What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[Rshermr]

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean. Perhaps you are confused again.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

View attachment 95410

As I stated. Here is Gallup's latest. Aces. You loose.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another. Five aces? AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more. These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also. Supports exactly what I said. But there are many more, but all say the same.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text. Very, very tacky. And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious. YOU LOOSE. Try again when you have valid data.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean.

World oil production is just under 80 million barrels a day.
Which oil company or companies have monopoly power?
BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell

As I stated. Here iGallup's latest.

Great deal/ Fair amount? LOL!
You are laughing at what gallup uses today for it's charting. Apparently you don't feel it is helpful. So, we have your opinion, and Gallup's opinion. You loose. Have you always been this dishonest, or are you simply trying it out from scratch:
Get back to me if you find a poll that counts "great deal" alone, like mine, and we'll see if your claim was correct. You are using old methodology. Simply, and obviously, because you do not want to look at current data. And because you are dishonest. Gallup does not break it out as your chart has it, from back in 2014, Get back to me if you can find new charting of more current data, not with data over 2 years old. Otherwise, just give up. You are about to loose this on big time.

Get back to me if you can find a recent chart, 2016. There are several out there. Easy to find. I did not comment about 2014.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text.

A Gallup poll that ends around 2014. How is it undated? No explanation? Read the chart. DERP
Me boy, you are bobbing and weaving trying to get away from your lie. You will not.
I did read your little chart. It has no date. . Provide a link, if you say it is a valid meaningful chart. To me, looks to be a scam. Sorry, I just have no respect for clowns who try to pass off nonsense as something meaningful. DERP. Provide a link so I can see what Gallup has to say about your 2014 chart. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.[/QUOTE]

Which oil company or companies have monopoly power?

BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell

How do they have monopoly power? First, they are not monopolies. That is not what monopoly power means. It means what it says. Do a little research for yourself, and it may help you. As is, I see no need to have to educate you to what any first quarter econ student knows. And I suspect you know, as well.

You are laughing at what gallup uses today for it's charting. Apparently you don't feel it is helpful.
Your claim was, "And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.". Do Americans who worry "a fair amount" qualify as understanding it is "a large problem"? Or only those who worry about it "a great deal"?
Again, you are assuming that voters only worry about themselves, like con trolls. Most people worry about the human race to a large degree. So, they are very concerned, though some feel that they will not be affected.

I'd say my earlier chart which broke out "a great deal" is a more accurate indicator of the accuracy of your claim.
Sure you would. Because it was done in 2014, and mine is from 2016. During those 2 plus years. And concerns of those polled were much higher in 2016. Funny, isn't it, that you used those prior years. Dipshit.

You are using old methodology.

Obviously, and the old methodology showed that Americans don't consider global warming...err...climate change...err...extreme weather to be their main, or even a major concern.
Not actually. But less of a concern in 2014 than today. Today, me poor ignorant con troll, is 2016. So, we are going to use those 2016 figures that Gallup is quite comfortable with.


Me boy, you are bobbing and weaving trying to get away from your lie.

My Gallup chart was a lie?
Funny. No, you lie. Gallup does not. But gallup is quite aware that things change in two plus years. You try to hide that, and pretend nothing is wrong with using old data. Tacky, me boy.


I did read your little chart. It has no date.

The last year on the chart is 2014. Too complex for you?
No date of creation. And you provided no link to the source of the chart.

Here by the way is what Gallup said in 2016. Negates everything you have been saying.
PRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans are taking global warming more seriously than at any time in the past eight years, according to several measures in Gallup's annual environment poll. Most emblematic is the rise in their stated concern about the issue. Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults say they are worried a "great deal" or "fair amount" about global warming, up from 55% at this time last year and the highest reading since 2008.
Mirroring this, the March 2-6 survey -- conducted at the close of what has reportedly been the warmest winter on record in the U.S. -- documents a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who believe the effects of global warming have already begun. Nearly six in 10 (59%) today say the effects have already begun, up from 55% in March 2015. Another 31%, up from 28% in 2015, believe the effects are not currently manifest but will be at some point in the future. That leaves only 10% saying the effects will never happen, down from 16% last year and the lowest since 2007.
Concern about global warming has increased among all party groups since 2015, although it remains much higher among Democrats than Republicans and independents. For example, 40% of Republicans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming, up from 31% last year. The percentage of independents expressing concern has also increased nine points, from 55% to 64%. Democrats' concern is up slightly less, from 78% to 84%.

Democrats and independents also show double-digit increases in the percentages attributing warmer temperatures to human activities. Republicans show a more modest uptick of four points on this question.
U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A significant increase in the minimum wage will result in lost jobs. Not every business can afford to increase the price of their product or service. The more costs that we put on businesses, the more jobs get outsourced.

But then, added income to workers gets spent. Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring. And, the increase is phased in over time. And, there is no way that we can calculate elasticity of demand for the products of all of the companies involved. We shall see. I don't actually know, but I suspect there will be little employment change. Though some is expected. And most think that is a fair trade off for jobs paying closer to a living wage.

But then, added income to workers gets spent.

And that's money that can't be spent by the business.
Jesus, you could use a class in economics. Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks. Other burger joints are seldom your customers.
Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.
Burger joints may well not. Poor multiplier, but the worker has a high multiplier. Particularly true when the business saves, and does not spend.

Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring.

Which reduces aggregate demand which would harm hiring.
No way, me boy. Again, about that class in economics. Increased wages are spent, increasing income.

Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks.

Great. Let's look at Red Robin.
Revenue, 40 weeks ending Oct 4, 2015 $956,709,000
Labor costs $309,966,000
Income before income taxes $48,968,000

About 5.1% profit margin.

Red Robin - Investors - News Release

Almost 32,000 employees.

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.

Great, give their workers another $100 a week.
$100 X 32000 X 40 weeks = $128,000,000.
Now they're losing about $79,000,000 over that 40 week period.

How many more burgers do they need to sell?
How many more will they sell because "customers have more bucks"?

Increased wages are spent, increasing income.

For sure. Will Red Robin spend more or less?

Jesus, you could use a class in economics.

Too bad you're so stupid, it would be amusing to sit in your class.
How long before I have you sobbing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!
So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high. While it may be illegal under antitrust laws, it will likely not be litigated. Politics have made that a largely unrealistic hope. Perhaps with another less conservative judge.........


Nothing. Did you think that it did?

