Economics 101

[Rshermr]

]No, it was democrats who got the first minimum wage passed, over republicans who fought it all the way. Dems, like me, won then. Republicans, like you, lost. Simple as that. But democrats did not deem it enough. It was all they could get, over republican objections due to their intent to let the workers starve.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Bwahahahaha! There you go again showing you are stupid. You should stop making stuff up after I embarrass you with facts. You nave no facts, me boy. Just right wing talking points. Dumbocrats (like you - very dumb) got it passed and set the wage. Yes, we won, you lost. Makes you so mad, eh. They deemed it enough. You do not say who "they" were, but dems did not deem it enough. That is simply you posting another con talking point. Republican's were not able to stop it (they tried). Yes, as always, republicans tried to allow the working class in this country suffer. And you are actually proud of it. So your own side of the aisle (back before you people became completely bat-shit crazy and went off the cliff of sanity) Hardly. We cared then, and we still care, about the working class. We believed then, and we believe now, that they are the backbone of this country. reconized Perhaps remedial english is in store for you. that in today's dollar - $4.23 per hour is more than acceptable. Hardly. As soon as you can prove that you spent a year or more living on that amount, I will listen to you. What you say is indeed bat shit crazy, completely uncaring, and proof that you believe what you are told to believe. You love the idea of starving workers. You are therefore a confirmed ass hole. After all - a 16 year old hired for their first job does not need to earn six-figures. Really, me boy. You are suggesting that minimum wage gets someone to six figures. You are indeed showing you are an idiot. Speaks volumes that you are so dumb, you need that explained to you. No wonder you can't grasp basic economics. No, not at all. It does prove you are a con troll, however. and uninterested in fact. Insults from a janitor with no facts of any kind are hardly proof of anything, except in a very weak mind. Which you do have.

Ah, the unsupported drivel of a con troll. Everyone knows how unhappy you are that the working class got a subsistence wage, and starved less often. And now how unhappy that your wealthy con bosses are pushing you because they have lost again, with a new minimum wage increase passed by those who care. We understand you are mad at the world, me boy. It is a symptom of a sick mind. Yours, of course.

 

[Rshermr]

Simple me poor ignorant...

That's literally the only accurate thing you've said today. You are simple. You are ignorant (very). And you are poor. Almost as poor as your grammar....

Wow. That was profound. The opinion of an ignorant con troll. No links, no facts, just insults. How profound.

 

[Rshermr]

Hardly satisfied, me lying con troll. But at least a win to get something, and that it could now be raised. You, on the other hand, are quite unhappy about it. You keep raising the subject time after time. But the rest of us, who actually have the ability to think, felt that it was not enough.[/QUOTE]
Sooooooo....then why didn't you pay people more than minmum wage? We have. You did not try to find out. Because you are ignorant and lazy. You can start a business and pay people anything you want to pay them. So why don't you? Too selfish? Too lazy? Too incompetent? All of the above, uh? Funny. An idiot trying to toss out insults. Again!
You are indeed, too selfish, lazy, and incompetent to understand the business world. You only pay more than others when you want your expenses to be so high they put you out of business. Another lesson in basic business administration for you, no charge.
If you want to pay the working class better, you need to require all business to do so. Then you can pay a higher wage and survive. Try to work that out in your little weak mind.

 

[yiostheoy]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?
Too many.

actually crashes:
1) have mostly been caused by govt interference in economy

2) were easily avoided simply by not selling during the crash

Where are the links ???

 

[yiostheoy]

Simple me poor ignorant...

That's literally the only accurate thing you've said today. You are simple. You are ignorant (very). And you are poor. Almost as poor as your grammar....

Wow. That was profound. The opinion of an ignorant con troll. No links, no facts, just insults. How profound.

See supra.

Pot calling kettle black.

 

[Rshermr]

So, me boy, you are a typical con troll, mindlessly trying to blame democrats for the mess that Republicans made, prior to 1929, and did nothing at all about for over 4 years as the Unemployment Rate went from 3% to 25% under a continued Republican presidency and congress. The fools were too stupid to do anything to stop their huge mess, and simply watched until they handed it off to a democratic president, and asked him to fix it. Which he did. And then, as a typical con with no integrity, you actually try to blame dems for the mess caused by republicans.

