Obama is a 1980's republican, the problem is you radicals can't see just how far to the right US politicians have gone in 3-4 decades because you haven't been paying attention the whole time.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Half of fast food workers need public aid
- Thread starter Bowden
- Start date
Obama is a 1980's republican, the problem is you radicals can't see just how far to the right US politicians have gone in 3-4 decades because you haven't been paying attention the whole time.
and I've explained in no less than 2 dozen posts exactly why the US economy isn't fixable, not given the context of the reality that we live in. they wouldn't have broken the economy to this extant had there been any plans of ever having to fix it.
prisons, police, fire depts should not be privately owned. the dmv sucks but usually they get it right. private businesses are rife with corruption....
Pennsylvania judge sentenced to 28 years in prison for selling teens to prisons - National Crime | Examiner.com
maybe the people so unhappy with obama should leave cuz they aren't going to like hillary any better.
what's even funnier is they bitch and complain about the government "interfering" in the free markets then turn around and complain about the lack of intervention. the markets are more open and free then they ever have been with the exception of EPA regs, etc. for firms involved in manufacturing and/or production, etc.
you can't have it both ways.
It is physically impossible to provide aide to every rural area of the united states and most counties simply can not afford it period. You want to live in a perfect world were the gov't takes care of its people and everything is hugs and kisses but nothing with the gov't is ran efficiently and never will be.
I am curious how many hours a day you spend googling things.?
It is fixable, its not capable of an immediate fix, but its fixable...
First stop these outrageous government incentives and tax breaks. Stop stupid government funded programs like PETA there is no reason the government should be funding them right now in our current situation and there are a line list of many more that should be cut. Stop a healthcare system that we simply can not afford right now. I am not against united healthcare if it is done properly, the way it is proposed is stupid. Wait for the united states to be in a more economical stable situation before proposing new ideas.
Stop this stupid war on drugs thats lining billions of dollars in drug cartels for marijuana. Legalize it tax the shit out of it and sale it. If anything should be illegal its cigarettes (not tobacco) but cigarettes. Force the companies to provide pure tobacco products (even though that wont help our economy) Stop wasteful DOD spending, there is no reason why we spend billions on an embassy but then tell our troops we can not afford them and kick them out. Stop supplying aid in wars for other countries, humanitarian efforts are fine likes in the Philippines right now. Stop allowing illegal immigrants to live off of our tax dollars as well, but make the process easier for a hard working immigrant to become a citizen.
Start drilling our own oil and saling the shit out of it. become a production country again where people need our goods and services. This is just a start, but these are all things that will help benefit our financial state.
I couldnt believe it though, my wifes employeer had her call some guy to fill out forms to see if they are eligible for tax breaks for hiring her. If she would have been unemployed for x amount of years and considered poverty the company that hired her would get a HUGE tax incentive. How is this equal opportunity for all people applying for jobs? As a vet I personally dont even want veterans preference either. I told my employeer to hire the best suited for the job.
Also they need to revamp the welfare system. Yesterday my wife watched a mom spend money on her edd card buying cookies and junk food then put a 100$ bill to play the lottery. I mean there is something wrong with this.
he hasn't done anything good just like the last 6-7 POTUS, don't you GET IT. it's an extremely obvious established pattern of behavior by the executive branch.
both political party's have shifted to the right, so yes history does matter because much of the current policy out of the left is exactly the same policy that the right was pushing in the 80's. if nobody fights for labor and both parties only service the markets and capitalist how exactly do things ever get better when private wealth has corrupted the public election cycle?
who cares about Obama, the real power has always been in the Congress. major policy has always been dictated by those that own the means of production, they are the ones that decided the fate of the country not politicians.
finance now drives the US economy there is no "going back" in time to a production based economy, that advantage was lost when the rest of the world caught up to the U.S in the 60's. de-industrialization is wealth transfer out of the country which increases the power of finance capital that much more, how exactly is this process reversed?
simple saying the words that it can be changed doesn't make it any more realistic.
Debt and deleveraging: The global credit bubble and its economic consequences
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Yfalj6EInfUK8nw&bvm=bv.56343320,d.eW0&cad=rja
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Yfalj6EInfUK8nw&bvm=bv.56343320,d.eW0&cad=rja
The creation of these entities were pure of intent, they wanted to satisfy the needs of the hungry fast, and also teach them to fish. But the greedy saw the glittering of the light and decided to plug into it and suckle from it. Now it's on life support and needs a recharge...Go out and get something from the healthy side of the menu once a week from the various local spots, the closer to your home, the better as your radiance won't be muddled by the noise.
I stopped eating it a long time ago, was forced to get some coffee at a McDonald's in NYC last weekend. that was probably the first time in a couple of years.
we like to go to local restaurants, support the local economy keep that money in circulation not funneled up to the top to be removed from the active economy and sit idle as accumulated wealth.
