If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hot Air)   The EU's plan to destroy their economy altered, new plans in place should only mostly destroy their economy   (hotair.com) divider line 342
    More: Followup, Cypriot, European debt crisis, bank rescues, deposits  
•       •       •

6392 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 Mar 2013 at 11:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



342 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-18 04:37:19 PM  

MonoChango: DamnYankees: Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable growing exponentially.

Fixed it for you.


Yes, economics does become easier when you make stuff up.
 
2013-03-18 04:37:32 PM  

MonoChango: DamnYankees: Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable growing exponentially.

Fixed it for you.


Fixed, but wrong. The deficit has decreased every year Obama has been in office.
 
2013-03-18 04:38:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Doomed? What, exactly do you think will happen if the deficit increases? Specifically.


Why even grant him that? The deficit has been decreasing. If it increases, it'll be due to another recession/economic crash. And if that happens, our debt/surplus numbers will hardly be our biggest problem.
 
2013-03-18 04:42:08 PM  

DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Doomed? What, exactly do you think will happen if the deficit increases? Specifically.

Why even grant him that? The deficit has been decreasing. If it increases, it'll be due to another recession/economic crash. And if that happens, our debt/surplus numbers will hardly be our biggest problem.


Also a good point.
 
2013-03-18 04:45:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: So? You are really proud of trillion dollar deficits because they are a tiny bit less trilliony than last year? Great, balanced budget in what, 125 years?

I'm not proud of it, but I'm not worried about it. Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable.

Wow.

I give up.

We are doomed.

Doomed? What, exactly do you think will happen if the deficit increases? Specifically.


Even the very generous CBO predicts around 2030 to 2040 just mandatory government spending will take up 100% of revenue. After that it spirals out of control as interest begins to spike. At that point, nothing you can do.  We don't have, and won't have growth like we did in the past. Everything liberals do is forecast with rosy growth numbers that don't come to be.

Because, you know, deficits add to the debt. I mean, are people really that farking dumb here? You really are so farking dumb you think if you keep adding debt to your credit card, it is okay because you only added a little more than last year? Is that how you run your household?

When Chumpy McHopeChange leaves, he will have added a full 10 trillion dollars to the debt. Doubled it. Did the economy double in size?
 
2013-03-18 04:45:48 PM  

MyRandomName: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: It is about entitlement spending,

So you think that the teachers don't deserve a retirement? And that the issue isn't that we have the lowest tax rates in 30 years and a growing, aging population?

I've noticed that the either-or fallacy is your favorite.  I'm going to start pointing it out.

You have implied that Thunderpipes' claim that teachers are owed too much in pensions means that he thinks "that the teachers don't deserve a retirement ."  You have no reason to believe this claim.  Perhaps he simply believes that teachers deserve some, but less, pensions for their retirement.  Thus there is a third option.  That is why your assertion is an either-or fallacy.

That's the only fallacy you found? What about his straight obfuscation on taxes? CBO estimates tax revenue to be 19.1% of GDP next year. A full percent above historic averages.

Libe rals like to manipulate facta in order to sound smart. Fallacies are truly all they have.


I was only pointing out either-or fallacies today.  You can join and pick up obfuscation or anything else you like.  I'm not Atlas, for fark's sake.
 
2013-03-18 04:47:49 PM  

SlothB77: Shryke: SlothB77: the banks in the USA behaved badly and as punishment we bailed them out.

This is half of the reality.  Legions of consumers took out loans far larger than they could ever afford over the long term, in hopes of flipping their properties for a profit.

Ultimately, it is up to the banks not to assume risk they cannot handle.  They weren't forced into making those contracts, were they?


Ultimately, the person who pays is the one who gets shafted.  The banks did not pay.  So "ultimately," NO.
 
2013-03-18 04:48:06 PM  

Thunderpipes: You really are so farking dumb you think if you keep adding debt to your credit card, it is okay because you only added a little more than last year? Is that how you run your household?


Most people incur more debt as they get older - that's because they make more money. Income goes up, ability to borrow goes up (i.e. nicer house, bigger mortgage). Is there some reason this does not apply to the US government?