Sorry cupcake...Look, I know you are a homosexual. That is fine with me. I just happen to not be. so, quit calling me your cute little names. .conservatives were in complete control during the 1920's and we had the "Roaring 20's". Actually, you just proved you know nothing about economic history. Another case of a person with no knowledge posting con talking points. In 1921-22 you had a major short recession, which cons are still talking about. Then, they did the preparatory work for the great republican recession of 1929. Republicans had the senate, the house, and the presidency until 1933. And sat and watched the the unemployment rate go to unheard of levels. From 3% to 25%. And did nothing at all. So, me lying con troll, republicans were in control through the early 1930's, and then handed the economy off to democrats who fixed it.
Liberals were in complete control during the 1930's and we got the "Great Depression". Those are the facts and they are indisputable. Another complete lie, of course. Truth means nothing to you, does it, dipshit. The great republican depression of 1929 started and reached it's peak under republican rule. As all rational people know. So, dipshit, please tell me how a democrat can start a recession nearly 5 years before he is in power. And lying does not count.

Piss you off that you can't deny reality no matter how hard you try? Hardly, because your reality is not real. That is simple to prove. Well get this - even hard core liberal UCLA acknowledged recently that FDR's ignorant and failed liberal economic policies prolonged the Great Depression (conservative economic policy would've had that shit turned around in six months). You surprisingly picked the only economists out of thousands of economists who tried to make a name for themselves with a new set of theories. Truth is, it has not worked out well for them. But, every single bat shit crazy con web site and talking head in the world is trying to make this one teamed pair of economists out to be the only ones who know what happened. But I could give you a hundred who disagree. Truth is, republicans made the great republican recession of 1929,watched it develop, and gave it to dems to fix.
What you are too ignorant to know is that there are few economic truths without a few outlier economists who try to make a name for themselves with a new opposing theory of that truth. Always.
Top 5 Causes of the Great Depression Shows the causes of the great depression were republican errors, with one exception which was weather related.
Great Depression Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Great Depression A good non technical description of the great depression even you could understand if you were actually interested.
The Depression in the U.S.--An Overview And another.

Market Crashes: The Great Depression (1929) | Investopedia And another

Here is the funny thing, patriot. You give us one outlier excuse for the great depression of 1929 and I can give you a thousand expert sources that see it differently. It was a clearly a depression caused under republican leadership. And it was clearly eliminated by democrats, with NO republican help. And there is nothing your con talking points, lies, and efforts to show alternative views, can do to change that.

 

[Rshermr]

True, the "War on "Poverty" has failed, massively.

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act was highly successful. Until 2009 when Lame Duck Barack Hussein Obama forced through his Stimulus bill which gutted the successful Reform Act.

Obama gutted nothing. Just more Right-wing lies.

Do you have to lie in every post? Can you try telling the truth just a few times now and again?
The only liar, me boy, is you. Check the mirror, and you will see a liar.
Lets check and see if you, a con troll, used any impartial sources, eh.

How Obama has gutted welfare reform Good source except IT IS AN OPITHE NION PIECE, BY A PRINCIPLE OF THE RIGHT WING NUT CASE THINK TANK, HERITAGE. No impartiality here.

Obama Guts Welfare Reform The daily Signal. A nut case far right conservative web site that spends it time attacking only democrats. No impartiality here.

Obama's End Run on Welfare Reform, Part Two: Dismantling Workfare the great well kown heritage foundation, a right wing nut case source of hate talk about democrats. No impartiality here.

Obama kills welfare reform An opinion piece by Dick Morris, an extremely well known far right nut case and con boss. No impartiality here.

House votes 246-181 to block Obama's welfare-work waiver rule An opinion piece by Pete Kasperowicz, a well known right wing contributor to the blaze, the washington times, and a bunch of other nut case far right web sites. No impartiality here.

Waiving Work Requirements for Welfare Recipients: One Year Later, Just another Law Ignored by the Obama Administration - Ways and Means The ways and means committee is an article by republicans only. A simplistic attack piece. No impartiality here.

So, what looked like an excellent effort by patriot to find impartial sources proved to be a trip to a nut case con web site to get six, yes six, totally partial and right wing agenda driven sources, which Patriot lyingly indicated were impartial. Really, me boy, try a little honesty some time.
If you are not agenda driven and actually want the truth, there are fact check organizations who have reported on the subject. And all have said that Obama did not gut anything, and that it is simply an attempt by the far right to attack him. Here is abc news fact checking the subject:
Fact Check: Does Obama Want to 'Gut' Welfare Reform?
They refute what Patriot and his con troll palls say completely.

 

[Rshermr]

The average household in "poverty" in America has air conditioning, tv with cable, and even a freaking game console.

And yet the Right says that the "War on Poverty" has failed!

True, the "War on "Poverty" has failed, massively.

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act was highly successful. Until 2009 when Lame Duck Barack Hussein Obama forced through his Stimulus bill which gutted the successful Reform Act.

That would be a lie:
Fact Check: Does Obama Want to 'Gut' Welfare Reform?

 

[P@triot]

And I do not consider myself an expert in anything. Unlike, you, no one tells me what to believe.

