474016200¶m1=sid%3D569%3Aaid%3D116%3Aver%3D0%3Atm%3D-1%3Asrc%3Dnt%3Alng%3Den%3Aitype%3Dn%3Auip%3D1203246897

Professor Milton Friedman - rich people, poverty and the minimum wage
http://us.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=aztec&hsimp=yhs-default&type=nt_116_569&p=Milton+Friedman+on+Minimum+Wage&rnd=1862906066¶m1=sid%3D569%3Aaid%3D116%3Aver%3D0%3Atm%3D-1%3Asrc%3Dnt%3Alng%3Den%3Aitype%3Dn%3Auip%3D1203246897

Thomas Sowell: Higher minimum wage bad for economy
http://www.elkhartt***h.com/discussions/columnists/2015/03/20/Thomas-Sowell-Higher-minimum-wage-bad-for-economy.html

Facing Minimum-Wage T***h
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/369072/facing-minimum-wage-t***h-thomas-sowell

Minimum Wage Escalation – The Amateur Economist
http://www.amatecon.com/etext/mwe/mwe.html

Milton Friedman on the Problem with Subsidies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sczBt9dA2Fw
Stop talking like someone that doesn't know what h... (show quote)
Go to
May 29, 2015 07:03:29   #
AuntiE wrote:
http://reason.com/archives/2015/05/28/the-costs-of-a-15-minimum-wage

The Costs of a $15 Minimum Wage

In the 1970s, when oil prices jumped, most liberals embraced a simple solution: price controls. It should be illegal, they thought, to sell oil or gasoline for more than a certain amount. Americans should be able to drive without being fleeced by oil companies and foreign governments.

The impulse was understandable. Gasoline is an essential commodity for most people. When the cost rises, it imposes a heavy burden on consumers, most of whom have few t***sportation options.

In 1971, in an attempt to tame inflation, Republican President Richard Nixon imposed controls on almost all prices. By 1974, he had lifted most of them. But those on gas remained. Under Democratic President Jimmy Carter, they led to widespread shortages and long lines at service stations—and didn't keep prices from rising. But the controls lasted until his successor, Ronald Reagan, lifted them in 1981.

Liberals learned an unforgettable lesson: Price controls on gasoline don't work. In recent decades, when gas prices have soared, Democrats have shown no desire to repeat the lesson.

But they embrace a similar approach for another problem: low pay for many workers. Chicago decided last year to boost the minimum wage to $13 an hour by the middle of 2019. Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles have gone even higher, raising the floor to $15 an hour in the next few years, and other cities may follow suit. It's a price control on labor.

Their intentions are good. Full-time employment at the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour provides an income of just $14,500 a year. For an adult supporting one child, that's well below the poverty line of $15,930.

The problem is that a higher legal minimum wage is at odds with the prevailing supply of and demand for labor. If you set the minimum too high, you will get a shortage of jobs. Forbidding employers from paying $9 or $12 an hour means that many of their workers won't get $13 or $15 an hour. They will get zero per hour, because those jobs will disappear.

Some businesses will reduce staffing or hours. Some will scrub expansions they had planned. Some will install machines to handle tasks previously assigned to humans. Some will shut down.

Not all employers will take steps that will curb employment, but many will. Raising the minimum wage collides with one of the basic laws of economics: the higher the cost of something the lower the demand. In the employment realm, the effects may not be immediate, but they are inexorable.

An editorial in The New York Times wished away unwanted responses. It promised that the change will yield "savings from lower labor turnover and higher labor productivity." Higher pay can "be offset by modestly higher prices" and by "paying executives and shareholders less."

But if giving raises paid for itself, companies wouldn't need to be forced to do it. Raising prices means fewer customers will buy what these companies are selling, which reduces the number of employees they need. Executives and shareholders who get paid less can turn to companies that can pay more because they don't rely on low-wage labor.

Some of these consequences have already occurred in Seattle. One pizzeria owner, employing 12 people, told NPR her choice was to go back to working 60 to 80 hours a week or close. She's closing.

"Even Seattle's best-known chef, Tom Douglas, says he may have to close some of his 15 restaurants," it reported. If a famous restaurateur can't make it work, how will obscure ones fare?

Restaurants have other options besides shutting down. They can automate orders with modern technology. They can require diners to pick up their food at a counter instead of having it brought to them. They can use disposable plates and utensils. And if you worry about robots taking your job...

