A thread about healthcare and debt and stuff
Closed Thread
I just want to point out the minimum wage started under the Kennedy administration, a big supporter, and was a whopping dollar an hour. What is significant about this there are a lot of neoconservatives who claims the party left them, they didn't change (bullcrap) and that Kennedy was a conservative by modern standards and would be a Republican today. Most of those neoconservatives don't like the minimum wage and are hostile to the New Deal and social programs, all supported by Kennedy, so they don't know what they are talking about. They just like Kennedy and don't want to disown him.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula
X
User Lists
Yoda, does Pennsylvania have a powerball mega lottery?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
buck an hour was decent cabbage in the early 60's for a minimum wage.
My dad barely cracked 2 grand a year in 62' teaching school.
My dad barely cracked 2 grand a year in 62' teaching school.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I just want to point out the minimum wage started under the Kennedy administration, a big supporter, and was a whopping dollar an hour. What is significant about this there are a lot of neoconservatives who claims the party left them, they didn't change (bullcrap) and that Kennedy was a conservative by modern standards and would be a Republican today. Most of those neoconservatives don't like the minimum wage and are hostile to the New Deal and social programs, all supported by Kennedy, so they don't know what they are talking about. They just like Kennedy and don't want to disown him.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
They won't admit they have any disagreements with him, they distort and lie about his record, and say Kennedy as he was then with the exact same positions would be a Republican today. It is a broken record with those guys because they want to create a fantasy that they haven't changed their political views.
X
User Lists
Well before this thread spins off the rails, Here's somethen cool to buy for those days in Pittsburgh when the traffic gets to be a bit much.
I mean in the totally unlikely event you hit the power-ball i mean.
&feature=related
I mean in the totally unlikely event you hit the power-ball i mean.
&feature=related
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
What I'm fuzzy on is:
1) Who are "they"? Specifically.
2) How does this defend the minimum wage in any way?
And, for the heck of it:
3) Lots of Republicans support the basic tenets of the New Deal. Kennedy was strong on defense and cut taxes dramatically. And given that he was Catholic and appointed a pro-life judge, it seems reasonable to think he was probably (though not demonstrably) pro-life. The fact that some neoconservatives (who?) might be hypocrites doesn't mean they're wrong about him resembling modern-day Republicans more than modern-day Democrats.
It's #2 I'm most concerned with, though. This seems like a completely random excuse to criticize conservatives despite it having no real link to the discussion at hand. Which you're free to do, I just don't "get" the point of it.
1) Who are "they"? Specifically.
2) How does this defend the minimum wage in any way?
And, for the heck of it:
3) Lots of Republicans support the basic tenets of the New Deal. Kennedy was strong on defense and cut taxes dramatically. And given that he was Catholic and appointed a pro-life judge, it seems reasonable to think he was probably (though not demonstrably) pro-life. The fact that some neoconservatives (who?) might be hypocrites doesn't mean they're wrong about him resembling modern-day Republicans more than modern-day Democrats.
It's #2 I'm most concerned with, though. This seems like a completely random excuse to criticize conservatives despite it having no real link to the discussion at hand. Which you're free to do, I just don't "get" the point of it.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Ha. It's like a personal version of those "Ducky Tour" car/boat combos we see around here. Have you ever run into those? They make a particular amount of sense here in Pittsburgh, where they can take people on a tour of downtown and then slide right into one of the three rivers.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
What is happening right now?
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."
Ha. It's like a personal version of those "Ducky Tour" car/boat combos we see around here. Have you ever run into those? They make a particular amount of sense here in Pittsburgh, where they can take people on a tour of downtown and then slide right into one of the three rivers.
its a badass ride.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I just took a shower. I think I know what Yoda is going to say about minimum wage. I am 80% sure about this.
He's going to say that minimum wage is fundamentally stupid, because not all tasks are even worth minimum wage. He's said it before, and I've just read about it in a book.
The idea is that you can't create a minimum wage, because then someone could just be sitting around doing nothing and get paid, which is madness. In other words, it's just better for the employer to pay whatever they think is worth the job, and if the worker doesn't think its worth his time, he won't work there plain and simple. There is not only no need for a minimum wage, but the minimum wage is fundamentally crippling to the employer who needs to be able to pay as much as he thinks a job is worth; not some arbitrary amount.
I'm not totally sure this is true, but I'm pretty sure this is what he's going to say.
Peace, guys.
He's going to say that minimum wage is fundamentally stupid, because not all tasks are even worth minimum wage. He's said it before, and I've just read about it in a book.