Minimum Wages and Unemployment: Case Closed
By Dom Armentano
November 14, 2013
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/dom-armentano/the-minimum-wage-outlaws-jobs/
The only relevant issue in the debate about a government mandated minimum wage is: Does it reduce employment opportunities? The debate is not whether some workers will be better off after legal minimums are increased; some workers will. The debate is not whether ?consumption? may increase when some workers are paid higher wages; it may, although unemployed workers will consume less. And the debate is not whether ?rich? employers can afford to pay higher wages; some surely can, but whether they should be forced to do so by law is another matter entirely.
Defenders of the minimum wage law make two broad claims. The first is that raising the minimum wage does not increase unemployment among the young and poorly skilled, the only relevant labor pool; and two, that there are empirical studies that support the conclusion that higher minimums don?t hurt employment.
Common sense, logic, and the law of demand easily refute the first contention. Raising the price of anything, while holding other variables constant, always reduces consumption somewhat. With income fixed and substitutes available, private employers use marginally fewer workers when their wages are increased by law. Simply exaggerating the wage increase will make the point obvious: If we double the minimum wage and leave productivity unchanged, is there anyone on the planet who believes that employment would not dramatically decline? Well by the same logic, a marginal increase in the minimum wage, say from $8 to $10 as California has just legislated, will have a marginally negative effect on young and low-skilled employment. Case closed.
But not so fast say the defenders of minimum wages. What about the studies (done by reputable economists presumably) that fail to discover job losses when legal minimums are increased? Well the problem here, of course, is that ?testing? a proposition in economics is not like testing some theory in physics or chemistry.
In chemistry, for example, it is possible to accurately measure an increase in the molecular weight (mass) of a compound after mixing precise amounts of chemicals together. It is also possible to repeat the very same experiment and get the very same results in any lab anywhere in the world. Economic phenomena, however, are of an entirely different nature. The data in economics is all historical and the economic consequences observed are likely the result of numerous influences, some known some unknown, most of which cannot be accurately quantified at all. Thus, given the inherent nature of economic data, the best that we can say about an economic study that claims to ?test? some economic principle is that the findings may be ?illustrative? of certain expected outcomes?.but that is all.
Now having said that, are we going to concede that the weight of the ?evidence? concerning minimum wage laws is that there is little or no unemployment effect? Hardly. The fact remains that there arehundreds of studies (also done by reputable economists, presumably) that conclude that there ismeasurable job loss when minimum wages are increased.
When the very first federal minimum wage (25 cents) went into effect in 1938, the U.S. Department of Labor itself determined that between 30,000 and 50,000 low-skilled jobs were likely lost due to the law. A comprehensive review of several dozen minimum wage studies by the Federal Minimum Wage Commission in 1981 found that most showed employment declining. On average, for every 10% increase in the minimum wage, employment declined 1-3%. And as recently as 2006 economists David Neumark and William Wascher reviewed more than 100 minimum wage studies in the economic academic literature and concluded that 85% of the strongest studies found that low-skilled employment opportunities declined when the minimum wage was raised.
There are still other sources of data that support the notion that minimum wages are a job killer. In 1948 teenage unemployment rates were about 10% while workers over age 25 had a 3.4% unemployment rate, a 6.6% differential. Yet today the teen unemployment rate is more than 25% (over 40% for black teens) and gap is an astounding 18% higher than the general workforce unemployment rate (7.2%) for workers that are older with more work experience. There is almost unanimous agreement among economists that this huge differential is largely attributable to minimum wage legislation.
Finally, states that set a far lower minimum wage for teen workers generally have lower unemployment rates for teens. Florida and Texas set far lower teen minimums and have lower teen unemployment rates than, say, California and Oregon which make no exemption for younger workers.
In short, the preponderance of the evidence over the last 75 years is that low-skilled jobs (mostly held by the less-educated and less-skilled young and minorities) are extinguished by government wage fixing. Absent the repeal of minimum wage laws?which is totally justified by theory and the bulk of the economic evidence?the best that we can do is urge the Congress and the states to allow employers and young workers to freely negotiate wage rates or, alternatively, to set far lower legal minimums for younger and part-time workers.
Everyone at some point needs an entry-level job and a chance to climb an employment ladder to higher pay. There is no moral or economic reason why government should discriminate against such jobs or eliminate the first few steps of that ladder.
By Dom Armentano
November 14, 2013
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/dom-armentano/the-minimum-wage-outlaws-jobs/
The only relevant issue in the debate about a government mandated minimum wage is: Does it reduce employment opportunities? The debate is not whether some workers will be better off after legal minimums are increased; some workers will. The debate is not whether ?consumption? may increase when some workers are paid higher wages; it may, although unemployed workers will consume less. And the debate is not whether ?rich? employers can afford to pay higher wages; some surely can, but whether they should be forced to do so by law is another matter entirely.
Defenders of the minimum wage law make two broad claims. The first is that raising the minimum wage does not increase unemployment among the young and poorly skilled, the only relevant labor pool; and two, that there are empirical studies that support the conclusion that higher minimums don?t hurt employment.
