Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!

[DigitalDrifter]

It's time to reject the ignorance and hate common to most on the right; the reactionaryism and fear of change, diversity, and expressions of individual liberty.

It's also time to reject failed conservative fiscal dogma, to instead pursue a pragmatic course predicated on what works, not what conforms to that failed conservative economic dogma.

Hasty generalization phallic symbol.

 

[kaz]

Who are you quoting, right wing nut job? Don't know what quotes mean? How's life in the clown car?

Sure Bubs, ANYONE who doesn't have a Randian fetish as deep as yours is a "marxist" or commie right?

So you think Republicans are Randian? The stupid just goes deeper and deeper with you, doesn't it?

Do I think the Randians in the AEI, Heritage, Club for Growth, Koch, etc world are pushing the buttons in the GOP world? Yep

None of them, except perhaps for the Kochs, are Randians. They almost all favor keep drugs illegal, making porn illegal and support Social Security and Medicare

lol, Sure Bubs, sure, just like Miss Rand ACCEPTED SS AND MEDICARE THE KOCH BROTHER 'S RUN OFF OF CORP WELFARE THEY SAY IS EVIL, lol


THE ONLY PLACE YOU HAVE A TRUE RANDIAN CULTURE WOULD BE IN SOMALIA BUBS, Not even Honduras, HK, Chile or the 3rd world nations the Randian policy would push US too, actually live the 'freedom" you Klowns LOVE!

Again, show where Rand had the option to opt out of paying for social security. You're 0 fer so far on that.

You do continue to worship politicians who call for the taxes you crave (because you don't pay them) while saying zero about them cheating on their own taxes. You're a hypocrite, daddy-o. Clean your own house before worrying about anyone else

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Is this a precursor of things to come?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/labour-party-election-jeremy-corbyn.html?_r=0


Are The People ready to recoil from the consequences of Reaganism as the Brits have of Thatcherism?

Are the people ready to take back democracy from the plutocrats?

Is it possible that all the wealth of Brothers Koch and the SuperPacs have met their match, as the antipathy of The People seeing great wealth continue to flow to the few at the expense of the many continues to grow?

Is Sen. Sanders our Jeremy Corbyn?

It's past time for a correction, American voters have in the past rejected extremism, and today's Republican Party is not today, and not since 1981, a party of the people, by the people and for the people.

Once single issue voters understand the GOP is all hat and no cattle, as the have given the cattle to the wealthy elite, they will realize the wedge issues have never been fixed by the GOP.

In fact the GOP and it's benefactors - the Power Elite - understand that to solve issues like immigration, health care, the meme that they will take away your guns, make abortion harder SSM and will destroy marriage between a man and a women will take away their talking points.

The changes necessary to take back America from the power held by the First and Second Estates will be a monumental task, given the money which the clergy and nobility - our power elites - will put into keeping the Congress under the leadership they own.

"Is Sen. Sanders our Jeremy Corbyn?"

I don't know, is Corbyn 75 and wearing diapers ?

 

[Dad2three]

Oh right, YOU actually "believe" that nonsense? SHOCKING

YEAH, IT WAS THE DROP IN UNION MEMBERSHIP THAT WAS THE PROBLEM *SHAKING HEAD*


THE OFFSHORING OF US JOBS

YEAH, UNIONS *SHAKING HEAD*

What a waste of time and space. I told you that there would be an inflation factor with a large minimum wage increase and you post all this crap?

NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE BUBS, WHY THIS TIME? Hint NO ONE SERIOUSLY IS SAYING JUMP TO $15 AN HOUR JAN 1, 2016. over a few years raise it to $15 an hour, a GOOD BIZ HAS INCREASING COSTS ALL THE TIME, THEY DEAL WITH IT!


But I love the "logic" of the right wing, tax cuts for the rich will boom the economy, but increasing wages at the bottom will destroy it? LOL

Once more for the terminally dense propagandist: No one here is arguing against increased wages for "the bottom." The argument is with gov't meddling in the labor wage market and pretending it will have little or no impact on prices (inflation) which disproportionately hurts "the bottom" and those on fixed incomes .. not that you seem to know or care.

Weird, you mean like CBO said lifting min wage to $10.10 an hour would HELP 16 million families? But MIGHT hurt up to 500,000 jobs?