Only because you mentioned it.
So, if if I mention something, you draw a conclusion that makes no sense. Because after all you are a con. Derp.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

I will. In the end, so will you. Few are as butt stupid as you are, most see the value in science, new products, and technologies. So, who is "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem. That majority will continue to increase. Only the brain dead con trolls believe that global climate change is a hoax, or that it is not man made.
So, tell me, is ignorance bliss? Cause your little island of global climate change deniers is an iceberg, and it has and is melting quick.

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean. Perhaps you are confused again.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

View attachment 95410

As I stated. Here is Gallup's latest. Aces. You loose.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another. Five aces? AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more. These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also. Supports exactly what I said. But there are many more, but all say the same.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text. Very, very tacky. And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious. YOU LOOSE. Try again when you have valid data.

!

View attachment 95413

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

Your source showed 57% don't think it's a serious threat in their lifetime.
Looks like you have a way to go before you get to "most voters".
So, you disagree with what Gallup says. The chart says something slightly different in words from what you "mis" quoted. The chart was of serious threat to you (IE, those being polled). In other words, most think they will escape the problem. But they indicated on the other charts they believed it was a serious problem. So, the expectation of most, though certainly not cons, is that they will have concern for the human race, not just themselves. Being a con, you probably can not fathom that, but indications are that it is true. And it is true that the trend is upward,for the past year plus. And it is expected to continue,

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,
The biggest problem is obvious. If you read the Gallop article, you will understand. Er, probably not. Understand what thinking people see as obvious. People are getting more and more concerned at a rapid rate.

So, you disagree with what Gallup says.

I disagree with combining "Worry a great deal" and "Worry a fair amount".
Breaking them out is more useful.

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,

Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell

How do they have monopoly power?

First, they are not monopolies. That is not what monopoly power means.

So you can't explain how they have monopoly power?

 

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE]
What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South. It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing. It was done on purpose. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources. Never seen that in a reputable source. Including text books, and other publications. You have a source?

 

[Rshermr]

BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
How do they have monopoly power?

First, they are not monopolies. That is not what monopoly power means.
So you can't explain how they have monopoly power?
I can. It is simple. I just want you to do a little work for yourself. As I said, any first quarter econ student knows the answer. Are you saying you are so ignorant that you do not know the answer? And unable to make use of Google.
I would suggest you stop wasting my time, and either admit you are stupid, or go find your answer. It is not that I can not provide it. It is simply that I do not like you. And I do not like helping people I do not like. Now, stop playing games, dipshit. Try to be responsible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BP
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell

How do they have monopoly power?

First, they are not monopolies. That is not what monopoly power means.
So you can't explain how they have monopoly power?
I can. It is simple. I just want you to do a little work for yourself. As I said, any first quarter econ student knows the answer. Are you saying you are so ignorant that you do not know the answer? And unable to make use of Google.
I would suggest you stop wasting my time, and either admit you are stupid, or go find your answer. It is not that I can not provide it. It is simply that I do not like you. And I do not like helping people I do not like. Now, stop playing games, dipshit. Try to be responsible.

BP produces about 3.3 mbpd.
Exxon about 3.9 mdpd.
Chevron about 2.6 mbpd.
Shell about 3.1 mbpd.

Less than 1/6th of world daily production.
How do they have monopoly power?

And I do not like helping people I do not like.

You proving your own claim doesn't help me.

Just admit you were wrong and I'll stop pestering you about it.

 

[Oldstyle]

What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South. It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing. It was done on purpose. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources. Never seen that in a reputable source. Including text books, and other publications. You have a source?
[/QUOTE]

You really are an ignorant person, Georgie. Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's. Those were overwhelmingly white. If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages. Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black. FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act and the Fair Labor Act. The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period. As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black. The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you? Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites? What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!

 

[Rshermr]

A significant increase in the minimum wage will result in lost jobs. Not every business can afford to increase the price of their product or service. The more costs that we put on businesses, the more jobs get outsourced.

But then, added income to workers gets spent. Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring. And, the increase is phased in over time. And, there is no way that we can calculate elasticity of demand for the products of all of the companies involved. We shall see. I don't actually know, but I suspect there will be little employment change. Though some is expected. And most think that is a fair trade off for jobs paying closer to a living wage.

But then, added income to workers gets spent.

And that's money that can't be spent by the business.
Jesus, you could use a class in economics. Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks. Other burger joints are seldom your customers.
Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.
Burger joints may well not. Poor multiplier, but the worker has a high multiplier. Particularly true when the business saves, and does not spend.

Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring.

Which reduces aggregate demand which would harm hiring.
No way, me boy. Again, about that class in economics. Increased wages are spent, increasing income.

Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks.

Great. Let's look at Red Robin.
Revenue, 40 weeks ending Oct 4, 2015 $956,709,000
Labor costs $309,966,000
Income before income taxes $48,968,000

About 5.1% profit margin.

Red Robin - Investors - News Release

Almost 32,000 employees.
Actually, under 29,000
Not known how many are minimum wage

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.
Sales, per hoovers, in 2015, were $1,257.592
Great, give their workers another $100 a week. Since you do not know their current wage, you do not know what you have to pay to reach the new minimum wage.
$100 X 32000 X 40 weeks = $128,000,000. The 32,000 is actually 29,000. You have no way of knowing how many are below minimum wage.
Now they're losing about $79,000,000 over that 40 week period. That would be, technically, bullshit. You have no idea.

How many more burgers do they need to sell? Again, you have no idea. Your data is bullshit.
How many more will they sell because "customers have more bucks"?

Increased wages are spent, increasing income.
Based on your calculations, all we know is you are a joke.
For sure. Will Red Robin spend more or less?

Jesus, you could use a class in economics.

Too bad you're so stupid, it would be amusing to sit in your class.
I do not teach economics, dipshit. Never suggested I do.
What you do not understand, due to crass stupidity, is this is not a valid exercise. But you could well get laughed out of any management, finance, or economics class.
How long before I have you sobbing? Well I do feel sorry for you. But I won't be sobbing. That is simply your delusions kicking up again. But it may take a while before I stop laughing at this ignorant exercise you put together. Sad but kinda funny.
Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.
No idea of the number of employees under minimum wage.
No idea of costs of product.
No idea of sales price of product.
Etc.
You just made a complete ass of yourself. But it was funny.

You have proven my suspicion. You are totally incompitent and not to be taken seriously.

 

[Rshermr]

Nor was I suggesting that I felt it unfair.

Lefties often mention the wealth of the oil companies and business owners...because they feel it is fair.
DERP!
So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high. While it may be illegal under antitrust laws, it will likely not be litigated. Politics have made that a largely unrealistic hope. Perhaps with another less conservative judge.........


