|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Jan 23, 2014 16:46:26 GMT -5
"... now is the time if a majority of GOP members want to make such a statement." - ALEXAlex, I'm begging you here. Help me out.
I've been all over the www.scgop.com site, and I can't find a link that will allow me to pay my dues and become a "member" of the GOP.
Oh, I found links that will let me get e-mail anytime one of them has an original thought (thankfully, not very often), or if I want to donate. Oddly, many of the e-mails I already get ask me for cash. Lee Bright even e-mailed me today and said he might give me an AR-15 if I pay to play. (I don't really need another one.)
But NOWHERE is there a link that allows me to be an official card-carrying member of the Republican Party. Where is it?
It really wouldn't be that important to me, but I've always been impressed with the Democrats' "Vote Early, Vote Often" strategy. While I personally have always thought both the "early" and "often" parts were probably illegal, it's still an interesting tactic.
And Phillip Bowers and his "Gang of 18" have apparently found a way to make it work with their early vote against Lindsey Graham. Awesome!
I know, Alex, I know. An early vote like that is totally meaningless. It doesn't count. It carries no weight toward the election of a U.S. Senator. In fact, it's really nothing more than a cheap political trick perpetrated by those who should know better.
Well, that's my opinion. Not surprisingly, we disagree. You think that censure vote means something.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Jan 29, 2014 7:01:59 GMT -5
I watched the state of the union address last night and you can see how labor unhappiness is rising. Why is this occurring?
All the things we've been talking about for years. One, the economy is now on a lower growth track, mainly because of excessive government spending, growth and debt. That is limiting wage growth to about 2% a year. The government's response has not been to deal with the problem at the route -- cutting spending or debt, but instead it has just printed money. When money grows faster than the output of goods and services, the prices of those goods and services rise. Inflation is running about 5% or so. As a result, on a real basis workers are falling behind the rising price level. Those not working or on government incomes are seeing their incomes rise even less.
Obama's response isn't stop printing so much money, instead he proposes a $10.10 minimum wage or a 35% increase. Now what is a 35% increase in wages going to do, if the number of goes and services doesn't rise by 35%? The price of those goods and services will jump up, more inflation. The minimum wage workers will get ahead, but those not working or making mid-level to high-level salaries will fall behind more. Why? The minimum wage hike will boost inflation, but their pay will not rise.
We are in a long-term economic slide that begain in about 2000. The government's response, naturally, is going to make it worse. Two examples of bad government responses -- printing too much money, and a massive increase in the minimum wage.
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Jan 31, 2014 1:07:48 GMT -5
Alex, a 35% increase in the minimum wage would increase the cost of a company's goods and services by 35% if, AND ONLY IF, a) 100 percent of that companies expenditures are represented by wages and, b) 100 percent of that company's workers are minimum-wage employees (in which case the company owner probably should already have been taken out and shot.)
Misrepresenting an issue because YOU don't understand it is totally understandable and permissible (although I've always thought it best to think before speaking despite the fact that I've violated that rule many times.)
Misrepresenting an issue because you think WE don't understand is a different issue altogether. That's what our elected officials at the local, state and national level have been doing to us for years. Frankly, those of us who have been out in the real world of industrial and commercial business - and face those lousy wages and even lousier conditions provided by bottom-line companies to whom employees are just a number - are getting pretty darned sick and tired of those from the Washington/Wall Street bubbles telling us what's best for us.
Now, why would increasing the minimum wage be the end of the world? Keep in mind, when I started working in the mid-1960s, the minimum wage was, I think, $1.25. It's about six times that now. I think it would be interesting to compare the value of $1 in 1965 with the value of $1 today. Who's really getting the sharp end of the stick here?
Oh, look, I Googled a question and got this:
"If you want to compare the value of a $1.00 Income or Wealth, in 1965 there are four choices. In 2012 the relative:
* Historic standard of living value of that income or wealth is $7.27
* Contemporary standard of living value of that income or wealth is $7.65
* Economic status value of that income or wealth is $13.50
* Economic power value of that income or wealth is $21.80"
I'm sure you know other ways to calculate it, Alex, but it seems even to me - a conservative (really) - that it might be time to level the playing field a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by columbia on Feb 7, 2014 10:42:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by georgewashington on Apr 17, 2014 9:11:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by georgewashington on Apr 21, 2014 8:50:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on May 27, 2014 22:41:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by georgewashington on Jun 10, 2014 19:33:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Jun 11, 2014 9:47:36 GMT -5
They were killing each other for thousands of years before we got there. They'll be killing each other for a thousand years after we're gone. Only the Iraqis can end that cycle, and I see no signs they're ready to do so.