They key metric is whether or not your deficits are bigger or smaller than your economic growth. If you grow your economy 3%, and deficits grow 2%, you're completely fine doing that forever. Literally, forever.
 
2013-03-18 04:59:05 PM  

Shryke: Short version: fatties and smokers die considerably younger, and are thus less expensive.


OIC
 
2013-03-18 05:00:00 PM  
came for vader.

/leaving before i get force choked.
 
2013-03-18 05:01:55 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: DamnYankees: Inflation isn't necessarily bad for goods and services as long as wages keep pace. What it's unequivocally bad for is savings (i.e. lenders).

True, I guess a more apt statement would be could be bad, but yes it is universally bad for savings and universally great for those with debt.

Slam1263: Go ahead, Macronaut, explain there externalities of the deadbeats, if you dare.

That generally speaking the deadbeat meme is a myth. Chew on this for size before you go railing on welfare dead beats. A large and significant portion of Walmarts workers are on public assistance because they do not make enough. They often do not make enough because they are kept at the legally defined part time status thus making them ineligible for health care plans and other benefits. Those needs, because they are needs...you know food, clothing, medicine, roofs... are subsidized through public assistance instead of them being paid a living wage that could sustain themselves as an individual.

So basically the biggest deadbeats out there, are corporate whores and multinational corporations.

But its ok, keep farking that chicken man!

Thunderpipes: Then you and he are stuck in the uterus. The moron is arguing that Obama is financially responsible. Only a retarded spider monkey would think that.

I didn't say I agree with him, but you two look like a team of cerebral palsy people trying to play water polo


You don't see this as a group effort?  WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them.  Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.
 
2013-03-18 05:06:32 PM  

Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.


So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.
 
2013-03-18 05:13:13 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.

So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.


I am assuming this 'side' is the D party. This so-called working wage would still leave them VERY dependent on the gov't. That is why. Maybe b/c they hate teenagers getting job experience? I know they hate fast food, or at least they do in New Francisco and San York City.
 
2013-03-18 05:22:23 PM  

InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.

So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.

I am assuming this 'side' is the D party. This so-called working wage would still leave them VERY dependent on the gov't. That is why. Maybe b/c they hate teenagers getting job experience? I know they hate fast food, or at least they do in New Francisco and San York City.


VERY dependent is somewhat better than COMPLETELY dependent.
Let's hear your better solution then....
 
2013-03-18 05:25:39 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Thunderpipes: Compounding interest is working against us

Yes of course, that horrible compounding interest of the money we borrow at near record levels. Did you know that for every 100 dollars we borrow, we need only have to pay back .01 of a cent? NO seriously over the entire course of the bond, we only pay that much.

Of course you wouldn't know, because you've gone full derp.


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

No, you pay an ROR of .01 cent, but you still owe the Ben Franklin. But it does show where you get your misguided ideas about economics.

DamnYankees: MyRandomName: When you are ignorant to reality... blame austerity! Ignore the fact that all but 3 EU countries have continued to increase spending. Ignore the fact that many have tried the liberal approach of raise taxes and grow spending. Blame austerity! So much easier that way.

Raising taxes is a form of austerity.


As is understating inflation. Is anyone buying into the notion that inflation is only 4%?

SlothB77: Shryke: SlothB77: the banks in the USA behaved badly and as punishment we bailed them out.

This is half of the reality.  Legions of consumers took out loans far larger than they could ever afford over the long term, in hopes of flipping their properties for a profit.

Ultimately, it is up to the banks not to assume risk they cannot handle.  They weren't forced into making those contracts, were they?


Uhm, the whole community banking act thingmabob escaped your attention, didn't it? Or maybe the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act.

C'mon, our regulators/legislators let their industries get 'too big tooo fail'.

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: Obama is adding a trillion a year to the debt.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

The deficit as a percentage of GDP has gone down every year Obama has been in office.


Fire up the printing presses, we'll print our way out of debt!!!

I blame everyone, in a way I even blame myself, because I am sitting on top of a substantial amount of capital. Why? Well, when I ask my accountant a simple question, such as; how will the Affordable Care Act affect me, and my employees? She starts to cry, and tells me to ask the government for more money, because they are tossing it out like, well, rubber checks.