Nothing. Did you think that it did?

Only because you mentioned it.
So, if if I mention something, you draw a conclusion that makes no sense. Because after all you are a con. Derp.

If you have paid attention, you would know that new technologies and methodologies always cost more to start with.

Great. Get out your checkbook. Don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your less reliable energy sources.

I will. In the end, so will you. Few are as butt stupid as you are, most see the value in science, new products, and technologies. So, who is "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem. That majority will continue to increase. Only the brain dead con trolls believe that global climate change is a hoax, or that it is not man made.
So, tell me, is ignorance bliss? Cause your little island of global climate change deniers is an iceberg, and it has and is melting quick.

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean. Perhaps you are confused again.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

View attachment 95410

As I stated. Here is Gallup's latest. Aces. You loose.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another. Five aces? AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more. These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also. Supports exactly what I said. But there are many more, but all say the same.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text. Very, very tacky. And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious. YOU LOOSE. Try again when you have valid data.

!

View attachment 95413

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

Your source showed 57% don't think it's a serious threat in their lifetime.
Looks like you have a way to go before you get to "most voters".
So, you disagree with what Gallup says. The chart says something slightly different in words from what you "mis" quoted. The chart was of serious threat to you (IE, those being polled). In other words, most think they will escape the problem. But they indicated on the other charts they believed it was a serious problem. So, the expectation of most, though certainly not cons, is that they will have concern for the human race, not just themselves. Being a con, you probably can not fathom that, but indications are that it is true. And it is true that the trend is upward,for the past year plus. And it is expected to continue,

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,
The biggest problem is obvious. If you read the Gallop article, you will understand. Er, probably not. Understand what thinking people see as obvious. People are getting more and more concerned at a rapid rate.

So, you disagree with what Gallup says.

I disagree with combining "Worry a great deal" and "Worry a fair amount".
Breaking them out is more useful.
Who cares what you disagree with. Gallup chose to add a second catagory. And, since they have a large number of professionals looking at the issue, my money is on them. What it is not on, as any rational person would know, is useing data over 2 years old instead of current data. We were, me boy, talking about 2016, which makes your chart of little value.
Funny thing is, if you put in the term gloval climate change poll, you would have found both. But there would be more of the 2016 polls, only one or so for 2014. Yet you picked the 2014 poll which better fitted your liking, with a lower percentage of those polled that thought CS was an issue. What a coincidence. Dipshit.

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,

Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.
OK. Same issue. you can simply substitute warming, same issue for you. Different in that gw includes fewer variables.

 

[Rshermr]

What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South. It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing. It was done on purpose.

[/QUOTE]

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources. Never seen that in a reputable source. Including text books, and other publications. You have a source?
[/QUOTE]

You really are an ignorant person, Georgie. Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!
That would be your opinion, me boy. And you know how much i value your opinion.

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Truthfully, you should say let me quote a bit of stuff I cut and pasted from a bat shit crazy con web site. For obvious reasons, you have no source. And you have cut an pasted a large amount of nonsense. Simply adds to your reputation for lying.

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's. Those were overwhelmingly white. And this had what to do with FDR, dipshit. If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages. Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black. FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act Prior to FDR dipshit. and the Fair Labor Act. The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period. Sorry, that is totally untrue. Unions excluded blacks, not law. As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black. The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks. It did not exclude blacks. The law, also know as No Roosevelt Act, was a republican organ meant to regulate wages. But Unions did regulate blacks unfairly. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!
The flsa did not apply to farm labor. It was not aimed at blacks.

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you? Yup. Not known as a racist to or about blacks, but was indeed racist against Japanese. Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites? What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!. So you would believe, but you are 1. A con troll, 2. A liar, 3. Your drivel has no link to a source.e. 4. Because you are lying. The most racist, to black presidents, is usually named as a group of Republicans, from Wilson, to Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhauer, Washington, Lincoln, and Truman.
10 Presidents More Racist Than Barack Obama - THE U4E
So, not many dems on that list, me boy. As you know, most anti blacks are republicans.

You are unaware, apparently, that blacks in general liked fdr and few became republicans. Their problems were not with the government, but with labor unions and employers, both of whom either fired or did not hire blacks. The fair labor act had no issues with blacks. The Davis and bacon act was passed by Republicans in the Hoover administration in 1931, nearly three years prior to FDR taking office.. I thought a guy teaching me history would have noticed.

Here is the thing, me boy. You do not provide a link. This is all your patter, at this point. I suspect you do not want to show a link because you are ashamed of it. Another of your bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time in. Caught again, me boy. Liar that you are.

Truth (look it up) is I have read a lot about labor economics over the years. Never saw a case where FDR regulations were attacked the way you have done. In fact, most blacks left the republican party and became democrats as a result of FDR's Policies. Here. I do not hide my sources, you may notice:

"During the Great Depression, the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act attempted to raise disastrously low commodity prices by authorizing the federal government to pay farmers to raise fewer crops. These crop reduction subsidies enabled landlords to dispossess so many African-American tenants and share-croppers that the bill was often referred to sardonically as the “Negro Removal Act.” Despite such unintended consequences and other exclusions from New Deal programs, large numbers of African Americans left the Republican party during the 1930s to support President Franklin D. Roosevelt, largely because many African Americans benefited from New Deal job programs and relief measures. This photograph depicts black sharecroppers forced off of farms by landlords eager to receive federal crop reduction subsidies as they gathered along Highway 60 in New Madrid County, Missouri, in January 1939."
Evicted.

So, looks like you got a source that is full of nonsense, aimed at FDR. As everyone is aware, like you, oldstyle, con publications attack FDR continually. All economic students knew that 50 years ago. They knew it because if they had to do research, they had to avoid the bullshit put out by the many con sources. But then, I know you like the bullshit sources. You always try to throw one in. Always with no link. Because, of course, you are a liar, completely without principles or integrity.

Nice job of posting a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, me boy. Like always, any way you can push the conservative flag. Truth be damned.

 

[Southern Dad]

Keep in mind that a significant minimum wage increase doesn't just cause those making under the new minimum wage get an increase. If you have employees with five, ten years time on the job who have earned their raises up to, say $15 per hour. Minimum wage gets raised from $7.25 an hour to say, $15 with a two year phase in. Do you think that your $15 per hour wage earners are going to be satisfied seeing those just starting out making the same thing that they are? Of course, there are union contracts which will require in kind raises. I have never seen a union contract that didn't have a clause requiring that the step level rates be increased, if there is an increase in minimum wage.