Common sense, logic, and the law of demand easily refute the first contention. Raising the price of anything, while holding other variables constant, always reduces consumption somewhat. With income fixed and substitutes available, private employers use marginally fewer workers when their wages are increased by law. Simply exaggerating the wage increase will make the point obvious: If we double the minimum wage and leave productivity unchanged, is there anyone on the planet who believes that employment would not dramatically decline? Well by the same logic, a marginal increase in the minimum wage, say from $8 to $10 as California has just legislated, will have a marginally negative effect on young and low-skilled employment. Case closed.
But not so fast say the defenders of minimum wages. What about the studies (done by reputable economists presumably) that fail to discover job losses when legal minimums are increased? Well the problem here, of course, is that ?testing? a proposition in economics is not like testing some theory in physics or chemistry.
In chemistry, for example, it is possible to accurately measure an increase in the molecular weight (mass) of a compound after mixing precise amounts of chemicals together. It is also possible to repeat the very same experiment and get the very same results in any lab anywhere in the world. Economic phenomena, however, are of an entirely different nature. The data in economics is all historical and the economic consequences observed are likely the result of numerous influences, some known some unknown, most of which cannot be accurately quantified at all. Thus, given the inherent nature of economic data, the best that we can say about an economic study that claims to ?test? some economic principle is that the findings may be ?illustrative? of certain expected outcomes?.but that is all.
Now having said that, are we going to concede that the weight of the ?evidence? concerning minimum wage laws is that there is little or no unemployment effect? Hardly. The fact remains that there arehundreds of studies (also done by reputable economists, presumably) that conclude that there ismeasurable job loss when minimum wages are increased.
When the very first federal minimum wage (25 cents) went into effect in 1938, the U.S. Department of Labor itself determined that between 30,000 and 50,000 low-skilled jobs were likely lost due to the law. A comprehensive review of several dozen minimum wage studies by the Federal Minimum Wage Commission in 1981 found that most showed employment declining. On average, for every 10% increase in the minimum wage, employment declined 1-3%. And as recently as 2006 economists David Neumark and William Wascher reviewed more than 100 minimum wage studies in the economic academic literature and concluded that 85% of the strongest studies found that low-skilled employment opportunities declined when the minimum wage was raised.
There are still other sources of data that support the notion that minimum wages are a job killer. In 1948 teenage unemployment rates were about 10% while workers over age 25 had a 3.4% unemployment rate, a 6.6% differential. Yet today the teen unemployment rate is more than 25% (over 40% for black teens) and gap is an astounding 18% higher than the general workforce unemployment rate (7.2%) for workers that are older with more work experience. There is almost unanimous agreement among economists that this huge differential is largely attributable to minimum wage legislation.
Finally, states that set a far lower minimum wage for teen workers generally have lower unemployment rates for teens. Florida and Texas set far lower teen minimums and have lower teen unemployment rates than, say, California and Oregon which make no exemption for younger workers.
In short, the preponderance of the evidence over the last 75 years is that low-skilled jobs (mostly held by the less-educated and less-skilled young and minorities) are extinguished by government wage fixing. Absent the repeal of minimum wage laws?which is totally justified by theory and the bulk of the economic evidence?the best that we can do is urge the Congress and the states to allow employers and young workers to freely negotiate wage rates or, alternatively, to set far lower legal minimums for younger and part-time workers.
Everyone at some point needs an entry-level job and a chance to climb an employment ladder to higher pay. There is no moral or economic reason why government should discriminate against such jobs or eliminate the first few steps of that ladder.
you cant have your cake and eat it too. you complain about workers on welfare and the state of the economy but then want to pay them less money simply to decrease unemployment numbers?
how does this increase aggregate demand when 70% of US spending is discretionary? it doesn't.
how will paying workers less money increase the velocity of money when those workers have no excess monies to spend?
Velocity of M2 Money Stock (M2V) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
why has not one single noble prize winning economist or any award winning highly cited economist(s) stated that wages should be lowered to increase aggregate demand?
why does the US, the wealthiest country in the OECD which has the highest percentage of low paid workers have the lowest real GDP and real wage growth?
Last edited:
the US had no minimum wage laws before WWII, the population was much lower, cumulative inflation was lower and we still actual made things and had a manufacturing based economy not an economy lead by financial transactions.
if you look at the advanced country's and economy's around the world with no minimum wages they have national collective bargaining agreements of which the US has none.
http://www.oecdobserver.org/images//2218.photo.jpg
Employment policies and data - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
the US would be the only country in the OECD with no national collective bargaining OR minimum wage laws, the 3rd lowest labor union density rates, lowest worker protections and the smallest social safety net and you think this would improve the economy because youth unemployment might decrease? interested use of logic.
![[SIL]](/data/avatars/s/71/71385.jpg?1646166172){kind=avatar}