I supported the initial invasion of Iraq - as did a majority of the U.S. Senate and House, including prominent Democrats who now have amnesia about it - but Iraqi President Maliki has indicated he no longer wants or needs our help unless it's under his terms. We should withdraw all remaining troops and tell him to pound sand. He certainly has a lot of that to work with in that corner of the world.
I feel the same way about Afghanistan. Karzai has been playing politics with American lives for too long now. It's time to bring the troops home. We should set aside a few bucks for flowers for Maliki's and Karzai's funerals and spend our funds elsewhere, like, for taking care of our veterans. You just can't fix stupid, but we've already wasted billions trying.
In future wars, we should avoid Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan/Bosnia/Germany Syndrome. If a nation really ticks us off or harms our citizens, we should go in without any advance warning, kill people, break things, drop a couple of our larger bombs on the heart of their government, then withdraw, leaving a note behind telling them there's more where that came from and we'll be more than happy to deliver it if they tick us off again.
We spend far too much time trying to win their "hearts and minds." Personally, I don't care if they like us or not, as long as they leave us alone. For example, I don't care much for the French, and they don't particularly like us. But I'll drink their wine, and they can fleece our tourists, and we'll get along just fine.
"Nation building" is like trying to dig a hole in a sand pit. It's for fools, or for the United Nations. But I repeat myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Jun 13, 2014 11:45:29 GMT -5
I was out of town for a week. Gerald I read your comment of January 31 today. I missed it the first time. I think you understood what I wrote.
Alex wrote: Obama's response isn't stop printing so much money, instead he proposes a $10.10 minimum wage or a 35% increase. Now what is a 35% increase in wages going to do, if the number of goes [goods -- a typo] and services doesn't rise by 35%? The price of those goods and services will jump up, more inflation. The minimum wage workers will get ahead, but those not working or making mid-level to high-level salaries will fall behind more. Why? The minimum wage hike will boost inflation, but their pay will not rise.
That's a true statement. If the minimum wage rises by 35% and the output of goods and services doesn't rise by 35%, the price of those goods and services will rise. That's Economics 101. I didn't say they'd rise by 35% (as you thought and wrote). All I said is the price of goods and services will rise. How much the price will rise I don't know because the input costs of goods/ services are wages, raw materials, overhead, many variables, not just wage rates as you tried to explain above. Suffice it to say, raising wages causes goods and services inflation.
Most things you and I buy, we buy at some retail establishment. Most of those people make less than $10.10 an hour -- the person flipping the burgers, or the cashier at the Dollar Store. If the manager has to now raise their pay to $10.10, his cost will rise. In most cases, he'll just raise the price of that burger or that item you are buying at the dollar store.
Obama argued it was wise to raise the minimum wage to help employees deal with inflation. My point was, raising the minimum wage raises inflation. The best way to slow inflation is to stop printing all this money.
There is nothing conservative about the government mandating a increase in the minimum wage, further government control in an otherwise free labor market.
I think the Iraq situation is a major setback for the US in the middle east. A lot of mistakes were made by Obama. I will write about that later.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Jun 14, 2014 7:21:34 GMT -5
The fall of Iraq is a game changer in the middle east in my opinion. Not only does it look like those soldiers died in vain and appears to be another Vietnam (big investment in terms of lives/ money/ time and no gain), but it raises long-term risk to the US interests there and citizens home as well. Politically, Obama is finished. He was on the decline before this, now he is going to Richard Nixon approval ratings the next two years. ISIS and these other radical Muslim groups want to kill Americans. No one disputes that. They have the desire, only lack the means. If they can take hold of Iraq which produces and exports millions of barrels of oil a day, they'll have the dollars to buy whatever they want to attack Americans there and here. www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/world/meast/iraq-violence/Bush had a good plan -- Make Iraq US friendly, build their economy back through oil sales and in 10 or 20 years they could stand alone and be a center of Democracy in that region. Bush accomplished the first two -- gosh Iraq's oil sales were #2 in the world. He was close to the third one but it required a US presence in Iraq for a decade or two. If we choose not to fight/ stand against them over there, we'll be fighting them here. Pulling out of Iraq in 2011 would have been like the US leaving Germany in 1949. We still have bases and troops in Germany, decades after the fall of Hilter. We still have a base in Cuba. A base or bases in Iraq made strategic sense giving us another strike force in the middle east to protect the flow of oil, and not far from China or Russia if they decide to throw their weight around. |
|
|
|
Post by strider on Jun 15, 2014 9:40:04 GMT -5
The minimum wage is too low and should be a living wage. Why are you against the minimum wage?  |
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Jun 15, 2014 10:01:19 GMT -5
Strider,
What is the living wage amount? And, since we don't require people to work, why do we require employers to pay a minimum amount?