How many of you actually have businesses? I don't care if it selling thrift store finds on Ebay, how many of you?

How many of you have employees? I had six, one left, won't be replaced for a while because each and everyone of my peeps are paid on a 'as full time' contract. In other words, they get paid for 40 hours a week, even if I can only fine 20 hour of work.

Why does this greedy far right ahole do this? Because I value them as humans. They are not my friends, they are my employees, they have families, and lives. Hell, I've been on this site all damned day now, and maybe tomorrow, because there is no work. I got a couple of jobs coming up Wed - Fri that'll cover their wages.

My ROI, and the taxes, I'll take it out of my capital investment fund.

OK, now you have farked me off, quarterlys are due at the end of the month, $78,345.21, combined. Next quarter I'll get the privledge of writing another check.

I am paying the absolute minimum, and taking the risk that I will owe a large penalty. Why? The farking IRS cannot give me, or my crying accountant, guidance on what the true bill will be until OCTOBER, but they wants their money now.

But do go on, you idiots are telling me what I want to know; most of you don't know dick about business.

You should run for elected office, they don't either.
 
2013-03-18 05:31:08 PM  

Ambitwistor: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 270x198]

Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your economy here is only MOSTLY destroyed. There's a big difference between mostly destroyed and all destroyed. Mostly destroyed is slightly rebuilt. With all destroyed, well, with all destroyed there's usually only one thing you can do:  go through their central banks and look for loose change.


My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my currency. Prepare to die.

/Never mind. You win.
 
2013-03-18 05:32:02 PM  

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: You really are so farking dumb you think if you keep adding debt to your credit card, it is okay because you only added a little more than last year? Is that how you run your household?

Most people incur more debt as they get older - that's because they make more money. Income goes up, ability to borrow goes up (i.e. nicer house, bigger mortgage). Is there some reason this does not apply to the US government?

They key metric is whether or not your deficits are bigger or smaller than your economic growth. If you grow your economy 3%, and deficits grow 2%, you're completely fine doing that forever. Literally, forever.


Number 1, that is not what we are doing. Number 2, you completely ignore the debt, and the interest on the debt.
 
2013-03-18 05:33:40 PM  

Klom Dark: InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.

So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.

I am assuming this 'side' is the D party. This so-called working wage would still leave them VERY dependent on the gov't. That is why. Maybe b/c they hate teenagers getting job experience? I know they hate fast food, or at least they do in New Francisco and San York City.

VERY dependent is somewhat better than COMPLETELY dependent.
Let's hear your better solution then....


Alas I don't have one for the particular problems around the minimum wage. But, thankfully, I am not an elected leader charged with solving them. Ideally no one would be at a minimum wage part-time job for long unless they wanted to be. (teenagers, retired folk, etc. who like the hours and low responsibility)

I seriously think Wal-Mart would disappear with something like a 'working wage'. Anything with razor thin margins like that wouldn't adjust.
 
2013-03-18 05:36:40 PM  

Slam1263: As is understating inflation. Is anyone buying into the notion that inflation is only 4%?


No, it's nowhere near 4%. It was around 2% last year.
 
2013-03-18 05:39:29 PM  

Slam1263: Why? Well, when I ask my accountant a simple question, such as; how will the Affordable Care Act affect me, and my employees? She starts to cry, and tells me to ask the government for more money, because they are tossing it out like, well, rubber checks.


You have an accountant who cries at basic accounting questions? You need to hire a new accountant.
 
2013-03-18 05:49:48 PM  

DamnYankees: Slam1263: As is understating inflation. Is anyone buying into the notion that inflation is only 4%?

No, it's nowhere near 4%. It was around 2% last year.


InstaZen25: I seriously think Wal-Mart would disappear with something like a 'working wage'.


Good.
 
2013-03-18 05:55:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: So? You are really proud of trillion dollar deficits because they are a tiny bit less trilliony than last year? Great, balanced budget in what, 125 years?

I'm not proud of it, but I'm not worried about it. Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable.

Wow.

I give up.

We are doomed.