Disproportionate? lol Sure Bubba, sure That's what the right wing is concerned about, since SS can help the VAST majority of those on the bottom AND Gov't safety nets can help the remaining few!



The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth




Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum WageEconomist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage: Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Same old "workers of the world unite and eat the rich" pap you always. The studies vary on the impact and dredging up 600 loony left economists in a country of 300 mil is easy but 1 thing is certain ... no one has ever produced an empirical study of the effect of DOUBLING the min wage. No one.

Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?




The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.



LOL

 

[SAYIT]

LOL, did Cheney and Bush think moves ahead when they invaded and occupied Iraq? Did Bush even think when he used the emotionally charged word Crusade in response to terrorism?
Did any of those in last nights Republican Debate think about the consequences of the saber rattling and brinkmanship of those who want to be POTUS?

Yeah, "crusade" was a poor descriptor but we don't really know what would have been the result of American non-action following 9/11, do we? I would suggest that putting boots on the ground between Iran and Syria acted as a lightening rod for jihadists of all stripes and made the battlefield OVER THERE.
Had you been prez on 9/12/2001 what would you have done?

 

[Dad2three]

Oh right, YOU actually "believe" that nonsense? SHOCKING

YEAH, IT WAS THE DROP IN UNION MEMBERSHIP THAT WAS THE PROBLEM *SHAKING HEAD*


THE OFFSHORING OF US JOBS

YEAH, UNIONS *SHAKING HEAD*

What a waste of time and space. I told you that there would be an inflation factor with a large minimum wage increase and you post all this crap?

NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE BUBS, WHY THIS TIME? Hint NO ONE SERIOUSLY IS SAYING JUMP TO $15 AN HOUR JAN 1, 2016. over a few years raise it to $15 an hour, a GOOD BIZ HAS INCREASING COSTS ALL THE TIME, THEY DEAL WITH IT!


But I love the "logic" of the right wing, tax cuts for the rich will boom the economy, but increasing wages at the bottom will destroy it? LOL

Once more for the terminally dense propagandist: No one here is arguing against increased wages for "the bottom." The argument is with gov't meddling in the labor wage market and pretending it will have little or no impact on prices (inflation) which disproportionately hurts "the bottom" and those on fixed incomes .. not that you seem to know or care.

Weird, you mean like CBO said lifting min wage to $10.10 an hour would HELP 16 million families? But MIGHT hurt up to 500,000 jobs?


Disproportionate? lol Sure Bubba, sure That's what the right wing is concerned about, since SS can help the VAST majority of those on the bottom AND Gov't safety nets can help the remaining few!



The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth




Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum WageEconomist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage: Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Same old "workers of the world unite and eat the rich" pap you always. The studies vary on the impact and dredging up 600 loony left economists in a country of 300 mil is easy but 1 thing is certain ... no one has ever produced an empirical study of the effect of DOUBLING the min wage. No one.

Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?

how can i both take things to personal and ignore being called names???

Wryner is one stupid *****, damn

Says the Randian fetishist who CLAIMED Rand didn't want Gov't BUT she sucked off the teet as soon as possible! lol

Sorry, didn't see your link she could turn down paying for social security, can you show that again?

TURN DOWN? Weird I thought SHE had principles to stand on, her fellow anti collectivist didn't collect even though THEY paid the taxes???


“In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”


Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”

Journalist Patia Stephens wrote of Rand:

[She] called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax.


Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.

“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers remained true to their principles.

Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophic all


Paterson would end up dying a pauper. Rand went a different way.

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them



LMAOROG

Principles would be if she had the option to opt out of social security. She didn't.

She was forced to participate. You call on her to pay, then not collect on the terrible deal making it even worse.

At the same time, you worship politicians who call for more taxes while cheating on their taxes and you say dick about it.

You have some serious house cleaning to do before you call anyone else out as a hypocrite

Without the false premises, distortions and LIES WHAT would you EVER have Bubs?

I get it though, the Randian fetishists woman wouldn't stand on her principles like the other libertarian founders right? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Some are, or they are called RINO's by the far right which dominates the tent of the Republican Party which continues to shrink.

Um...no...RINOs are you, leftist Democrats. Randians aren't Republicans at all. Do you know anything about anything?

Right, the Koch's who ARE the leading libertarians, and fund the leading libertarian "think tank", CATO, AND spent the most in 2012, aren't GOPers, lol

So why do you worship the Republican party if you think they are controlled by libertarians?