|
|
|
|
Post by strider on Jun 15, 2014 11:04:24 GMT -5
Whatever the poverty level is for a family. I think that is 23,000 a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Jun 15, 2014 18:18:25 GMT -5
I’m not a libertarian, who believes in zero government involvement. I’m a conservative. Unlike libertarians who believe drug laws should be dropped, consumer safety protections eliminated and the US should stay out of foreign conflicts, I believe in government involvement but it should be measured and limited. For instance, I think we need standards for the food sold in stores and things like meat inspections.
To your point, I believe there should be a minimum wage. I don’t agree the minimum wage should be set to a living wage, or the poverty level as determined by government. It is a minimum wage. It should be set at the level where employees are not being exploited by employers. For instance, paying someone 50 cents an hour is exploitation and the government has a role there, and using the minimum wage is one way to prevent such exploitation.
I do believe $10.10 is an excessive minimum wage, and if the government mandates that, it would be extending itself beyond its reach in my conservative opinion.
I’m OK with $7.50, so I oppose increasing the minimum wage. I don’t see $7.50 as an exploitive wage rate. From that level and up, it is the responsibility of the employee to work harder and improve his skills/ knowledge, so that employers see him as someone who is worth more than the minimum wage. Millions have started at the minimum wage, and through hard work and effort, they now earn a living wage or more. I did it. You did it. Most can and are doing that. We should encourage that rather than government intervention on the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Jun 15, 2014 20:04:36 GMT -5
I too am conservative and not Libertarian. My question was somewhat incendiary following equating the poverty level with a living wage. The semantics don't inspire discourse. I did, this weekend, see a C-Span repeat of a recent Congressional subcommittee, chaired by Pall Ryan, discussing welfare and work relationships. After the obvious conclusion that high welfare subsidies discourage work, the more liberal Representatives suggested a higher minimum wage would solve that issue. One Representative gave a speech instead of a question that ended with challenging the Republicans in the room to justify why they don't argue against any level, including the present one, if they are resolutely against the higher one of $10.10. I never thought of that argument and considered it a debate trap. No one bit. There was much indirect suggestion that too many are eschewing low wage jobs while considering welfare of similar amounts more inviting. There was a some agreement that all but short-term welfare should supplement work (to include work training and searching) and present historically high levels of recipient households with no work income indicate welfare levels should be reduced by emphasizing the benefits of encouraging work by reducing welfare amounts. No recommendations of how to do that emerged. Surprise! The constant demonizing of Wal-Mart by some Democrats aside, it was a small, interesting window into just how politics makes solving human problems from that high up the "totem pole" ridiculous and self-serving on both sides of the aisle. My opinion is all welfare support programs and decisions should be State and County level. The people could then better influence what is needed and manage the pressure to keep it less of an option for healthy, working aged citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by georgewashington on Jun 19, 2014 5:27:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by georgewashington on Jul 7, 2014 8:46:25 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 14:39:15 GMT -5
|
|
russo
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by russo on Jul 24, 2014 10:52:32 GMT -5
I just read the best explanation of the debt ceiling ever. It really explains it so we can all understand. Here you go...suppose you come home to a stopped up sewer line it has flooded your home all the way to the ceilings, what do you do? Do you A) Raise your ceilings or B)start pumping the sewage out? If you are an American politician the answer time after time is A) raise the ceiling. Thank you in advance!
|
|