We live in a global economy. Where is Ford moving small car production? Mexico? Why would they add jobs in Mexico rather than in the USA? Can you say, UAW? A significant increase in the minimum wage is going to see more jobs in both service and production move offshore. Think service jobs can't go offshore? Think again. Further you will see, kiosks and apps taking the place of employees. Why pay an employee to take orders at McDonalds, Little Caesar's, Taco Bell, Subway, etc.? An app can take the order and payment. Try out Taco Bell's app. It works great. Do you know this technology isn't widely used right now? ROI (Return on Investment)! It just takes too long to recover the amount spent on the technology. Raise labor expense significantly and that ROI comes down from three years to one and the technology or automation looks far more attractive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A significant increase in the minimum wage will result in lost jobs. Not every business can afford to increase the price of their product or service. The more costs that we put on businesses, the more jobs get outsourced.

But then, added income to workers gets spent. Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring. And, the increase is phased in over time. And, there is no way that we can calculate elasticity of demand for the products of all of the companies involved. We shall see. I don't actually know, but I suspect there will be little employment change. Though some is expected. And most think that is a fair trade off for jobs paying closer to a living wage.

But then, added income to workers gets spent.

And that's money that can't be spent by the business.
Jesus, you could use a class in economics. Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks. Other burger joints are seldom your customers.
Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.
Burger joints may well not. Poor multiplier, but the worker has a high multiplier. Particularly true when the business saves, and does not spend.

Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring.

Which reduces aggregate demand which would harm hiring.
No way, me boy. Again, about that class in economics. Increased wages are spent, increasing income.

Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks.

Great. Let's look at Red Robin.
Revenue, 40 weeks ending Oct 4, 2015 $956,709,000
Labor costs $309,966,000
Income before income taxes $48,968,000

About 5.1% profit margin.

Red Robin - Investors - News Release

Almost 32,000 employees.
Actually, under 29,000
Not known how many are minimum wage

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.
Sales, per hoovers, in 2015, were $1,257.592
Great, give their workers another $100 a week. Since you do not know their current wage, you do not know what you have to pay to reach the new minimum wage.
$100 X 32000 X 40 weeks = $128,000,000. The 32,000 is actually 29,000. You have no way of knowing how many are below minimum wage.
Now they're losing about $79,000,000 over that 40 week period. That would be, technically, bullshit. You have no idea.

How many more burgers do they need to sell? Again, you have no idea. Your data is bullshit.
How many more will they sell because "customers have more bucks"?

Increased wages are spent, increasing income.
Based on your calculations, all we know is you are a joke.
For sure. Will Red Robin spend more or less?

Jesus, you could use a class in economics.

Too bad you're so stupid, it would be amusing to sit in your class.
I do not teach economics, dipshit. Never suggested I do.
What you do not understand, due to crass stupidity, is this is not a valid exercise. But you could well get laughed out of any management, finance, or economics class.
How long before I have you sobbing? Well I do feel sorry for you. But I won't be sobbing. That is simply your delusions kicking up again. But it may take a while before I stop laughing at this ignorant exercise you put together. Sad but kinda funny.
Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.
No idea of the number of employees under minimum wage.
No idea of costs of product.
No idea of sales price of product.
Etc.
You just made a complete ass of yourself. But it was funny.

You have proven my suspicion. You are totally incompitent and not to be taken seriously.

Almost 32,000 employees.

Actually, under 29,000

Red Robin’s core values and unbridled atmosphere is at the heart of the company’s energizing culture and its nearly 32,000 Team Members across North America.

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

Actually, Red Robin says nearly 32,000

Sales, per hoovers, in 2015, were $1,257.592

Translate that into English.

Since you do not know their current wage, you do not know what you have to pay to reach the new minimum wage.

We can only give their minimum wage workers more money?
Doesn't the multiplier work for all their employees?

That would be, technically, bullshit. You have no idea.

Feel free to correct my math, technically.

Again, you have no idea. Your data is bullshit.

Let's hear your numbers. Because mine was from the company itself.

I do not teach economics, dipshit.

I'm glad, because you'd be really bad at it.

Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.

Tell Red Robin, I took their numbers. Links provided.

No idea of costs of product.
No idea of sales price of product.

I'd ask you why that matters when we're taking about wages, but you'd just say something stupid.

You are totally incompitent and not to be taken seriously.

DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean. Perhaps you are confused again.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

View attachment 95410

As I stated. Here is Gallup's latest. Aces. You loose.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another. Five aces? AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more. These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also. Supports exactly what I said. But there are many more, but all say the same.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text. Very, very tacky. And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious. YOU LOOSE. Try again when you have valid data.

!

View attachment 95413

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

Your source showed 57% don't think it's a serious threat in their lifetime.
Looks like you have a way to go before you get to "most voters".
So, you disagree with what Gallup says. The chart says something slightly different in words from what you "mis" quoted. The chart was of serious threat to you (IE, those being polled). In other words, most think they will escape the problem. But they indicated on the other charts they believed it was a serious problem. So, the expectation of most, though certainly not cons, is that they will have concern for the human race, not just themselves. Being a con, you probably can not fathom that, but indications are that it is true. And it is true that the trend is upward,for the past year plus. And it is expected to continue,

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,
The biggest problem is obvious. If you read the Gallop article, you will understand. Er, probably not. Understand what thinking people see as obvious. People are getting more and more concerned at a rapid rate.

So, you disagree with what Gallup says.

I disagree with combining "Worry a great deal" and "Worry a fair amount".
Breaking them out is more useful.
Who cares what you disagree with. Gallup chose to add a second catagory. And, since they have a large number of professionals looking at the issue, my money is on them. What it is not on, as any rational person would know, is useing data over 2 years old instead of current data. We were, me boy, talking about 2016, which makes your chart of little value.
Funny thing is, if you put in the term gloval climate change poll, you would have found both. But there would be more of the 2016 polls, only one or so for 2014. Yet you picked the 2014 poll which better fitted your liking, with a lower percentage of those polled that thought CS was an issue. What a coincidence. Dipshit.

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,

Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.
OK. Same issue. you can simply substitute warming, same issue for you. Different in that gw includes fewer variables.

Who cares what you disagree with

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it.

Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.

OK. Same issue.

Same issue? LOL!
That's why people don't take the fearmongering seriously anymore.

 

[Oldstyle]

What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South. It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing. It was done on purpose.

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources. Never seen that in a reputable source. Including text books, and other publications. You have a source?
[/QUOTE]

You really are an ignorant person, Georgie. Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!
That would be your opinion, me boy. And you know how much i value your opinion.