Projection Bubba? That's the best you have?

It was a question based on your statements. Why are Republicans so clueless?

Sure Bubs, sure

 

[kaz]

What a waste of time and space. I told you that there would be an inflation factor with a large minimum wage increase and you post all this crap?

NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE BUBS, WHY THIS TIME? Hint NO ONE SERIOUSLY IS SAYING JUMP TO $15 AN HOUR JAN 1, 2016. over a few years raise it to $15 an hour, a GOOD BIZ HAS INCREASING COSTS ALL THE TIME, THEY DEAL WITH IT!


But I love the "logic" of the right wing, tax cuts for the rich will boom the economy, but increasing wages at the bottom will destroy it? LOL

Once more for the terminally dense propagandist: No one here is arguing against increased wages for "the bottom." The argument is with gov't meddling in the labor wage market and pretending it will have little or no impact on prices (inflation) which disproportionately hurts "the bottom" and those on fixed incomes .. not that you seem to know or care.

Weird, you mean like CBO said lifting min wage to $10.10 an hour would HELP 16 million families? But MIGHT hurt up to 500,000 jobs?


Disproportionate? lol Sure Bubba, sure That's what the right wing is concerned about, since SS can help the VAST majority of those on the bottom AND Gov't safety nets can help the remaining few!



The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth




Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum WageEconomist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage: Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Same old "workers of the world unite and eat the rich" pap you always. The studies vary on the impact and dredging up 600 loony left economists in a country of 300 mil is easy but 1 thing is certain ... no one has ever produced an empirical study of the effect of DOUBLING the min wage. No one.

Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?

Wryner is one stupid *****, damn

Says the Randian fetishist who CLAIMED Rand didn't want Gov't BUT she sucked off the teet as soon as possible! lol

Sorry, didn't see your link she could turn down paying for social security, can you show that again?

TURN DOWN? Weird I thought SHE had principles to stand on, her fellow anti collectivist didn't collect even though THEY paid the taxes???


“In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”


Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”

Journalist Patia Stephens wrote of Rand:

[She] called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax.


Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.

“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers remained true to their principles.

Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophic all


Paterson would end up dying a pauper. Rand went a different way.

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them



LMAOROG

Principles would be if she had the option to opt out of social security. She didn't.

She was forced to participate. You call on her to pay, then not collect on the terrible deal making it even worse.

At the same time, you worship politicians who call for more taxes while cheating on their taxes and you say dick about it.

You have some serious house cleaning to do before you call anyone else out as a hypocrite

Without the false premises, distortions and LIES WHAT would you EVER have Bubs?

I get it though, the Randian fetishists woman wouldn't stand on her principles like the other libertarian founders right? lol

Rand had a Randian fetish?

:

How's worshiping politicians who promise you to tax other people then cheat on their own taxes working out for you? You move from the garage into a mansion yet?

 

[kaz]

Um...no...RINOs are you, leftist Democrats. Randians aren't Republicans at all. Do you know anything about anything?

Right, the Koch's who ARE the leading libertarians, and fund the leading libertarian "think tank", CATO, AND spent the most in 2012, aren't GOPers, lol

So why do you worship the Republican party if you think they are controlled by libertarians?

Projection Bubba? That's the best you have?

It was a question based on your statements. Why are Republicans so clueless?

Sure Bubs, sure

Right wingers can't follow a conversation, can you Ronnie RayGun?

 

[Papageorgio]

it's HILARIOUS REALLY!!!!

Dad2three leaves for a while and you'd think it was becasue he had a bout of common sense...................but back he comes to SPAM THE THREAD with copy and past PROPAGANDA

He's so insecure of his position that he needs to throw up a bunch of shit for people to decipher

Hell half the shit he posts is far left nutter sites and the rest is a bunch jumbo jumbo meant to distract the real issues. Distract, distract distract.

Then his next tactic is to try to minimize you by childish name calling. No substance.

 

[oreo]

This is the dumbest poll I have ever seen, there's lots of changes that need to be made. I vote for this woman. The CNN debate winner. Our version of the Iron Lady.

 

[Dad2three]

LOL, did Cheney and Bush think moves ahead when they invaded and occupied Iraq? Did Bush even think when he used the emotionally charged word Crusade in response to terrorism?
Did any of those in last nights Republican Debate think about the consequences of the saber rattling and brinkmanship of those who want to be POTUS?

