it really bothers me that the minimum wage bill was blocked - Page 2

Ardentfrost · 08-04-2006, 11:04 AM

Why is no one talking about why minimum wage is BAD for the poor, not good for them

Scrum · 08-04-2006, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

are you kidding me? both aspects benefit the economy. this would do more good than harm, by far.

think about it...the rich put tremendous amounts of money into our economy...if they have more, they put more in. not to mention, if they own business that hire minimum wage earners (or anybody else) they have more jobs

the poor would get paid more...that would increase tax revenues and also put more money into the economy.

i don't see how this is a compromise to the economy at all.

No, the rich tend to hold on to their money. And when the min wage goes up they tend to fire workers.

lew · 08-04-2006, 11:04 AM

I'm glad they voted against it.

Minimum wage should be abolished.

And estate taxes should be abolished.

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You can't take the moral high ground and throw out compromises that violate your principles

You can't take a poor christian 18 year old girl, who needs money for college, and a porn producer offers to pay for all her college if she does 20 pornos

It's against her christian values, but she needs money, so she compromises and becomes a full contact stripper

That is still a sacrifice of principles

Party of Principles != Party of Compromising Principles

this has nothing to do with religion. more importantly, economic principles have nothing to do with morals or ethics

economics is 'what's best at what time'...a minimum wage increase is not amoral, it's not evil, it's not bad...it's something done only when necessary. at the moment i don't find it necessary. in fact, i find it more amoral to tax someone twice than to give someone a minimum wage increase. how's that for religion?

nice try though

Thorgrim · 08-04-2006, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

this has nothing to do with religion. more importantly, economic principles have nothing to do with morals or ethics

nice try though

economics have nothing to do with ethics?

So insider trading, running up a debt during a stable economy, etc, these are ethical practices?

Thorgrim · 08-04-2006, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by lew

I'm glad they voted against it.

Minimum wage should be abolished.

And estate taxes should be abolished.

im shocked by your opinions

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

No, the rich tend to hold on to their money. And when the min wage goes up they tend to fire workers.

the rich tend to invest their money, buy property, etc. if you consider that 'holding on to their money' fine...but people are needed to do those things, and people are payed to take care of those things. money is worthless unless it is spent, and trust me, the rich spend it.

are you going to really tell me the paris hilton, the darling argument against this bill, isn't spending her money? 5000 dollar purses?

Ardentfrost · 08-04-2006, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

im shocked by your opinions

stop lying, no you're not

You expect that from both he and I

lew · 08-04-2006, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

economics have nothing to do with ethics?

So insider trading, running up a debt during a stable economy, etc, these are ethical practices?

He said economic principles. That's true. Just like math. Math has no ethics. Neither do economic principles.

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

economics have nothing to do with ethics?

So insider trading, running up a debt during a stable economy, etc, these are ethical practices?

not in the way you were trying to use it.

lew · 08-04-2006, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

im shocked by your opinions

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by lew

I'm glad they voted against it.

Minimum wage should be abolished.

And estate taxes should be abolished.

yeah i'd like that best. but unforunately it won't happen like that. and i'm not against compromise

hsmith · 08-04-2006, 11:10 AM

i read this thread twice and i am so lost today

Scrum · 08-04-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

the rich tend to invest their money, buy property, etc. if you consider that 'holding on to their money' fine...but people are needed to do those things, and people are payed to take care of those things. money is worthless unless it is spent, and trust me, the rich spend it.

are you going to really tell me the paris hilton, the darling argument against this bill, isn't spending her money? 5000 dollar purses?

There goes Paris, spending the Hilton fortune one purse at a time.

I noticed you ignored the second half of my post.

DosEquis · 08-04-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

are you kidding me? both aspects benefit the economy. this would do more good than harm, by far.

think about it...the rich put tremendous amounts of money into our economy...if they have more, they put more in. not to mention, if they own business that hire minimum wage earners (or anybody else) they have more jobs

the poor would get paid more...that would increase tax revenues and also put more money into the economy.

i don't see how this is a compromise to the economy at all.

Thats supply side myth #1. Just because they have more money doesn't mean they will hire anyone.

6SpeedTA95 · 08-04-2006, 11:11 AM

Sorry Ballz but I have to say if you are upset with the blocking of this bill it makes me question your conservative nature...the only thing worth a damn was the tax cut but at the expense of passing the other shit in this bill I was glad to see it blocked.

hsmith · 08-04-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

There goes Paris, spending the Hilton fortune one purse at a time.

I noticed you ignored the second half of my post.

So? Her money is going back into the economy and creating jobs for people. What is wrong with that? just because it isn't where you'd like the money to go doesn't make it any worse.

yeah, taxing estates at 100% and letting the gov't spend the money would be a brilliant idea

6SpeedTA95 · 08-04-2006, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Thats supply side myth #1. Just because they have more money doesn't mean they will hire anyone.

You're right, they might invest it instead, producing jobs, assets and money in the long run.

Or they might just blow it on a new car creating demand which is what most dems are for, so either way its a win right?

Supply side encompasses a lot more than employment. More than lower taxes, more than investment incentive.

hsmith · 08-04-2006, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Thats supply side myth #1. Just because they have more money doesn't mean they will hire anyone.

I take it you don't understand that the rich don't bury their money in mason jars in their back yards?

Their money is invested in stock, which creates capital that creates jobs. So this is your "myth". Bill gates doesn't "have" $50 billion dollars, he is creating $50 billion in jobs by allowing others to extend his fortune to create better opportunities for others.

nice try

Ardentfrost · 08-04-2006, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

So? Her money is going back into the economy and creating jobs for people. What is wrong with that? just because it isn't where you'd like the money to go doesn't make it any worse.

yeah, taxing estates at 100% and letting the gov't spend the money would be a brilliant idea

Yeah, 8 year old Chinese purse makers LOVE Paris Hilton's spending habits...

I'm j/k,