The idea is that you can't create a minimum wage, because then someone could just be sitting around doing nothing and get paid, which is madness. In other words, it's just better for the employer to pay whatever they think is worth the job, and if the worker doesn't think its worth his time, he won't work there plain and simple. There is not only no need for a minimum wage, but the minimum wage is fundamentally crippling to the employer who needs to be able to pay as much as he thinks a job is worth; not some arbitrary amount.
I'm not totally sure this is true, but I'm pretty sure this is what he's going to say.
Peace, guys.
I know you're all here because you branched off from the Abortion thread, but the thing is, I was swingin' on that branch, so here I am.
X
User Lists
Tell that to the farmworkers who were receiving horrible pay for labor intensive jobs Americans wouldn't do. Americans still won't do it, but thanks to unions and minimum wage they are better paid and work under better conditions.
I won't respond to what PN said in detail because I think or hope Yoda's position makes more sense than the way PN said it.
I won't respond to what PN said in detail because I think or hope Yoda's position makes more sense than the way PN said it.
X
User Lists
Everyone just watch SiCKO and be done with it.
BTW - Minimum wage where I live is 10.25/hr. How people make less than that is beyond me.
BTW - Minimum wage where I live is 10.25/hr. How people make less than that is beyond me.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Suspect's Reviews
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Suspect's Reviews
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
What I'm fuzzy on is:
1) Who are "they"? Specifically.
2) How does this defend the minimum wage in any way?
To come up with specific names is hard because I don't pay attention to them individually, but certainly a constant repeater of Kennedy would be a Republican today, and I didn't leave the Republican party, it left me, is talk show host Dennis Prager, and has had guests on his show who have said the same thing, despite the fact he is very, very hard right conservative on everything, not just foreign policy. Prager is a national host. The late George Putnam who was only local and still doing his show into his nineties was of the same school, only bizarrely he never changed his registration, but only supported the most conservative Republicans, and was very extreme in his views, a big supporter of Joe McCcarthy.
It is only relevant because many other Republicans like Sean Hannety have also appropriated Kennedy as one of their own when he was a social liberal.
And, for the heck of it:
3) Lots of Republicans support the basic tenets of the New Deal. Kennedy was strong on defense and cut taxes dramatically. And given that he was Catholic and appointed a pro-life judge, it seems reasonable to think he was probably (though not demonstrably) pro-life. The fact that some neoconservatives (who?) might be hypocrites doesn't mean they're wrong about him resembling modern-day Republicans more than modern-day Democrats.
Rebuttal below:
Kennedy appointed a judge who turned out to be a pro-life judge and Bush Senior appointed a judge he thought would be conservative and turned out to be a liberal. Abortion was a non issue when Kennedy made his appointment. They like to talk about how Kennedy reduced taxes and he did, he reduced upper brackets from ninety percent to seventy percent. I don't think anyone would argue that wasn't a good idea. He was for Medicare, but couldn't get anywhere with it. Would Kennedy have stayed politically the same if he lived, shifted to the right, or gone the dovish direction the party took which happened with the escalation of the Viet Nam war under Lyndon Johnson? Bobby Kennedy whose politics were the same as his brother shifted to the left after his death due in part to the Viet Nam escalation. Teddy, of course, was no conservative. John F. Kennedy had a hawkish foreign policy when most Democrats did, but was definitely to the left of Republicans of the time on social legislation. The neocons love to embrace Kennedy, but are silent on the more controversial LBJ who emerged as a clear old style unambiguous liberal on domestic legislation with his Great Society, but had a very hawkish anti Communist foreign policy. There is no way to know if Kennedy would have amped up the war like LBJ if he lived or would have withdrawn.
It's #2 I'm most concerned with, though. This seems like a completely random excuse to criticize conservatives despite it having no real link to the discussion at hand. Which you're free to do, I just don't "get" the point of it.
1) Who are "they"? Specifically.
2) How does this defend the minimum wage in any way?
To come up with specific names is hard because I don't pay attention to them individually, but certainly a constant repeater of Kennedy would be a Republican today, and I didn't leave the Republican party, it left me, is talk show host Dennis Prager, and has had guests on his show who have said the same thing, despite the fact he is very, very hard right conservative on everything, not just foreign policy. Prager is a national host. The late George Putnam who was only local and still doing his show into his nineties was of the same school, only bizarrely he never changed his registration, but only supported the most conservative Republicans, and was very extreme in his views, a big supporter of Joe McCcarthy.
It is only relevant because many other Republicans like Sean Hannety have also appropriated Kennedy as one of their own when he was a social liberal.
And, for the heck of it:
3) Lots of Republicans support the basic tenets of the New Deal. Kennedy was strong on defense and cut taxes dramatically. And given that he was Catholic and appointed a pro-life judge, it seems reasonable to think he was probably (though not demonstrably) pro-life. The fact that some neoconservatives (who?) might be hypocrites doesn't mean they're wrong about him resembling modern-day Republicans more than modern-day Democrats.