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Truthfully, you should say let me quote a bit of stuff I cut and pasted from a bat shit crazy con web site. For obvious reasons, you have no source. And you have cut an pasted a large amount of nonsense. Simply adds to your reputation for lying.

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's. Those were overwhelmingly white. And this had what to do with FDR, dipshit. If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages. Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black. FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act Prior to FDR dipshit. and the Fair Labor Act. The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period. Sorry, that is totally untrue. Unions excluded blacks, not law. As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black. The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks. It did not exclude blacks. The law, also know as No Roosevelt Act, was a republican organ meant to regulate wages. But Unions did regulate blacks unfairly. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!
The flsa did not apply to farm labor. It was not aimed at blacks.

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you? Yup. Not known as a racist to or about blacks, but was indeed racist against Japanese. Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites? What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!. So you would believe, but you are 1. A con troll, 2. A liar, 3. Your drivel has no link to a source.e. 4. Because you are lying. The most racist, to black presidents, is usually named as a group of Republicans, from Wilson, to Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhauer, Washington, Lincoln, and Truman.
10 Presidents More Racist Than Barack Obama - THE U4E
So, not many dems on that list, me boy. As you know, most anti blacks are republicans.

You are unaware, apparently, that blacks in general liked fdr and few became republicans. Their problems were not with the government, but with labor unions and employers, both of whom either fired or did not hire blacks. The fair labor act had no issues with blacks. The Davis and bacon act was passed by Republicans in the Hoover administration in 1931, nearly three years prior to FDR taking office.. I thought a guy teaching me history would have noticed.

Here is the thing, me boy. You do not provide a link. This is all your patter, at this point. I suspect you do not want to show a link because you are ashamed of it. Another of your bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time in. Caught again, me boy. Liar that you are.

Truth (look it up) is I have read a lot about labor economics over the years. Never saw a case where FDR regulations were attacked the way you have done. In fact, most blacks left the republican party and became democrats as a result of FDR's Policies. Here. I do not hide my sources, you may notice:

"During the Great Depression, the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act attempted to raise disastrously low commodity prices by authorizing the federal government to pay farmers to raise fewer crops. These crop reduction subsidies enabled landlords to dispossess so many African-American tenants and share-croppers that the bill was often referred to sardonically as the “Negro Removal Act.” Despite such unintended consequences and other exclusions from New Deal programs, large numbers of African Americans left the Republican party during the 1930s to support President Franklin D. Roosevelt, largely because many African Americans benefited from New Deal job programs and relief measures. This photograph depicts black sharecroppers forced off of farms by landlords eager to receive federal crop reduction subsidies as they gathered along Highway 60 in New Madrid County, Missouri, in January 1939."
Evicted.

So, looks like you got a source that is full of nonsense, aimed at FDR. As everyone is aware, like you, oldstyle, con publications attack FDR continually. All economic students knew that 50 years ago. They knew it because if they had to do research, they had to avoid the bullshit put out by the many con sources. But then, I know you like the bullshit sources. You always try to throw one in. Always with no link. Because, of course, you are a liar, completely without principles or integrity.

Nice job of posting a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, me boy. Like always, any way you can push the conservative flag. Truth be damned.



[/QUOTE]

You're now claiming that the National Recovery Act of 1933 was a "republican organ"? Interesting concept, Georgie. In 1933 Democrats controlled the Senate 59 - 36...they controlled the House 313 - 117 and FDR was sitting in the Oval Office. How exactly could the GOP have passed anything? Your incredible ignorance of American history is breathtaking in it's scope.

 

[Rshermr]

What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South. It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing. It was done on purpose.

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources. Never seen that in a reputable source. Including text books, and other publications. You have a source?

You really are an ignorant person, Georgie. Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!
That would be your opinion, me boy. And you know how much i value your opinion.

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Truthfully, you should say let me quote a bit of stuff I cut and pasted from a bat shit crazy con web site. For obvious reasons, you have no source. And you have cut an pasted a large amount of nonsense. Simply adds to your reputation for lying.

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's. Those were overwhelmingly white. And this had what to do with FDR, dipshit. If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages. Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black. FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act Prior to FDR dipshit. and the Fair Labor Act. The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period. Sorry, that is totally untrue. Unions excluded blacks, not law. As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black. The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks. It did not exclude blacks. The law, also know as No Roosevelt Act, was a republican organ meant to regulate wages. But Unions did regulate blacks unfairly. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!
The flsa did not apply to farm labor. It was not aimed at blacks.

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you? Yup. Not known as a racist to or about blacks, but was indeed racist against Japanese. Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites? What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!. So you would believe, but you are 1. A con troll, 2. A liar, 3. Your drivel has no link to a source.e. 4. Because you are lying. The most racist, to black presidents, is usually named as a group of Republicans, from Wilson, to Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhauer, Washington, Lincoln, and Truman.
10 Presidents More Racist Than Barack Obama - THE U4E
So, not many dems on that list, me boy. As you know, most anti blacks are republicans.

You are unaware, apparently, that blacks in general liked fdr and few became republicans. Their problems were not with the government, but with labor unions and employers, both of whom either fired or did not hire blacks. The fair labor act had no issues with blacks. The Davis and bacon act was passed by Republicans in the Hoover administration in 1931, nearly three years prior to FDR taking office.. I thought a guy teaching me history would have noticed.

Here is the thing, me boy. You do not provide a link. This is all your patter, at this point. I suspect you do not want to show a link because you are ashamed of it. Another of your bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time in. Caught again, me boy. Liar that you are.

Truth (look it up) is I have read a lot about labor economics over the years. Never saw a case where FDR regulations were attacked the way you have done. In fact, most blacks left the republican party and became democrats as a result of FDR's Policies. Here. I do not hide my sources, you may notice:

"During the Great Depression, the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act attempted to raise disastrously low commodity prices by authorizing the federal government to pay farmers to raise fewer crops. These crop reduction subsidies enabled landlords to dispossess so many African-American tenants and share-croppers that the bill was often referred to sardonically as the “Negro Removal Act.” Despite such unintended consequences and other exclusions from New Deal programs, large numbers of African Americans left the Republican party during the 1930s to support President Franklin D. Roosevelt, largely because many African Americans benefited from New Deal job programs and relief measures. This photograph depicts black sharecroppers forced off of farms by landlords eager to receive federal crop reduction subsidies as they gathered along Highway 60 in New Madrid County, Missouri, in January 1939."
Evicted.

