Senate blocks minimum wage hike

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I think you don't see the other end clearly. That shows a lack of objectivity.

You state predictions as fact and you know you can't do that.



That's not what I asked.

YouTube - South Park: A Smug Storm

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Weren't you for smoking bans?


But to address what you said, almost every tax infringes on the rights of others. Welfarer, social security, any government program does so. Environmental protection laws, OSHA, all of those do the same thing.

The difference is that what you consider a right is not defined as such in the Constitution.


Safety laws infringe on a business owner's rights, so do local and national codes. Do you complain about them?

The constitution isn't there to let us know what our rights are, it's there to let the government know what its rights are. We reserve all rights unless outlined by the constitution.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

YouTube - South Park: A Smug Storm

That actually reinforces my statement on the "me first" culture.. thanks

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

That actually reinforces my statement on the "me first" culture.. thanks

I don't know what you mean by that, I was pointing out how your attitude reminds me of that episode. "If you don't agree with me, that means you must not be as smart as me."

That's pretty smug.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The constitution isn't there to let us know what our rights are, it's there to let the government know what its rights are. We reserve all rights unless outlined by the constitution.

you ignored the rest of my statement.

Should the following be repealed because they infringe on the rights of others?

OSHA laws
EPA laws
FCC regulations
Anti-Trust laws
FDA approval process and regulations
Copyright and Patent laws
Smoking bans
Legislation against gay marriage


You can't use that argument then approve of it elsewhere without acknowledging the flaw in your argument.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't know what you mean by that, I was pointing out how your attitude reminds me of that episode. "If you don't agree with me, that means you must not be as smart as me."

That's pretty smug.

I'm nowhere near smart, nor have I ever implied as such.


I stated that it's easy to be against something that won't affect you. I.E. why it's easy to outlaw gay marriage if you're not gay because it won't affect you. It's easy to push for a smoking ban if you don't smoke or are not a bar owner.


It's easy to generalize and form a negative opinion on the poor and state that they're poor on thier own volition.

I used to think so until I ended up living in close proximity in an area that is full of those "lazy poor"

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

you ignored the rest of my statement.

Should the following be repealed because they infringe on the rights of others?

OSHA laws
EPA laws
FCC regulations
Anti-Trust laws
FDA approval process and regulations
Copyright and Patent laws
Smoking bans
Legislation against gay marriage


You can't use that argument then approve of it elsewhere without acknowledging the flaw in your argument.

Yes, I agree that all that should be repealed at the federal level (I don't care what happens in a state unless it's my own).

Except patents. That's not a right, it's a centralized storehouse of information to protect the intellectual rights of others. It's backed by laws not needed to be outlined in the constitution (again, since it's has nothing to do with a right).

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Yes, I agree that all that should be repealed at the federal level (I don't care what happens in a state unless it's my own).

Except patents. That's not a right, it's a centralized storehouse of information to protect the intellectual rights of others. It's backed by laws not needed to be outlined in the constitution (again, since it's has nothing to do with a right).

Patent laws prevent people from making competing products, so it's a right that's taken away.. the right to a free market judged by market demand.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I'm nowhere near smart, nor have I ever implied as such.


I stated that it's easy to be against something that won't affect you. I.E. why it's easy to outlaw gay marriage if you're not gay because it won't affect you. It's easy to push for a smoking ban if you don't smoke or are not a bar owner.


It's easy to generalize and form a negative opinion on the poor and state that they're poor on thier own volition.

I used to think so until I ended up living in close proximity in an area that is full of those "lazy poor"

I haven't seen one bad word said about the poor in this thread (yet). You're assuming that those of us who are against minimum wage and welfare think the poor can go die in a gutter and I wouldn't so much as shit on them.

I think there are a lot of poor people who cannot help it and I would love to help them... on my own. Welfare forces me to help people that i might not think need help, and minimum wage succeeds in raising prices for stuff for me AND the poor (and the rich, but no one cares about them).

That's one of many reasons I don't like the idea of welfare. Then you look at the economic ramifications (such as the welfare trap) and it succeeds (like, today, not even with a min wage/welfare hike) in keeping people poor, not helping them. I hate the idea of that. People used to come to America to get a new start and live the "American Dream" but welfare and min wage makes that harder and harder to achieve.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Patent laws prevent people from making competing products, so it's a right that's taken away.. the right to a free market judged by market demand.

Patent protects your intellectual property. If someone else makes your idea, then they have infringed on your right. The judicial system takes care of that, the government holds the information, and that's about it. No rights lost by anyone, and, as outlined in the constitution, the judicial system worked to protect my property through punishment (rather than me going to their house and just killing them).

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I haven't seen one bad word said about the poor in this thread (yet). You're assuming that those of us who are against minimum wage and welfare think the poor can go die in a gutter and I wouldn't so much as shit on them.

I think there are a lot of poor people who cannot help it and I would love to help them... on my own. Welfare forces me to help people that i might not think need help, and minimum wage succeeds in raising prices for stuff for me AND the poor (and the rich, but no one cares about them).