All of these changes reduce the need for employees. Maybe the higher pay to the workers who have jobs will make up, by some calculus, for the unemployment visited on the others. Maybe not. Either way, there's no escaping the tradeoff.

Back in the 1970s, people imagined that stations would supply plenty of gas even if we restrict what they could charge. Today, they imagine businesses will supply plenty of jobs even if we dictate what they must pay. But the laws of economics are not so easy to repeal.
http://reason.com/archives/2015/05/28/the-costs-of... (show quote)


###########
80% of families on social programs are employed. They are employed at retail stores and fast food joints, who are notorious for employing low-wage workers. Thus, the Republicans are wrong for claiming families on social programs are fat and lazy. At the same time, Democrats are wrong for claiming their tax dollars are going to help the poor. In reality, their tax dollars are going to feed huge retail conglomerates who relay the message "the government feeds our employees, so we don't have to."

Raising the minimum wage would not solve that fundamental problem. It wouldn't because a full-time worker with a wife and child making $15 an hour would still qualify for some social programs.

The problem is not wages. The problem is the abuse of the system. The problem is that an education does not help you. Have you read the want ads lately? They are advertising $13.00 an hour to someone with a bachelors degree. No joke. A college grad still qualifies for welfare.

What we need is for corporations and retailers who need to pay "low wages" to "keep afloat" be required to pay for part of the social programs their employees take advantage of. Low and behold, they will pay wages over the poverty line every year. Guaranteed.
Go to
May 20, 2015 03:47:33   #
permafrost wrote:
This qestion has been tossed out several times on OPP. I think this is a pretty good answer. even without the photos which I can not get to post... You have probley all seen them. Agroup of fools and thugs. But they can set around and smok, use phones and grab a snack...

Maybe this is also what a right wing m*****a dreams of being...

n Waco, Texas, when one of the deadliest, bloodiest, most violent rampages in modern America happened, the National Guard wasn't called in, the perpetrators weren't beaten or pepper-sprayed, nobody was hogtied or humiliated, the dogs weren't brought out to intimidate anyone. Hell, they didn't even handcuff them or take their phones away. Instead, they just sat them down on the sidewalk peacefully.

Time after time, all around the country, protestors—particularly African-American protestors—have been brutalized by police. That's why, in part, it is so disturbing to see men, apparently all white men, who actually murdered and maimed others, treated with so much dignity and deference.

Americans don't really despise violence, even murder. That's why the Sons of Anarchy, a popular (and extremely violent) television show covering motorcycle gangs, exploded in popularity and why this bloodbath in Waco is being called "the real life Sons of Anarchy" all over the world.

Notice, though, how few images of dead bodies in Waco are being shown in the media. Notice the lack of dialogue about bad parenting or absentee fathers. Notice how the men aren't really being called thugs—even though everything about them fits this definition.

It's a race thing and if you don't see it, you're either blind or lying.
This qestion has been tossed out several times on ... (show quote)


##########
Actually, I have been hearing on the news today that nearly half the men who died were shot by the police. Also, all the men who were arrested were charged with first degree murder. Now, how are they going to make THAT stick?

I did find it very interesting, however, that initially the men were also charged with "organized crime." Now, it would be a valid point to ask the simple question of why are white men charged with "organized crime", but b****s are charged with " gang activity". Why the difference in terms? That made no sense to me.

Caucasions in general tend to take a much more "direct" approach in their anger, they are not quite so disorganized as our black brothers. But the long and the short of it is any human being can turn ugly when pushed.

Its the same lyrics to a different drumbeat. Country music says the same thing as rap. The only difference is the style.
Go to
Mar 27, 2015 13:59:39   #
3jack wrote:
Who gives a rats ass about the middle east except you, the rest of the war mongering tea party i***ts, and Netanyahu, we live in America. Bush is still at fault for most of the economic ills this country is trying to recover from. Eleven million people receiving life saving health care that they didn't have before, and you're b***hing about not being able to keep your doctor...grow up i***t.


###########
So you love Mexicans but h**e Arabs and Jews?
Go to
Mar 15, 2015 17:29:23   #
alex wrote:
trying to get another housing bubble going like with fannie mae and freddy mac


############
The bubbles we have now are student loans and poor credit auto loans. Every real estate agent I know says houses are selling to the rich for cash - they are not dealing with a whole lot of mortgage loans right now.