So, looks like you got a source that is full of nonsense, aimed at FDR. As everyone is aware, like you, oldstyle, con publications attack FDR continually. All economic students knew that 50 years ago. They knew it because if they had to do research, they had to avoid the bullshit put out by the many con sources. But then, I know you like the bullshit sources. You always try to throw one in. Always with no link. Because, of course, you are a liar, completely without principles or integrity.

Nice job of posting a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, me boy. Like always, any way you can push the conservative flag. Truth be damned.



[/QUOTE]

You're now claiming that the National Recovery Act of 1933 was a "republican organ"? Interesting concept, Georgie. In 1933 Democrats controlled the Senate 59 - 36...they controlled the House 313 - 117 and FDR was sitting in the Oval Office. How exactly could the GOP have passed anything? Your incredible ignorance of American history is breathtaking in it's scope.[/QUOTE]
So you assume that the NRA was put together and went through congress in three months, eh. You really are simple minded. Truth was the bill was worked on for over half a year. And you are making a big deal that I said it was a republican organ. Should you research it, you would fin that is true. But it was not aimed at blacks, as anyone familiar with it knows. That it hurt blacks to some degree is true. But congress, republican and democrat, need to share the credit for that. Only simpletons like you place blame for such bills on one party.
But what is really funny is that you provided credit for the Davis Bacon act to FDR, though it was passed over two years before FDR took office. I missed the NRA's date by three months, and you are having kittens. You missed the Davis Bacon date by over 2 years, but I seem to have missed your apology. And, me boy, it is you that said you were providing history lessons to me, a mere economics guy. Below I provide the date and president who signed Davis Bacon into law. As a History guy, you should have some idea who Hoover was. Are you sure you have a history degree?

Where is that source, dipshit. I spent too much time, almost a half hour, looking at your drivel. It has no source. Did you think there was some reason to believe anything you said?
You posted a litany of untrue statements. Five different bills, with this particular one passed by an Alabama senator. But of all the claims you made, you are correct here. It was passed three months after FDR took office. So, you believe he hated blacks and spent his first three months putting together a bill that hurt them. Got it. Now, about that link to your "source".
Without a source to back up your claims, which are mostly provably lies, there is no reason to spend time.proving it wrong.

So you start by telling me you are going to teach me some history. Sounds good. You say you have a degree in the subject. Though you have spent your years as a food services worker. It was funny, however, that:
1. You have no source for your post, only a bunch of charges. No one who is responsible ever posts a bunch of charges without being willing to provide the source. Unless the charges are untrue, and you do not want anyone to see what source you are using. Eh, Oldstyle. I keep asking for a link, you keep hiding your source. Then, you want people to believe you???
2. When I do basic research on the charges, most can not be found, those that can be do not show anything like the charges you have made.
3. You actually call FDR a racist. But can not back the statement up with impartial research, or any research that I can find. All independent sources seem to see him as a racist only toward the japanese. Only you call him a well known racist, again without a source.
4. To prove that what you posted is drivel, you blame the Davis Bacon Act on FDR. But the problem is, the Davis Bacon act was put into effect in 1931. Any person with a degree in history should understand that FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933, So, your charges relative to FDR passing the act are
embarrassingly wrong. Though I am sure you will not admit your obvious error. Tacky.
"The Davis–Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931."
Davis–Bacon Act - Wikipedia
A simple look at wikipedia would have corrected your historical blunder, and you would have found it was passed primarily by Bacon, a congressman who was well known to be a republican racist.

You have proven you are dishonest. Again. What a surprise.

 

[Oldstyle]

What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South. It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing. It was done on purpose.

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources. Never seen that in a reputable source. Including text books, and other publications. You have a source?

You really are an ignorant person, Georgie. Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!
That would be your opinion, me boy. And you know how much i value your opinion.

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Truthfully, you should say let me quote a bit of stuff I cut and pasted from a bat shit crazy con web site. For obvious reasons, you have no source. And you have cut an pasted a large amount of nonsense. Simply adds to your reputation for lying.

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's. Those were overwhelmingly white. And this had what to do with FDR, dipshit. If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages. Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black. FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act Prior to FDR dipshit. and the Fair Labor Act. The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period. Sorry, that is totally untrue. Unions excluded blacks, not law. As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black. The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks. It did not exclude blacks. The law, also know as No Roosevelt Act, was a republican organ meant to regulate wages. But Unions did regulate blacks unfairly. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!
The flsa did not apply to farm labor. It was not aimed at blacks.

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you? Yup. Not known as a racist to or about blacks, but was indeed racist against Japanese. Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites? What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!. So you would believe, but you are 1. A con troll, 2. A liar, 3. Your drivel has no link to a source.e. 4. Because you are lying. The most racist, to black presidents, is usually named as a group of Republicans, from Wilson, to Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhauer, Washington, Lincoln, and Truman.
10 Presidents More Racist Than Barack Obama - THE U4E
So, not many dems on that list, me boy. As you know, most anti blacks are republicans.

You are unaware, apparently, that blacks in general liked fdr and few became republicans. Their problems were not with the government, but with labor unions and employers, both of whom either fired or did not hire blacks. The fair labor act had no issues with blacks. The Davis and bacon act was passed by Republicans in the Hoover administration in 1931, nearly three years prior to FDR taking office.. I thought a guy teaching me history would have noticed.

Here is the thing, me boy. You do not provide a link. This is all your patter, at this point. I suspect you do not want to show a link because you are ashamed of it. Another of your bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time in. Caught again, me boy. Liar that you are.

Truth (look it up) is I have read a lot about labor economics over the years. Never saw a case where FDR regulations were attacked the way you have done. In fact, most blacks left the republican party and became democrats as a result of FDR's Policies. Here. I do not hide my sources, you may notice:

"During the Great Depression, the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act attempted to raise disastrously low commodity prices by authorizing the federal government to pay farmers to raise fewer crops. These crop reduction subsidies enabled landlords to dispossess so many African-American tenants and share-croppers that the bill was often referred to sardonically as the “Negro Removal Act.” Despite such unintended consequences and other exclusions from New Deal programs, large numbers of African Americans left the Republican party during the 1930s to support President Franklin D. Roosevelt, largely because many African Americans benefited from New Deal job programs and relief measures. This photograph depicts black sharecroppers forced off of farms by landlords eager to receive federal crop reduction subsidies as they gathered along Highway 60 in New Madrid County, Missouri, in January 1939."
Evicted.