That's one of many reasons I don't like the idea of welfare. Then you look at the economic ramifications (such as the welfare trap) and it succeeds (like, today, not even with a min wage/welfare hike) in keeping people poor, not helping them. I hate the idea of that. People used to come to America to get a new start and live the "American Dream" but welfare and min wage makes that harder and harder to achieve.

Current welfare is not longer a crutch. I have studied welfare and such reform lately, and I'll give you a rundown of how it works in WV, which has one of the most 'helpful' welfare programs in the nation

1) Max welfare of 2 years concurrently, 5 year max (i.e. 2-2-1)
2) While revieveing TANF (max $600/mo) the person must be at a job:

single parent: 35 hours per week minimum
parental unit: 30 units per week each

if they do not have a job, they must be an in activity such as approved job training or show through written varification that they are persuing a job or volunteer activity.

If at any time they fail to account for those hours per week, they get sanctioned. first tim benefits cut by 1/3 for 3 months, 2nd time by 2/3. 3rd time and they're cut.

single parents are required to search for the absent parent to persue child support or face sanctions.

In addition, as they make money, that $600 is dropped.


People can, and haven't, lived just on welfare. The reforms that went into place have shown it to be a chance for people who have fallen to the bottom to get on thier feet.

[DosEquis]

I find myself not really caring at this point. Not very many people make minimum wage, and not many businesses will be affected. "They" say this every time the minimum wage is going to be raised and we turn out just fine. For a 10-12 year period in fairly recent history minimum wage was equal to $8.50-$9 an hour and we didnt run out small business.

Secondly, i agree with the person above who calls a tax cut for it welfare like. At that point it is a government subsidized minimum wage increase. They are paying for the increase by taking in less tax revenue. Another thing that is confusing me about it is that wages are deducted as a business expense. They pay more wages they pay less taxes anyway because they have less income to report.

Just like Bush's plan to give tax breaks for health insurance. Why not just have hillary's plan at that point if the government is going to pay for your health insurance via tax breaks.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Patent protects your intellectual property. If someone else makes your idea, then they have infringed on your right. The judicial system takes care of that, the government holds the information, and that's about it. No rights lost by anyone, and, as outlined in the constitution, the judicial system worked to protect my property through punishment (rather than me going to their house and just killing them).

ah but it contrasts with your free market idea.

i.e. if someone comes out with a better version of the product, why should the government say no? If they make it better, then the market will decide?

You are disagreeing with yourself

[Ardentfrost]

That's great you know the rules of welfare and all, but have you not heard the plethora of stories about people using the system to work for them?

I'm not saying it always happens. There's a big difference between a young couple who had a kid too early and needs a little assistance with some groceries and people pumping out kid after kid for the increased welfare check.

The fact is that no matter how good the rules are, at the federal level they'll always get taken advantage of and cannot be perfect for every individual situation. NPO's is the way to go with assistance for the poor. They can review each case individually, check on the people, help the people in personal ways, provide services to reduce the people's cost of living... they won't just write them a check and send them out the door.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

That's great you know the rules of welfare and all, but have you not heard the plethora of stories about people using the system to work for them?

yes, I have. I've seen it and seen people get caught. However the numbers are very small

I'm not saying it always happens. There's a big difference between a young couple who had a kid too early and needs a little assistance with some groceries and people pumping out kid after kid for the increased welfare check.

I agree with you completely

The fact is that no matter how good the rules are, at the federal level they'll always get taken advantage of and cannot be perfect for every individual situation. NPO's is the way to go with assistance for the poor. They can review each case individually, check on the people, help the people in personal ways, provide services to reduce the people's cost of living... they won't just write them a check and send them out the door.

Welfare is a state program, not federal

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

ah but it contrasts with your free market idea.

i.e. if someone comes out with a better version of the product, why should the government say no? If they make it better, then the market will decide?

You are disagreeing with yourself

I don't know if you understand patents. They have to be very specific. If I had invented the IR Emitter (I'd be rich), I couldn't claim rights on the RF Emitter. Those are two different things.

There's a lot of money in being a patent lawyer for that reason. The patent office rejects anything that isn't specific. The patent office is probably one of the oldest agencies in the nation (esp since it was around long before the nation was ... a nation). It works pretty well. You need more than just some bright idea.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

yes, I have. I've seen it and seen people get caught. However the numbers are very small



I agree with you completely




Welfare is a state program, not federal

States distribute federal money combined with whatever money they need to make up the difference.

[Pro Street]

The thing is I don't believe the vast majority of people will ever reach a hand out to help people in need.


It could be because I grew up in NoVA, one of the most self-centered, smug infested places on the planet. People onyl care about themselves, they wouldn't give you a second look if you were crawing out of the woods battered and naked. They wouldn't want to pull over in thier hummer and be late for thier 11am golf game.

I can only go by personal expierence, just as everyone else here. It's a constant fight to on one hand aim for a small government but at the same time give opportunity to all people. it's a delicate balance but it needs to be done to prevent us from either going to a socialist nation, or one that's completely aristocratic.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

States distribute federal money combined with whatever money they need to make up the difference.

right, but the states decide how and what to distribute the funds.