Doomed? What, exactly do you think will happen if the deficit increases? Specifically.


Okay, everybody, repeat after Dick and Karl:
Deficits Don't Matter.


Thank you.
 
2013-03-18 05:56:22 PM  
Japans damaged nuke reactor is days away from melting down again. The Euro Zone is soon to collapse and set off wars within the continent. Asia is gearing up for wars. The Middle East is bound to implode with the major proxy war going on. Natural disasters are becoming more common. Food is becoming more expensive. Water is becoming less and less.

Scary times. All we need now is to get attacked by the Cylons
 
2013-03-18 06:00:10 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.

So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.


Increasing the minimum wage won't necessarily benefit the underclass.  Sorry.
 
2013-03-18 06:00:53 PM  

DamnYankees: Slam1263: As is understating inflation. Is anyone buying into the notion that inflation is only 4%?

No, it's nowhere near 4%. It was around 2% last year.


Again, understating inflation, my cost for wire, connectors and other consumables, are up 14%.

But hey! My taxes are down! Because business is down 40% month over month, from last year.


DamnYankees: Slam1263: Why? Well, when I ask my accountant a simple question, such as; how will the Affordable Care Act affect me, and my employees? She starts to cry, and tells me to ask the government for more money, because they are tossing it out like, well, rubber checks.

You have an accountant who cries at basic accounting questions? You need to hire a new accountant.


You must be a liberal. Or a dolt, but I digress.
 
2013-03-18 06:14:53 PM  
Socialists and Communists don't believe in Private Property.
 
2013-03-18 06:51:00 PM  

Slam1263: Again, understating inflation, my cost for wire, connectors and other consumables, are up 14%.


You do realize that inflation is the general price level, and not "the price of stuff Slam1263 has to buy"? The world dis bigger than you.
 
2013-03-18 07:43:34 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: A large and significant portion of Walmarts workers are on public assistance because they do not make enough. They often do not make enough because they are kept at the legally defined part time status thus making them ineligible for health care plans and other benefits.


Having worked at Wal-Mart for 4 years when I was in college, during a "good" time to work for that company, I can offer a little bit of commentary.  There are two sides to every story.

I worked for Wal-Mart from 1999 to 2003 as an auto technician.  Oil changes, tires, batteries, etc.  Nothing special like anything near ASE work in a real shop.  I was paid $9.50 a hour when I started working there, and that was at a time when minimum wage was something like $6.50, so that was a pretty good deal.  I got overtime each week as well, so the paychecks weren't bad for being work immediately after high school.

The health insurance that Wal-Mart offered wasn't bad either.  I got a budget plan from them for some pretty low premiums.  Coverage was good for reasonable prices.  At that point Wal-Mart gave health coverage eligibility after 90 days of employment.

Sometime about mid-2002 I got the new health brochures and noticed that they had moved to a two-tier benefits plan.  Anyone hired after a certain date had higher premiums for the coverage.  Sometime after that (and after I was done working there) Wal-Mart changed their eligibility for health coverage to 6 months of employment for full-time employees and 2 years for part-time employment.  That was a HUGE news story about how part-time Wal-Mart employees would have to work 2 years before qualifying for health coverage.  When I asked one of my Wal-Mart managers what the deal about that was, the HR person explained to me: "Wal-Mart has a sizable number of people who used the company for welfare.  They'd get a part-time job to work 90 days, get health coverage, get an expensive operation they needed, and then quit their job and leave the company OWING MONEY for health premiums on their last paychecks that their wages couldn't cover.  Simple explanation is that this company isn't a welfare organization and we need to cut down on our health bills that people are literally STEALING from Wal-Mart."

That's kinda harsh, but it is what it is.  You can't be handing huge payroll benefits out the door to tons of people taking advantage.

So the flip side of the story is that Wal-Mart really isn't responsible for providing huge pay and benefits for basic, shelf-stocking jobs.  If my job were to cut boxes open and stack stuff on the shelf, I couldn't come up with any argument about why I should be paid more than minimum wage.  Fixing social ills such as low wages isn't Wal-Mart's responsibility.  Being a shelf-stocker or cashier at Wal-Mart isn't supposed to be a 30+ year career.  You are supposed to gain experience, gain some education, and be upwardly mobile in the economy.And that is largely what Wal-Mart employees do as their turnover is something like 50% each year.  They aren't career jobs unless people are making movement up into management.
 