So, looks like you got a source that is full of nonsense, aimed at FDR. As everyone is aware, like you, oldstyle, con publications attack FDR continually. All economic students knew that 50 years ago. They knew it because if they had to do research, they had to avoid the bullshit put out by the many con sources. But then, I know you like the bullshit sources. You always try to throw one in. Always with no link. Because, of course, you are a liar, completely without principles or integrity.

Nice job of posting a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, me boy. Like always, any way you can push the conservative flag. Truth be damned.

You're now claiming that the National Recovery Act of 1933 was a "republican organ"? Interesting concept, Georgie. In 1933 Democrats controlled the Senate 59 - 36...they controlled the House 313 - 117 and FDR was sitting in the Oval Office. How exactly could the GOP have passed anything? Your incredible ignorance of American history is breathtaking in it's scope.[/QUOTE]
So you assume that the NRA was put together and went through congress in three months, eh. You really are simple minded. Truth was the bill was worked on for over half a year. And you are making a big deal that I said it was a republican organ. Should you research it, you would fin that is true. But it was not aimed at blacks, as anyone familiar with it knows. That it hurt blacks to some degree is true. But congress, republican and democrat, need to share the credit for that. Only simpletons like you place blame for such bills on one party.
But what is really funny is that you provided credit for the Davis Bacon act to FDR, though it was passed over two years before FDR took office. I missed the NRA's date by three months, and you are having kittens. You missed the Davis Bacon date by over 2 years, but I seem to have missed your apology. And, me boy, it is you that said you were providing history lessons to me, a mere economics guy. Below I provide the date and president who signed Davis Bacon into law. As a History guy, you should have some idea who Hoover was. Are you sure you have a history degree?

Where is that source, dipshit. I spent too much time, almost a half hour, looking at your drivel. It has no source. Did you think there was some reason to believe anything you said?
You posted a litany of untrue statements. Five different bills, with this particular one passed by an Alabama senator. But of all the claims you made, you are correct here. It was passed three months after FDR took office. So, you believe he hated blacks and spent his first three months putting together a bill that hurt them. Got it. Now, about that link to your "source".
Without a source to back up your claims, which are mostly provably lies, there is no reason to spend time.proving it wrong.

So you start by telling me you are going to teach me some history. Sounds good. You say you have a degree in the subject. Though you have spent your years as a food services worker. It was funny, however, that:
1. You have no source for your post, only a bunch of charges. No one who is responsible ever posts a bunch of charges without being willing to provide the source. Unless the charges are untrue, and you do not want anyone to see what source you are using. Eh, Oldstyle. I keep asking for a link, you keep hiding your source. Then, you want people to believe you???
2. When I do basic research on the charges, most can not be found, those that can be do not show anything like the charges you have made.
3. You actually call FDR a racist. But can not back the statement up with impartial research, or any research that I can find. All independent sources seem to see him as a racist only toward the japanese. Only you call him a well known racist, again without a source.
4. To prove that what you posted is drivel, you blame the Davis Bacon Act on FDR. But the problem is, the Davis Bacon act was put into effect in 1931. Any person with a degree in history should understand that FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933, So, your charges relative to FDR passing the act are
embarrassingly wrong. Though I am sure you will not admit your obvious error. Tacky.
"The Davis–Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931."
Davis–Bacon Act - Wikipedia
A simple look at wikipedia would have corrected your historical blunder, and you would have found it was passed primarily by Bacon, a congressman who was well known to be a republican racist.

You have proven you are dishonest. Again. What a surprise. [/QUOTE]

What's amusing is that you think someone has to have a "source" to know things! I know about New Deal policies because I studied the subject in college. Unlike your pretend degree in economics I actually have a history degree and I actually learned things in college. Things like quite a few of the New Deal's programs were deliberately harmful to blacks because they protected union jobs at a time when black membership in unions was almost non-existent. As for your point about the Davis-Bacon Act being passed prior to FDR becoming President? You are correct in that but you missed the fact that the Davis-Bacon Act was amended both in 1933 and in 1935 and none of the things that were harmful to blacks in the original legislation were changed in subsequent amendments. The changes that an FDR led government put in further strengthened unions...which as I've already pointed out almost totally excluded blacks from membership. Care to try again?

 

[Oldstyle]

You trying to have a history debate with me isn't going to go well for you, Georgie! Just saying...

 

[Rshermr]

What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South. It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing. It was done on purpose.

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources. Never seen that in a reputable source. Including text books, and other publications. You have a source?

You really are an ignorant person, Georgie. Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!
That would be your opinion, me boy. And you know how much i value your opinion.

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Truthfully, you should say let me quote a bit of stuff I cut and pasted from a bat shit crazy con web site. For obvious reasons, you have no source. And you have cut an pasted a large amount of nonsense. Simply adds to your reputation for lying.

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's. Those were overwhelmingly white. And this had what to do with FDR, dipshit. If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages. Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black. FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act Prior to FDR dipshit. and the Fair Labor Act. The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period. Sorry, that is totally untrue. Unions excluded blacks, not law. As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black. The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks. It did not exclude blacks. The law, also know as No Roosevelt Act, was a republican organ meant to regulate wages. But Unions did regulate blacks unfairly. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!
The flsa did not apply to farm labor. It was not aimed at blacks.

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you? Yup. Not known as a racist to or about blacks, but was indeed racist against Japanese. Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites? What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!. So you would believe, but you are 1. A con troll, 2. A liar, 3. Your drivel has no link to a source.e. 4. Because you are lying. The most racist, to black presidents, is usually named as a group of Republicans, from Wilson, to Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhauer, Washington, Lincoln, and Truman.
10 Presidents More Racist Than Barack Obama - THE U4E
So, not many dems on that list, me boy. As you know, most anti blacks are republicans.

You are unaware, apparently, that blacks in general liked fdr and few became republicans. Their problems were not with the government, but with labor unions and employers, both of whom either fired or did not hire blacks. The fair labor act had no issues with blacks. The Davis and bacon act was passed by Republicans in the Hoover administration in 1931, nearly three years prior to FDR taking office.. I thought a guy teaching me history would have noticed.

Here is the thing, me boy. You do not provide a link. This is all your patter, at this point. I suspect you do not want to show a link because you are ashamed of it. Another of your bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time in. Caught again, me boy. Liar that you are.