Seems to me all this free cash from the Fed failed to "trickle down" to Joe Plumber. That's what Keynesian economics is - the liberal version of trickle down. Obviously it doesn't work either.
Go to
Mar 15, 2015 17:17:18   #
marty9957 wrote:
I've had a conversation going with a fellow sodahead.com member going on two days now. He has been convinced of the robust recovery based on the information the propaganda machine has made available to date.

It doesn't matter the type, content or source of the information I provide, he still remains convinced that I and people like me are doing it because of who is in the White House.

He will not admit that $85 billion dollars printed on a monthly basis by the FED and injected into the economy will give this false picture of the true economy. That infusion of capitol is making a lot of people richer (banks) and creating a false sense of a good economy.
I've had a conversation going with a fellow sodahe... (show quote)


##########
The money has not been injected into the economy. It has been injected into banks at 0% interest in the belief that would encourage banks to issue loans to consumers.

Instead, the banks have used the free money to engage in high-stakes derivitave gambling to make themselves richer - meanwhile, the banks themselvrs are still insolvent.
Go to
Mar 11, 2015 09:05:14   #
straightUp wrote:
Only a scientific debate can be resolved through an explanation and the scientific debate on evolution ended a long time ago in the absence of any scientific challenge to the explanation Darwin offered for our physical state. The only "argument" left is a religious argument which requires no explanation at all, just faith that one out of a thousand ancient stories is true.

BTW, this doesn't mean scientists claim to know the t***h about the where and why human conscience developed, evolution only addresses the physical state of species, although there is suspicion in the cognitive sciences that physical being and conscience is related.
Only a scientific debate can be resolved through a... (show quote)


###############
I disagree. The human conscience is evidence of the spiritual nature of man. You yourself are expressing conscience by stating there are no absolutes - and your justification for stating there are no absolutes is because of your innate disdain over the violence associated by those who insist they are right and others are wrong. So, the violence justified by religion, politics, and other opinions is wrong - that to you is an absolute.

Man is fallible. Jesus himself, according to Christians, was violently murdered for standing up against the established religions of his day. He angered the Pharisees by healing on the Sabbath, etc. - and they turned to violence to rid themselves of him.

You are right to say religions are violent - because religions are run by man and not by God. Science is also run by man, which is why it is often violent. The world today is run by a fallible man, instead of by the one who is t***h. But that does not mean t***h does not exist. It is obvious you believe there are lies - as evidenced by the way you state the Bible is a lie, religions are a lie, and science is at times "inaccurate". So if lies exist, does not t***h? I do not understand how you can state lies exist but t***h does not. If there is no t***h, then lies cannot exist either because there has to be a t***h to lie about.

By assuming the human mind is always in a state of " discovery", you are forgetting one basic fact - the mind is run by chemicals and electrical connections. If one of those natural synapses breaks, the mind becomes useless. My mother, for instance, is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. Yet she does not believe she is sick. She cannot see the errors of her mind, or her thoughts. The last medical paper I read on her stated: "patient cannot srperate feelings from fact." That is the nature of her mind. Something is broken. So her ability to analyze, judge, and react to the world is also broken- but she does not know it. Yet her conscience prevents her from engaging in illegal or unethical behavior - because her conscience is seperate from her mind.

Much of evolution is based on flawed science - because evolution conveniently forgets various math laws, such as compound interest. While there has been proof of microevolution - the idea that animals and other forms of life adapt to their environment by developing coping mechanisms to deal with the harsh cold or wh**ever environment they happen to be in - macroevolution has never been substantiated. Macroevolution states that everything formed from a "big bang" and no creator was involved. Recently, in fact, scientists have discovered that the universe may have never had a beginning - it always has been. So how did time evolve then? From the forming of the sun? All of these questions depends on human logic to be answered, and as evidenced by my mother, the human mind is usually wrong.

Conscience is the only thing that guides human life into t***h - regardless of how fallible the human mind is. Or how violent the human heart is. Conscience is spirit.
Go to
Mar 10, 2015 16:38:25   #
KHH1 wrote:
Go ahead..maybe the country will go in a depression so you righties can celebrate your own demise.....


############
I'm not a righty or a lefty. I despise them both.
Go to
Mar 10, 2015 16:07:00   #
KHH1 wrote:
I read where consumer spending was up...hence the strong economy...and i'm willing to face what I have to....will never think like a selfish person.............