Yeah, "crusade" was a poor descriptor but we don't really know what would have been the result of American non-action following 9/11, do we? I would suggest that putting boots on the ground between Iran and Syria acted as a lightening rod for jihadists of all stripes and made the battlefield OVER THERE.
Had you been prez on 9/10/2001 what would you have done?

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11

CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004

 

[SAYIT]

What a waste of time and space. I told you that there would be an inflation factor with a large minimum wage increase and you post all this crap?

NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE BUBS, WHY THIS TIME? Hint NO ONE SERIOUSLY IS SAYING JUMP TO $15 AN HOUR JAN 1, 2016. over a few years raise it to $15 an hour, a GOOD BIZ HAS INCREASING COSTS ALL THE TIME, THEY DEAL WITH IT!


But I love the "logic" of the right wing, tax cuts for the rich will boom the economy, but increasing wages at the bottom will destroy it? LOL

Once more for the terminally dense propagandist: No one here is arguing against increased wages for "the bottom." The argument is with gov't meddling in the labor wage market and pretending it will have little or no impact on prices (inflation) which disproportionately hurts "the bottom" and those on fixed incomes .. not that you seem to know or care.

Weird, you mean like CBO said lifting min wage to $10.10 an hour would HELP 16 million families? But MIGHT hurt up to 500,000 jobs?


Disproportionate? lol Sure Bubba, sure That's what the right wing is concerned about, since SS can help the VAST majority of those on the bottom AND Gov't safety nets can help the remaining few!



The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth




Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum WageEconomist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage: Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Same old "workers of the world unite and eat the rich" pap you always. The studies vary on the impact and dredging up 600 loony left economists in a country of 300 mil is easy but 1 thing is certain ... no one has ever produced an empirical study of the effect of DOUBLING the min wage. No one.

Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?

Wryner is one stupid *****, damn

Says the Randian fetishist who CLAIMED Rand didn't want Gov't BUT she sucked off the teet as soon as possible! lol

Sorry, didn't see your link she could turn down paying for social security, can you show that again?

TURN DOWN? Weird I thought SHE had principles to stand on, her fellow anti collectivist didn't collect even though THEY paid the taxes???


“In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”


Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”

Journalist Patia Stephens wrote of Rand:

[She] called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax.


Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.

“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers remained true to their principles.

Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophic all


Paterson would end up dying a pauper. Rand went a different way.

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them



LMAOROG

Principles would be if she had the option to opt out of social security. She didn't.

She was forced to participate. You call on her to pay, then not collect on the terrible deal making it even worse.

At the same time, you worship politicians who call for more taxes while cheating on their taxes and you say dick about it.

You have some serious house cleaning to do before you call anyone else out as a hypocrite

Without the false premises, distortions and LIES WHAT would you EVER have Bubs?

I get it though, the Randian fetishists woman wouldn't stand on her principles like the other libertarian founders right? lol

Lame deflection. The fact remains no one has ever conducted an empirical study of the effects of DOUBLING the min wage and all your dancing and prancing and waving your arms just doesn't change that fact.

 

[Dad2three]

NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE BUBS, WHY THIS TIME? Hint NO ONE SERIOUSLY IS SAYING JUMP TO $15 AN HOUR JAN 1, 2016. over a few years raise it to $15 an hour, a GOOD BIZ HAS INCREASING COSTS ALL THE TIME, THEY DEAL WITH IT!


But I love the "logic" of the right wing, tax cuts for the rich will boom the economy, but increasing wages at the bottom will destroy it? LOL

Once more for the terminally dense propagandist: No one here is arguing against increased wages for "the bottom." The argument is with gov't meddling in the labor wage market and pretending it will have little or no impact on prices (inflation) which disproportionately hurts "the bottom" and those on fixed incomes .. not that you seem to know or care.

Weird, you mean like CBO said lifting min wage to $10.10 an hour would HELP 16 million families? But MIGHT hurt up to 500,000 jobs?


Disproportionate? lol Sure Bubba, sure That's what the right wing is concerned about, since SS can help the VAST majority of those on the bottom AND Gov't safety nets can help the remaining few!