2013-03-18 07:50:05 PM  

Slam1263: DamnYankees: Slam1263: As is understating inflation. Is anyone buying into the notion that inflation is only 4%?

No, it's nowhere near 4%. It was around 2% last year.

Again, understating inflation, my cost for wire, connectors and other consumables, are up 14%.

But hey! My taxes are down! Because business is down 40% month over month, from last year.


DamnYankees: Slam1263: Why? Well, when I ask my accountant a simple question, such as; how will the Affordable Care Act affect me, and my employees? She starts to cry, and tells me to ask the government for more money, because they are tossing it out like, well, rubber checks.

You have an accountant who cries at basic accounting questions? You need to hire a new accountant.

You must be a liberal. Or a dolt, but I digress.


I hope you get work soon. What you're doing here sucks.
 
2013-03-18 08:45:06 PM  

DamnYankees: MyRandomName: When you are ignorant to reality... blame austerity! Ignore the fact that all but 3 EU countries have continued to increase spending. Ignore the fact that many have tried the liberal approach of raise taxes and grow spending. Blame austerity! So much easier that way.

Raising taxes is a form of austerity.


Yet you/Krugman are calling for the same policies that are failing Europe, raising taxes on the rich, increased spending, for the U.S.

And raising taxes is only austerity of the tax raises are above increases to spending.  There is a requirement of some sort of reduction in deficit.  You could argue deficit as a % of GDP is decreasing, but that is hardly the austerity you liberals love to yell when the GOP calls for the reduction in increased spending.

You know as well as everyone else, than when the DNC yells "AUSTERITY!" they are talking about increased reductions in further spending, not raising taxes.  How can you argue Krugman talking about the failures of austerity against the liberal/Senate plans of raising taxes by 1.2 Trillion.

The let has blamed austerity for the slow growth, while at the same time (According to your last reply) advocating for further austerity.  Make up your minds.

The fact is the EU has mostly implemented the current Senate plan of increased taxes/increased spending.  The EU is not growing.  How about for once there is an attempt to cut spending before it is required (Estonia versus Greece).
 
2013-03-18 08:48:11 PM  

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: So? You are really proud of trillion dollar deficits because they are a tiny bit less trilliony than last year? Great, balanced budget in what, 125 years?

I'm not proud of it, but I'm not worried about it. Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable.


Current payment for interest on debt is 224 Billion. This is maintained through short term interest rates.  This short term interest rates being this low is not sustainable against inflation.  The CBO has estimated in 10 years this cost will raise to over 500 Billion.  That alone should worry you.  It is not sustainable.

By 2023 the CBO has the deficits skyrocketing from two sources: Increased aging of the population (Medicare/SS/Aid costs) and increased costs from interest payments from both the debt and increasing interest rates.
 
2013-03-18 08:55:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: CBO estimates tax revenue to be 19.1% of GDP next year. A full percent above historic averages.

Historic averages of the last 30 years?


Since 1947, yes.  You are free to look up the facts.

The average of all tax revenue has been 18% of GDP.
 
2013-03-18 09:06:54 PM  

MyRandomName: Yet you/Krugman are calling for the same policies that are failing Europe, raising taxes on the rich, increased spending, for the U.S.


Raising taxes on the rich is a difficult issue - I think its a good policy, all else being equal, but probably a bad idea during a slow recovery. Ideally I'd love a policy which kept rates are they are for a few more years, and then raised them across the board when the economy recovered more. But that's not really possible. Whether or not its a good idea to therefore get them now when possible? Tough call, but I err on the side of doing it now.

'Europe' hasn't been increasing spending. You need to look at it country by country, since each county controls its own fiscal policies.

MyRandomName: How can you argue Krugman talking about the failures of austerity against the liberal/Senate plans of raising taxes by 1.2 Trillion.


I don't understand this sentence.
 
