On 10/25/2014 8:06 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 8:56 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/25/2014 9:26 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/25/2014 10:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 10/25/2014 7:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 5:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Hillary in Boston on Friday:
Now she's claiming that as a senator she voted to increase the
minimum
wage in 2007 and "millions" of jobs were created.
She neglected to mention that the only way the 2007 minimum wage
bill
was approved by the Senate was by offsetting the cost to
businesses by
providing additional tax breaks over the next 10 years.
Then she went on to say that corporations and businesses *don't*
create
jobs. Really?
If people like arrogance over competence in their leaders, vote for
Hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbFYP3xB6k
1. Indeed, she voted to raise the minimum wage.
2. Her point was that raising the minimum wage didn't cost jobs, as
opponents of such raises like to claim.
3. Her comment about corproations and businesses was directed at the
Republican idea that "trickle down" economics works, and of
course, it
doesn't.
But, hey, nice try. The righties here will snap it up. 
The House version of that bill passed with *all* Democrats voting
for it
along with 86 of the Republicans. It died in the Senate though
until it
was modified to include the tax breaks for businesses to offset the
cost
of higher wages. *That's* what she voted for. (of course a year
later
the whole thing didn't matter anymore).
Two sentences later though she reminds the Boston audience that
corporations and businesses don't create jobs. Why give them a tax
break then?
The minimum wage thing is always the issue that Democrats rely upon to
garner votes. They are focusing on it again now. Then they bitch
about
corporations not paying their share of taxes after passing the bill
that
created tax breaks.
More of note though: Hillary is adopting the party line BS along
with
the tones of sarcasm and arrogance that liberals apparently find so
appealing.
We've had over 6 years of arrogant leadership. Do we need more?
As time goes by I am convinced more and more that only those who are
verifiable US citizens and who are 25 to 55 should be able to vote in
any election in the USA. If you are under 25 you haven't really got a
clue as to what is going on in the world and how it affects you and
once
you are over 55 all you want to do is make the rest of your life
comfortable on someone else's back. As far as non-US citizens go I
really don't care what they think, what they want or whether they are
happy.
Be careful of expressing any rational thoughts. They are not welcome by
some here.
My brother's favorite saying:
"Republican while you work and a Democrat when you retire".
Also, "Democrat while in college, because you haven't figured out that
YOU will paying the cost of those things you thought were so great when
they were free."
So, you were a Democrat when you were in college, eh?
I didn't have much political conviction until at 29 I went to buy a
house. It was 1984 and a 30 year mortgage was 16-3/4% interest. (Jimmy
Carter years, but I'm sure it was Bush's fault) The state had a
subsidized mortgage at 9%. Our income was low enough, around $20K that
we easily qualified. However my wife and I were big savers, The first
year we were married, we grossed $18,000 and saved $6,000.
We continued saving like that. Because we tried to help ourselves,
living very frugally, denying ourselves all the consumer goods, we
had a bundle of money earning very high interest. This extra earned
interest income put us over the income to qualify for the loan. So I
didn't get the loan. That's the first time I started helping the
conservatives limit government. The government wasn't going to help me
because I tried to help myself. Clearly that's ****ed up. 30 years later
I'm still ****ed about it.
Mikek