The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth




Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum WageEconomist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage: Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Same old "workers of the world unite and eat the rich" pap you always. The studies vary on the impact and dredging up 600 loony left economists in a country of 300 mil is easy but 1 thing is certain ... no one has ever produced an empirical study of the effect of DOUBLING the min wage. No one.

Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?

Says the Randian fetishist who CLAIMED Rand didn't want Gov't BUT she sucked off the teet as soon as possible! lol

Sorry, didn't see your link she could turn down paying for social security, can you show that again?

TURN DOWN? Weird I thought SHE had principles to stand on, her fellow anti collectivist didn't collect even though THEY paid the taxes???


“In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”


Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”

Journalist Patia Stephens wrote of Rand:

[She] called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax.


Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.

“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers remained true to their principles.

Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophic all


Paterson would end up dying a pauper. Rand went a different way.

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them



LMAOROG

Principles would be if she had the option to opt out of social security. She didn't.

She was forced to participate. You call on her to pay, then not collect on the terrible deal making it even worse.

At the same time, you worship politicians who call for more taxes while cheating on their taxes and you say dick about it.

You have some serious house cleaning to do before you call anyone else out as a hypocrite

Without the false premises, distortions and LIES WHAT would you EVER have Bubs?

I get it though, the Randian fetishists woman wouldn't stand on her principles like the other libertarian founders right? lol

Rand had a Randian fetish?

:

How's worshiping politicians who promise you to tax other people then cheat on their own taxes working out for you? You move from the garage into a mansion yet?

Like I said Bubba, without false premises, distortions and lies, what do you EVER have?

 

[Dad2three]

NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE BUBS, WHY THIS TIME? Hint NO ONE SERIOUSLY IS SAYING JUMP TO $15 AN HOUR JAN 1, 2016. over a few years raise it to $15 an hour, a GOOD BIZ HAS INCREASING COSTS ALL THE TIME, THEY DEAL WITH IT!


But I love the "logic" of the right wing, tax cuts for the rich will boom the economy, but increasing wages at the bottom will destroy it? LOL

Once more for the terminally dense propagandist: No one here is arguing against increased wages for "the bottom." The argument is with gov't meddling in the labor wage market and pretending it will have little or no impact on prices (inflation) which disproportionately hurts "the bottom" and those on fixed incomes .. not that you seem to know or care.

Weird, you mean like CBO said lifting min wage to $10.10 an hour would HELP 16 million families? But MIGHT hurt up to 500,000 jobs?


Disproportionate? lol Sure Bubba, sure That's what the right wing is concerned about, since SS can help the VAST majority of those on the bottom AND Gov't safety nets can help the remaining few!



The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth




Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum WageEconomist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage: Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Same old "workers of the world unite and eat the rich" pap you always. The studies vary on the impact and dredging up 600 loony left economists in a country of 300 mil is easy but 1 thing is certain ... no one has ever produced an empirical study of the effect of DOUBLING the min wage. No one.

Double? Oh right over several years AS 60%+ of min wage workers work for Corps with 500+ employees and Corps have record profits right?

Says the Randian fetishist who CLAIMED Rand didn't want Gov't BUT she sucked off the teet as soon as possible! lol

Sorry, didn't see your link she could turn down paying for social security, can you show that again?

TURN DOWN? Weird I thought SHE had principles to stand on, her fellow anti collectivist didn't collect even though THEY paid the taxes???


“In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”


Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”

Journalist Patia Stephens wrote of Rand:

[She] called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax.


Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.

“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers remained true to their principles.

Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophic all


Paterson would end up dying a pauper. Rand went a different way.

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them



LMAOROG

Principles would be if she had the option to opt out of social security. She didn't.

She was forced to participate. You call on her to pay, then not collect on the terrible deal making it even worse.

At the same time, you worship politicians who call for more taxes while cheating on their taxes and you say dick about it.

You have some serious house cleaning to do before you call anyone else out as a hypocrite

Without the false premises, distortions and LIES WHAT would you EVER have Bubs?

I get it though, the Randian fetishists woman wouldn't stand on her principles like the other libertarian founders right? lol

Lame deflection. The fact remains no one has ever conducted an empirical study of the effects of DOUBLING the min wage and all your dancing and prancing and waving your arms just doesn't change that fact.