2013-03-18 09:40:20 PM  
Austerity always works. Why, just look at all these examples:
 
2013-03-18 10:08:05 PM  

InstaZen25: I am assuming this 'side' is the D party. This so-called working wage would still leave them VERY dependent on the gov't. That is why. Maybe b/c they hate teenagers getting job experience? I know they hate fast food, or at least they do in New Francisco and San York City.


<Tommy Lee Jones Newspaper>

mrmopar5287: Fixing social ills such as low wages isn't Wal-Mart's responsibility


I don't disagree, but you have to have the step ladders at some reasonable level. Fact of the matter is that the ladder rungs have distanced themselves in the last 30 years and though correct this is not Wal-Mart's responsibility, it is the responsibility of a government who's explicit job is to look towards the welfare of the people.

I'm just sick and tired of libertarians wearing the GOP clothing thinking that each instance we live in a bubble, cherry picking arguments and ignoring obvious facts.

Wangiss: Increasing the minimum wage won't necessarily benefit the underclass. Sorry.


Actually its been pretty well proven that increasing minimum wage drives wage rates up, which in turn drives wages for the underclass up. See states who have already raised their rates above federal minimum.

Slam1263: No, you pay an ROR of .01 cent, but you still owe the Ben Franklin. But it does show where you get your misguided ideas about economics.


By all means keep ignoring basic math, its done your side so well so far. I'll see you in Greece where we burn the forest just to stay alive.

DamnYankees: I don't understand this sentence.


No worries, when backed into an intellectual corner its perfectly reasonable for them to go full chimp and start throwing shiat at the walls.
 
2013-03-18 10:08:59 PM  

Evil High Priest: Austerity always works. Why, just look at all these examples:


What criteria qualify as "working"? I'll try to avoid Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc if you will be specific and keep the goalposts in place. If Fark can find an example that meets your criteria, will you change your opinion?
 
2013-03-18 10:15:01 PM  

Wangiss: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.

So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.

Increasing the minimum wage won't necessarily benefit the underclass.  Sorry.


Speaking as a member of the (near) underclass, I'm willing to take the risk.
 
2013-03-18 10:34:00 PM  

enemy of the state: Wangiss: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.

So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.

Increasing the minimum wage won't necessarily benefit the underclass.  Sorry.

Speaking as a member of the (near) underclass, I'm willing to take the risk.


You probably believe you have nothing at stake, so of course you would. But irreversible globalization means you could price yourself right out of a job. Even jobs you think are non-relocatable like waitstaffing are being replaced by machines in technophilic countries.
 
2013-03-18 10:59:12 PM  

Wangiss: You probably believe you have nothing at stake, so of course you would. But irreversible globalization means you could price yourself right out of a job. Even jobs you think are non-relocatable like waitstaffing are being replaced by machines in technophilic countries.


Perfectly fixable by that magical thing called tariffs, especially when your currency is what most of the world trades in and invests in.

wait..OMG, I said the dirty T word!
 
2013-03-18 11:59:58 PM  
Finally, a choice with no downside!
 
2013-03-19 01:51:06 AM  

Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!


Who underfunded them?  I forgot that contract obligations only apply when it's a golden parachute.  Pensions and such are free to be disposed of at the easiest and earliest convenience, even though the members paid in a great deal to those funds also.  Maybe if the states quit lowering their taxes to attract businesses that only go there because they get over on them they could fund their obligations.
 
2013-03-19 07:38:52 AM  

DarkLancelot: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!

Who underfunded them?  I forgot that contract obligations only apply when it's a golden parachute.  Pensions and such are free to be disposed of at the easiest and earliest convenience, even though the members paid in a great deal to those funds also.  Maybe if the states quit lowering their taxes to attract businesses that only go there because they get over on them they could fund their obligations.


Paid in a great deal?

Grow up. Teachers' unions here went on strike because they were asked to pay in a few percent. Oh, their average salary was $68,000 a year and the average retired teacher pulled down $50,000 a year for life. I believe the salary amount they paid in was 2.5%

Farking liberals.

The states that are lowering their taxes are doing much better than those that are not. How is CA doing?
 
Displayed 42 of 342 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report