Don't worry - nobody else considers you an "expert" in anything either.

 

[P@triot]

Lets check and see if you, a con troll, used any impartial sources

You are proven wrong in every post and all you ever do is cry like a little bitch that the source isn't "impartial". You've literally claimed that for hundreds of sources. You refuse to accept fact and you pretend that any source which doesn't support your blind ignorance isn't "impartial". You lose, stupid.

 

[P@triot]

That would be a lie:
Fact Check: Does Obama Want to 'Gut' Welfare Reform?

ABC News?!?

"That's not an 'impartial' source"

 

[Rshermr]

That would be a lie:
Fact Check: Does Obama Want to 'Gut' Welfare Reform?

ABC News?!?

"That's not an 'impartial' source"

ABC news im an impartial source to all but con trolls, who think fox is impartial. Sorry, me boy. You loose.

 

[P@triot]

Because I care about others besides myself

If that were even remotely true then you would be helping the poor personally rather than crying like a little bitch that a business which someone else built should be giving away their money.

You literally just proved what a selfish, greedy, lazy little bitch that you are...

 

[P@triot]

That would be a lie:
Fact Check: Does Obama Want to 'Gut' Welfare Reform?

ABC News?!?

"That's not an 'impartial' source"

ABC news im an impartial source to all but con trolls, who think fox is impartial. Sorry, me boy. You loose.

ABC News?!?

"That's not an 'impartial' source"

Sorry pumpkin....you don't get to decide what constitutes an "impartial" source. I pasted half a dozen links proving you're an ignorant liar.

 

[Rshermr]

And I do not consider myself an expert in anything. Unlike, you, no one tells me what to believe.

Don't worry - nobody else considers you an "expert" in anything either.
Good deal. Because I am not. The point is, that you are only an expert at janitorial supplies and such. You just are too stupid to understand that.

 

[Rshermr]

Because I care about others besides myself

If that were even remotely true then you would be helping the poor personally rather than crying like a little bitch that a business which someone else built should be giving away their money.

You literally just proved what a selfish, greedy, lazy little bitch that you are..

Right. Unlike you, who thinks that:
1. Those in the Great Republican Recession of 1929 should not have gotten a minimum wage even as low as .25 per hour.
2. Believe that any increases in the minimum wage should never, ever happen.
3. Believe that the wants of the wealthy should be taken care of with no thought for the less wealthy.
4. Believe that the company owner should get rich, and the workers who made it possible should get as little as possible.
Got it. And you are not at all selfish and greedy. Just delusional.

So, based on the fact that I am so concerned about you, let me provide another lesson for you:
Now try to understand this, me ignorant con troll. You see,
1.Business owners have enough money to start and oversee a business.
2. The Business Owner makes money running their business.
3. The business owner does not give away his money, he is instead required to pay for the help that runs his business.
4, The business owner often gets rich, the worker never gets rich.

So, you have proven over and over that you :
1. do not care about the worker
2, Would be just as happy if the worker had to work many jobs to provide for his family.
3. Really do not care that they may starve.
4. Are, in the technical sense, a complete ass hole.

 

[P@triot]

Wow. That was profound. The opinion of an ignorant con troll. No links, no facts, just insults. How profound.

That's bizarre coming from a jack-ass who almost never posts a single link. Where was your "link" in post #981? Where was your "link" in post #983? You're so dumb - you defeat your own argument.

 

[P@triot]

And I do not consider myself an expert in anything. Unlike, you, no one tells me what to believe.

Don't worry - nobody else considers you an "expert" in anything either.
Good deal. Because I am not. The point is, that you are only an expert at janitorial supplies and such. You just are too stupid to understand that.

Can you please have an adult show you how to use this website?

 

[P@triot]

The point is, that you are only an expert at janitorial supplies and such. You just are too stupid to understand that.

There goes Rshermr again - "champion" of the working man demeaning and insulting the hard working American. He claims to "care" about others and then demeans just about every blue collar job there is out there (all while mooching off of those poor working folks because he doesn't want to hold a job).

 

[Rshermr]

member: 37424"]Lets check and see if you, a con troll, used any impartial sources[/QUOTE]
You are proven wrong in every post and all you ever do is cry like a little bitch that the source isn't "impartial". You've literally claimed that for hundreds of sources. You refuse to accept fact and you pretend that any source which doesn't support your blind ignorance isn't "impartial". You lose, stupid. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
That would be the opinion of a con troll who has achieved nothing in life. You are not, me boy, relevant. At all.
You posted SIX sources that are well known right wing nut case sources. Every single one. I post abc news, and you say it is a partial source. You just proved you are a nut case. Totally unable to make rational conversation. And a total con troll.