Weird, you HONESTLY "believe" there is going to be a push at $15 an hour when we can't even get $10.10? OOPS

 

[DigitalDrifter]

LOL, did Cheney and Bush think moves ahead when they invaded and occupied Iraq? Did Bush even think when he used the emotionally charged word Crusade in response to terrorism?
Did any of those in last nights Republican Debate think about the consequences of the saber rattling and brinkmanship of those who want to be POTUS?

Yeah, "crusade" was a poor descriptor but we don't really know what would have been the result of American non-action following 9/11, do we? I would suggest that putting boots on the ground between Iran and Syria acted as a lightening rod for jihadists of all stripes and made the battlefield OVER THERE.
Had you been prez on 9/10/2001 what would you have done?

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11

CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004

So let me guess, you believe 9/11 was an inside job ?

 

[SAYIT]

LOL, did Cheney and Bush think moves ahead when they invaded and occupied Iraq? Did Bush even think when he used the emotionally charged word Crusade in response to terrorism?
Did any of those in last nights Republican Debate think about the consequences of the saber rattling and brinkmanship of those who want to be POTUS?

Yeah, "crusade" was a poor descriptor but we don't really know what would have been the result of American non-action following 9/11, do we? I would suggest that putting boots on the ground between Iran and Syria acted as a lightening rod for jihadists of all stripes and made the battlefield OVER THERE.
Had you been prez on 9/10/2001 what would you have done?

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11

CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004

Lame dodge.
Perhaps you could find a cut and paste at one of your loony left blogspots that describes how the world would look had we not invaded Iraq and while you are at it, see if you can find one that tells you what you would have done in response to 9/11.

 

[Dad2three]

LOL, did Cheney and Bush think moves ahead when they invaded and occupied Iraq? Did Bush even think when he used the emotionally charged word Crusade in response to terrorism?
Did any of those in last nights Republican Debate think about the consequences of the saber rattling and brinkmanship of those who want to be POTUS?

Yeah, "crusade" was a poor descriptor but we don't really know what would have been the result of American non-action following 9/11, do we? I would suggest that putting boots on the ground between Iran and Syria acted as a lightening rod for jihadists of all stripes and made the battlefield OVER THERE.
Had you been prez on 9/10/2001 what would you have done?

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11

CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004

So let me guess, you believe 9/11 was an inside job ?

If you mean do I think Dubya/Cheney could give a fuk about what happened to US UNLESS it could be blamed on Iraq? Yep...

 

[Dad2three]

LOL, did Cheney and Bush think moves ahead when they invaded and occupied Iraq? Did Bush even think when he used the emotionally charged word Crusade in response to terrorism?
Did any of those in last nights Republican Debate think about the consequences of the saber rattling and brinkmanship of those who want to be POTUS?

Yeah, "crusade" was a poor descriptor but we don't really know what would have been the result of American non-action following 9/11, do we? I would suggest that putting boots on the ground between Iran and Syria acted as a lightening rod for jihadists of all stripes and made the battlefield OVER THERE.
Had you been prez on 9/10/2001 what would you have done?

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11

CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004

Lame dodge.
Perhaps you could find a cut and paste at one of your loony left blogspots that describes how the world would look had we not invaded Iraq and while you are at it, see if you can find one that tells you what you would have done in response to 9/11.

Dodge? WTF DID IRAQ HAVE TO DO WITH 9/11 DUMBASS???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL, did Cheney and Bush think moves ahead when they invaded and occupied Iraq? Did Bush even think when he used the emotionally charged word Crusade in response to terrorism?
Did any of those in last nights Republican Debate think about the consequences of the saber rattling and brinkmanship of those who want to be POTUS?

Yeah, "crusade" was a poor descriptor but we don't really know what would have been the result of American non-action following 9/11, do we? I would suggest that putting boots on the ground between Iran and Syria acted as a lightening rod for jihadists of all stripes and made the battlefield OVER THERE.
Had you been prez on 9/10/2001 what would you have done?

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11

CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004

Lame dodge.
Perhaps you could find a cut and paste at one of your loony left blogspots that describes how the world would look had we not invaded Iraq and while you are at it, see if you can find one that tells you what you would have done in response to 9/11.

Dodge? WTF DID IRAQ HAVE TO DO WITH 9/11 DUMBASS???

Nothing, and nor did Bush indicate Saddam had anything to do with 911. But invading Iraq was not about 911, it was about avoiding a future 911.