###########
Retail sales are up but consumer spending is down. Consumer spending numbers reflect more than Dollar Store sales. Don't get the two confused.
Go to
Mar 10, 2015 14:00:26   #
KHH1 wrote:
By Robert King | March 9, 2015 | 2:46 pm

Nearly 12 million people signed up for Obamacare through the end of last month, according to top administration officials who took a victory lap on Monday.

Of the 11.7 million that signed up through healthcare.gov or state-run exchanges as of Feb. 22, more than half are new customers, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said during a White House event Monday celebrating open enrollment figures.

The figure is more than the 11.4 million initially reported after open enrollment ended on Feb. 15. The period was extended until Feb. 22 to give people already in line time to finish their applications.

The latest totals inch the administration closer to the Congressional Budget's Office's estimate of 12 million enrollees during open enrollment. The administration already beat its own estimate of 9 million signups.

Burwell also took the opportunity Monday to express confidence that the administration will uphold millions of subsidies in a hotly contested legal case.
By Robert King | March 9, 2015 | 2:46 pm br br N... (show quote)


################
95% of homes built last year were for the rich or the poor. Only 5% were middle class homes.
Since raising the county sales tax in Cook County, IL to a whopping 10% Cook County IL has lost nearly all of its middle class families. What remains is the rich and the poor.
Since the Federal Reserve began injecting money into the banks at a 0% interest rate and buying up all the bad debt of 2008 through bonds, the middle class has been disappearing. Why? The banks are using the extra cash on risky derivative gambling to pad their books instead of handing out loans to, you guessed it, the middle class.
Since Obamacare, consumer spending has plummeted. Look at the reports. Why? They are spending far more on health insurance premiums then they used to, meaning they have had to cut back on their spending in other areas.
Neither the rich nor the poor spend. The middle class is what holds up the economy.

There is nothing wrong with helping the poor. But be prepared for the economic consequences.
Go to
Mar 7, 2015 22:48:34   #
straightUp wrote:
I guess I don't worry about absolutes when it comes to living, relativity works just fine. In the world relative to me, my best guess is that if I don't put food on the table, my family will suffer from hunger. So, I've been putting food on the table and so far, it's working out pretty well.


###########
An alpha male bear walks into another alpha male bears lair. A fight ensues. One bear wins, the other bear dies. Life goes on as normal.

A human male walks onto another male's turf. A fight ensues. One man wins, the other man dies. The difference? The man who did the k*****g goes to JAIL.

The difference between man and animal is a sense of conscience, a sense of morality, a sense of right and wrong. A bear is innocent of k*****g another bear, that is simply what bears do. Humans are held to a much higher standard, if not by a heavenly judge than at least by an earthly one.

So to live a life of relativity is to live a life of chaos. A basketball game with no referee. An existence with no meaning. A destination with no map.

The argument between evolution and creationism will be debated for years - yet the debate will never resolve itself without an explanation of where and why the human conscience developed.
Go to
Mar 7, 2015 11:29:37   #
straightUp wrote:
Serenity - I think the huge glaring gap that you're totally missing is that science doesn't claim to be right. Science claims to be the best guess until proven otherwise. Religion stands alone in the business of "absolute t***h" but people are so strung up on what the t***h is, they assume that science is making the same claims.

One you understand this very basic idea, you will notice how completely wrong your attitude is toward science.

##########
If there is no t***h than there are no lies. To me, t***h is far more important than anyone's best guess. I don't understand how anyone lives in a world with no absolutes. Makes no sense.
Go to
Mar 5, 2015 16:30:40   #
Jack2014 wrote:
Not so funny when you have the facts


###########
Funny you didn't mention Chicago's credit was just downgraded by Moody's to junk, that the state of IL cannot make its pension payments, and that the state delayed tax refunds by 2 months so far. The economy has NOTHING to do with Democrats or Republican governors - it has to do with the actions of the Federal Reserve. And it is nationwide, not statewide. Lying by omission is still lying.

Also, the deficit is not soaring in WI. WI has a state law that the budget MUST balance every year. Thus, Democrat or Republican, WI ends every year in the black. Which is why Walker must trim the budget, to rid the state of what WOULD be a deficit if expenses are not controlled. Its called balancing the books. More states should follow suit.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 71 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.