Good GAWD
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 5:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:34:58 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/25/14 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:25:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/25/14 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:34:39 -0400, 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. :)

I think the relevant point is it was a small incremental increase in
the minimum wage, not the quantum leap folks like you advocate. That
would cost minimum wage jobs.
We already had the discussion in the fast food thread that it would
not take much to cause fast food joints to cut their staff through
automation. It may happen anyway, simply because of health care costs.
That would ripple through the other jobs done by unskilled labor.

If I was really worried about workers, I would be trying to figure out
a way to create higher skill, higher paying jobs anyway, not simply
trying to increase the cost of unskilled labor.



Just what "quantum leap" in the minimum wage do you think I advocate?

I had the impression you were a $10.75 guy


At a minimum, and I wouldn't call that a quantum leap.

40% is not a leap?


Considering how far behind the actual cost of living has climbed in the
last few decades, no. Even at $10.75, it isn't a "living wage" in most urban areas.


Who says minimum wage should be a living wage?

Good GAWD
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 4:29 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 3:26 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/25/2014 3:04 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 2:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/25/2014 10:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 10:26 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".



You think disenfranchising tens of millions of American voters is a
good
thing, eh? How very Republican of you.



Where did I say that?


Ahh, you stated that Bertbrain's idea to disenfranchise millions of
coters was a "rational thought," or at least you implied that.



I don't agree with it but that doesn't mean it's not a rational thought.

This country spends trillions (about 15 trillion since LBJ declared war
on poverty in 1964) to fight poverty and reduce reliance on welfare
programs. The results? The poverty level is the same as it was in 1964
and the payouts in welfare has risen over 700 percent.

It can't go on like this forever Harry. Greg pointed out that people 62
or over have "paid in" most of what they are going to and are likely to
vote for the person who "gives" them the most in benefits. Maybe. Maybe
not. One thing is for sure though. We have a growing number in our
society who adopt that lifestyle at 18 years old. They never "pay in".
You can spend all the money in the world and provide all the
opportunities you want and there will always be a reason it's not enough.




I don't think it is "rational" to disenfranchise huge groups of voters.


We disenfranchise large numbers now. Convicted of a Felony. Under 18
years old. Non citizen living here. Probably those with tax liens should
be included.


Come on, 'fess us. You *are* Snotty Ingerfool's genetic daddy. Same
politics, same ignorance, same stupidity.


Fess up. You really are as stupid as you play on usenet.

Good GAWD
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/25/14 4:23 PM, Califbill wrote:
Harrold wrote:
On 10/25/2014 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:25:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/25/14 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:34:39 -0400, 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. :)

I think the relevant point is it was a small incremental increase in
the minimum wage, not the quantum leap folks like you advocate. That
would cost minimum wage jobs.
We already had the discussion in the fast food thread that it would
not take much to cause fast food joints to cut their staff through
automation. It may happen anyway, simply because of health care costs.
That would ripple through the other jobs done by unskilled labor.

If I was really worried about workers, I would be trying to figure out
a way to create higher skill, higher paying jobs anyway, not simply
trying to increase the cost of unskilled labor.



Just what "quantum leap" in the minimum wage do you think I advocate?

I had the impression you were a $10.75 guy


Whatever it takes to elevate our lowest tier service jobs to middle
class. Leveling the playing field, as O'Bama puts it.

A bunch of San Francisco restaurants have instituted a no tipping policy
and are adding a service charge of 20% to the bills. Goes to the
restaurant to distribute. Because of the minimum wage increase in SF. So
the servers will get minimum wage, and maybe a little tip money, no matter
the level of service. Very democratic. Well, maybe more socialist. Get
level playing field, no matter the effort or training.



In most restaurants, the hired hands split the tips. Most of the tips are
added onto charge slips anyway. Have a nice day and come back when you know how to play.


True. And different people get different percentages. And TIP was to
insure service. Now it is a labor charge?

Good GAWD
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:41:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Like Harry complaining about Republitrash, I am attempting to convince
anyone who gives a crap not to elect Hillary as our next POTUS. I think
she's a liar, and is not qualified. That's why.

===

She's certainly a qualified liar. That's taken some people a long
way.

Good GAWD
 

On 10/25/2014 9:14 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:

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.

I'd like to add to that, If you don't pay Federal income taxes, you
should not be able to vote and say how the money is spent.

FICA is a retirement and disability payment, it does NOT count.

I will make some exceptions, military personnel, social security
recipients, although not those that got it without paying into the
system. Open to a few others.

Mikek

Good GAWD
 

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."

Good GAWD
 

On 10/25/14 8:49 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/25/2014 9:14 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:

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.

I'd like to add to that, If you don't pay Federal income taxes, you
should not be able to vote and say how the money is spent.

FICA is a retirement and disability payment, it does NOT count.

I will make some exceptions, military personnel, social security
recipients, although not those that got it without paying into the
system. Open to a few others.

Mikek



snerk The "moroncy" is strong in that one...

--
This Halloween, I’m dressing up as a Republican to answer the doorbell.
I’ll give one rich white kid an entire bag of expensive imported
chocolate and make the other 100 kids split a Tootsie Roll.

Good GAWD
 

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?

--
This Halloween, I’m dressing up as a Republican to answer the doorbell.
I’ll give one rich white kid an entire bag of expensive imported
chocolate and make the other 100 kids split a Tootsie Roll.

Good GAWD
 

In article ,
says...

On 10/25/2014 4:55 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

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

Why are you always complaining?



Like Harry complaining about Republitrash, I am attempting to convince
anyone who gives a crap not to elect Hillary as our next POTUS. I think
she's a liar, and is not qualified. That's why.

So you're Harry's other side. You've got your work cut out for you.

Good GAWD
 

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