Truth (look it up) is I have read a lot about labor economics over the years. Never saw a case where FDR regulations were attacked the way you have done. In fact, most blacks left the republican party and became democrats as a result of FDR's Policies. Here. I do not hide my sources, you may notice:

"During the Great Depression, the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act attempted to raise disastrously low commodity prices by authorizing the federal government to pay farmers to raise fewer crops. These crop reduction subsidies enabled landlords to dispossess so many African-American tenants and share-croppers that the bill was often referred to sardonically as the “Negro Removal Act.” Despite such unintended consequences and other exclusions from New Deal programs, large numbers of African Americans left the Republican party during the 1930s to support President Franklin D. Roosevelt, largely because many African Americans benefited from New Deal job programs and relief measures. This photograph depicts black sharecroppers forced off of farms by landlords eager to receive federal crop reduction subsidies as they gathered along Highway 60 in New Madrid County, Missouri, in January 1939."
Evicted.

So, looks like you got a source that is full of nonsense, aimed at FDR. As everyone is aware, like you, oldstyle, con publications attack FDR continually. All economic students knew that 50 years ago. They knew it because if they had to do research, they had to avoid the bullshit put out by the many con sources. But then, I know you like the bullshit sources. You always try to throw one in. Always with no link. Because, of course, you are a liar, completely without principles or integrity.

Nice job of posting a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, me boy. Like always, any way you can push the conservative flag. Truth be damned.

You're now claiming that the National Recovery Act of 1933 was a "republican organ"? Interesting concept, Georgie. In 1933 Democrats controlled the Senate 59 - 36...they controlled the House 313 - 117 and FDR was sitting in the Oval Office. How exactly could the GOP have passed anything? Your incredible ignorance of American history is breathtaking in it's scope.

So you assume that the NRA was put together and went through congress in three months, eh. You really are simple minded. Truth was the bill was worked on for over half a year. And you are making a big deal that I said it was a republican organ. Should you research it, you would fin that is true. But it was not aimed at blacks, as anyone familiar with it knows. That it hurt blacks to some degree is true. But congress, republican and democrat, need to share the credit for that. Only simpletons like you place blame for such bills on one party.
But what is really funny is that you provided credit for the Davis Bacon act to FDR, though it was passed over two years before FDR took office. I missed the NRA's date by three months, and you are having kittens. You missed the Davis Bacon date by over 2 years, but I seem to have missed your apology. And, me boy, it is you that said you were providing history lessons to me, a mere economics guy. Below I provide the date and president who signed Davis Bacon into law. As a History guy, you should have some idea who Hoover was. Are you sure you have a history degree?

Where is that source, dipshit. I spent too much time, almost a half hour, looking at your drivel. It has no source. Did you think there was some reason to believe anything you said?
You posted a litany of untrue statements. Five different bills, with this particular one passed by an Alabama senator. But of all the claims you made, you are correct here. It was passed three months after FDR took office. So, you believe he hated blacks and spent his first three months putting together a bill that hurt them. Got it. Now, about that link to your "source".
Without a source to back up your claims, which are mostly provably lies, there is no reason to spend time.proving it wrong.

So you start by telling me you are going to teach me some history. Sounds good. You say you have a degree in the subject. Though you have spent your years as a food services worker. It was funny, however, that:
1. You have no source for your post, only a bunch of charges. No one who is responsible ever posts a bunch of charges without being willing to provide the source. Unless the charges are untrue, and you do not want anyone to see what source you are using. Eh, Oldstyle. I keep asking for a link, you keep hiding your source. Then, you want people to believe you???
2. When I do basic research on the charges, most can not be found, those that can be do not show anything like the charges you have made.
3. You actually call FDR a racist. But can not back the statement up with impartial research, or any research that I can find. All independent sources seem to see him as a racist only toward the japanese. Only you call him a well known racist, again without a source.
4. To prove that what you posted is drivel, you blame the Davis Bacon Act on FDR. But the problem is, the Davis Bacon act was put into effect in 1931. Any person with a degree in history should understand that FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933, So, your charges relative to FDR passing the act are
embarrassingly wrong. Though I am sure you will not admit your obvious error. Tacky.
"The Davis–Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931."
Davis–Bacon Act - Wikipedia
A simple look at wikipedia would have corrected your historical blunder, and you would have found it was passed primarily by Bacon, a congressman who was well known to be a republican racist.

You have proven you are dishonest. Again. What a surprise. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

What's amusing is that you think someone has to have a "source" to know things! Sorry you think it is amusing to demand a source. The problem is that you were wrong multiple times. So, these musings you posted are the thoughts of a dish washer with a long ago history degree. Sorry. I have no reason to believe you. Responsible people are not afraid to prove what they say. Those who lie are. I know about New Deal policies because I studied the subject in college. Unlike your pretend degree in economics I actually have a history degree and I actually learned things in college. Nice bunch of personal attacks. Having had two classes in econ does not make you an expert on the subject. I have a degree in economics, and though I may be a few light years ahead of you, I do not disrespect people by posting untrue things and expecting them to believe me. Here is a news flash, me boy. There are people out there who know way more than either of us. And they publish. You need to back up what you say useing those sources, or simply admit you are posting what you choose to post. Things like quite a few of the New Deal's programs were deliberately harmful to blacks because they protected union jobs at a time when black membership in unions was almost non-existent. Prove it, me boy. As for your point about the Davis-Bacon Act being passed prior to FDR becoming President? You are correct in that but you missed the fact that the Davis-Bacon Act was amended both in 1933 and in 1935 and none of the things that were harmful to blacks in the original legislation were changed in subsequent amendments. The changes that an FDR led government put in further strengthened unions...which as I've already pointed out almost totally excluded blacks from membership. Care to try again?
No need to me boy. You missed the absolutely obvious fact that the bill was a republican bill, written by republican congressmen and passed by a republican president. Which you finally had to admit. As for amendments, that would be normal. But it was never aimed at blacks. It was aimed at companies who tried to hire workers at lower than local wages. As even non history majors know. What did you get when you graduated, a comic book? Everyone knows what Davis Bacon is. It is still in effect, has been modified many, many times, and republicans hate it these days. Because it does not permit large contractors from paying below normal wages.

Now, relative to my econ degree, which you are questioning again. As you have done for years. Find a mutually impartial member, or a bank official, and I will send you a copy of my econ degree. Or, if you are actually capable, simply call the college and ask if my degree is correct and valid. If my degree is valid, you owe me $500, if I can not produce, you get $500. But, since I have no reason to trust you, our bets ($500 each) go in a mutually agreeable escrow. Really simple. Or, do as you always have before when I provide you a chance to back up your unsubstantiated insults, and run. And you will, of course, run.

 

[Rshermr]

You trying to have a history debate with me isn't going to go well for you, Georgie! Just saying...

You already dumped your historical expertise reputation when you said that FDR passed the David Bacon act. Just saying.......