Rebuttal below:
Kennedy appointed a judge who turned out to be a pro-life judge and Bush Senior appointed a judge he thought would be conservative and turned out to be a liberal. Abortion was a non issue when Kennedy made his appointment. They like to talk about how Kennedy reduced taxes and he did, he reduced upper brackets from ninety percent to seventy percent. I don't think anyone would argue that wasn't a good idea. He was for Medicare, but couldn't get anywhere with it. Would Kennedy have stayed politically the same if he lived, shifted to the right, or gone the dovish direction the party took which happened with the escalation of the Viet Nam war under Lyndon Johnson? Bobby Kennedy whose politics were the same as his brother shifted to the left after his death due in part to the Viet Nam escalation. Teddy, of course, was no conservative. John F. Kennedy had a hawkish foreign policy when most Democrats did, but was definitely to the left of Republicans of the time on social legislation. The neocons love to embrace Kennedy, but are silent on the more controversial LBJ who emerged as a clear old style unambiguous liberal on domestic legislation with his Great Society, but had a very hawkish anti Communist foreign policy. There is no way to know if Kennedy would have amped up the war like LBJ if he lived or would have withdrawn.
It's #2 I'm most concerned with, though. This seems like a completely random excuse to criticize conservatives despite it having no real link to the discussion at hand. Which you're free to do, I just don't "get" the point of it.
X
User Lists
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that it was about people abusing the system at all. I'm saying that this is simply what entitlement programs naturally do, even without abuse: they grow and grow, for the reasons you state and others. As conceived they are completely unsustainable. Various things in the United States, such as our overall wealth and ability to print money and dilute its value, masks this fact. But in other economies like Greece, we see what it leads to.
And when other forms of mismanagement occur (or even without them, eventually), entitlements need to be heavily reformed. And, shockingly, we find that people feel entitled to their entitlements.
That's why they're so financially destructive: a combination of utter insolvency with a moral component that causes the citizenry to resist their reform.
And when other forms of mismanagement occur (or even without them, eventually), entitlements need to be heavily reformed. And, shockingly, we find that people feel entitled to their entitlements.
That's why they're so financially destructive: a combination of utter insolvency with a moral component that causes the citizenry to resist their reform.Take Belgium for instance. Europe has reccommended Belgium to save € 22 billion over 4 years to solve our country's budget problems. That's $ 31,494,100,000 over 4 years. That is a sickening amount for a country like Belgium.
Here's what our top academics and experts in the field are suggesting to somehow come to € 22 billion:
- A nuclear tax of about € 500 million
- An estimated 13,000 civil servants will take their early retirement during 2011-2015. The plan is to not replace all of them, so € 400 million can be saved
- A social security contribution of 1 % on all incomes (starting from € 13,000 a year) will give us € 1,8 billion.
- Unemployment payments (don't know the exact term in English) are granted to unemployed job seekers on an UNLIMITED basis, as long as they can show that they are actually looking for a job. A possibility is to lower the payments depending on the duration of your unemployment. Another possibility is to limit them to 2 years. That last measure will in theory save € 3 billion, but in practice you don't have to be a genious to figure out that a lot of them will live off social welfare or sickness insurance.
- Upping the pensionable age.
- Cutting back the growth of the healtcare expenses from 4.5 % to 2.5 - 2 % could result in a saving of € 4 billion.
Chris, you are spot on when you say reforms are eventually necessary. Our politicians will need to bite the bullet and reform social security and pensions; otherwise the boat will sink.
That being said, what government will dare to put forward these drastic measures? They'll get slayed come next elections. I hope some political courage can be found to push on with these reforms, as they are absolutely vital, not just in Belgium but all over Europe.
People are talking about climbing out of the pit that was created due to the global crisis from 2007-2009, but the fact is that we haven't even seen the bottom of it when it comes to us as individuals. Those government savings are real and necessary. I don't have a particularly positive outlook on the future. I'm not naive, but most people are. They just go about their daily business, not caring or even knowing about all of this.
X
User Lists
I got behind fast - I'll catch up and reply later today.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
BTW - Minimum wage where I live is 10.25/hr. How people make less than that is beyond me.
People make less and get by for a variety of reasons. Not everyone who has a job needs to raise an entire family on it. A kid living at home, or a student, still needs a job even if it's just flipping burgers. Working fast food or retail isn't often worth a large hourly rate, and it can't be made to be worth it through legislation. The result of minimum wage laws is higher unemployment in general, and younger workers are generally the primary victims.
X
Favorite Movies
X